Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
I suspect we should be looking at Bloomberg's run as a good thing since if he has any polling impact at all he's gonna pull off support from Biden, not Sanders or Warren, and having this charmless billionaire jerk onstage for them to dunk on will also help
If Bloomberg gets his ass on a debate stage, I want one of the nominees with a chance to look him in the eye and ask why wasting millions of dollars on a vanity campaign is a better use of resources towards enacting Democratic goals than simply spending that money on building up the ground game and get out the vote efforts in battleground states.
No matter his answer, I then want that moment to haunt him in years to come once he's forced to concede he does not have a chance of winning.
Basically fuck that guy, his ideas and opinions are bad and he should feel bad.
Edit: Note, save the hot takes about him not being a real Democrat or whatever. If he's in the Democratic primary, he can answer to that level of expectation. And if he runs independent, well, that's says something else entirely about him and his ilk.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Can you guys help me with some Senate math relating to some of the policies that Warren and Sanders are advocating? I'm struggling to get to 60 but maybe I'm forgetting some people.
So right now it's a 53-47 split. To pass some of the big bills they're advocating (MfA, wealth tax, free college, etc) they'd need 60 votes in the Senate. Ideally there would be bipartisan buy-in to make these changes more enduring but I just don't see that happening in this environment. With that in mind the Dems would need to pick up 13 seats. Let's assume for the moment sanity prevails and they don't nuke the filibuster. That leaves as viable pick-up options off the top of my head:
-Gardner (CO) on a personal note I am really looking forward to singing Sha Na Na Na Hey Hey Hey Goodbye on his voicemail on 11/4/20
-McSally (AZ)
-Tillis (NC)
-Collins (ME)
-Daines (MT) easier if Bullock runs for Senate
-McConnell (KY) don't see it happening really
-Isakson (GA)
-Perdue (GA) lets say Stacey Abrams leads a killer get-out-the-vote campaign or runs herself and the Dems get both GA seats
-Roberts (KS) easier if Kobach runs and/or Pompeo can't get the stink of impeachment off him
and lets say Doug Jones keeps his seat in Alabama, which while unlikely may happen now that we've got a chaos primary to look forward to with Sessions, Moore, et al. That puts it at 56-44 in the Dems favor, still 4 short of a filibuster-proof majority. My questions in light of all this are:
1) Where do the other 4 votes come from?
2) What do they do when their signature issues are blocked?
3) What can be done to avoid another 2010 bloodbath as a reaction to these policies, whether or not they are signed into law?
Full disclosure: I'm going to vote for the Dem nominee even if it's a literal piece of shit, as a literal piece of shit has more character, decency, honor, integrity, intelligence, and love for our country than the current metaphorical piece of shit occupying the Oval Office. I am, however, concerned about Sanders and Warren's ability to build a national coalition. I do think Sanders is dead in the water ultimately due to his heart attack and Warren drinking his milkshake, but I'm fairly concerned about Warren's ability to respond to meaningful critiques of her platforms and/or strategies. Her response to 'what about McConnell and the Senate' was particularly disheartening.
Can you guys help me with some Senate math relating to some of the policies that Warren and Sanders are advocating? I'm struggling to get to 60 but maybe I'm forgetting some people.
So right now it's a 53-47 split. To pass some of the big bills they're advocating (MfA, wealth tax, free college, etc) they'd need 60 votes in the Senate. Ideally there would be bipartisan buy-in to make these changes more enduring but I just don't see that happening in this environment. With that in mind the Dems would need to pick up 13 seats. Let's assume for the moment sanity prevails and they don't nuke the filibuster. That leaves as viable pick-up options off the top of my head:
-Gardner (CO) on a personal note I am really looking forward to singing Sha Na Na Na Hey Hey Hey Goodbye on his voicemail on 11/4/20
-McSally (AZ)
-Tillis (NC)
-Collins (ME)
-Daines (MT) easier if Bullock runs for Senate
-McConnell (KY) don't see it happening really
-Isakson (GA)
-Perdue (GA) lets say Stacey Abrams leads a killer get-out-the-vote campaign or runs herself and the Dems get both GA seats
-Roberts (KS) easier if Kobach runs and/or Pompeo can't get the stink of impeachment off him
and lets say Doug Jones keeps his seat in Alabama, which while unlikely may happen now that we've got a chaos primary to look forward to with Sessions, Moore, et al. That puts it at 56-44 in the Dems favor, still 4 short of a filibuster-proof majority. My questions in light of all this are:
1) Where do the other 4 votes come from?
2) What do they do when their signature issues are blocked?
3) What can be done to avoid another 2010 bloodbath as a reaction to these policies, whether or not they are signed into law?
Full disclosure: I'm going to vote for the Dem nominee even if it's a literal piece of shit, as a literal piece of shit has more character, decency, honor, integrity, intelligence, and love for our country than the current metaphorical piece of shit occupying the Oval Office. I am, however, concerned about Sanders and Warren's ability to build a national coalition. I do think Sanders is dead in the water ultimately due to his heart attack and Warren drinking his milkshake, but I'm fairly concerned about Warren's ability to respond to meaningful critiques of her platforms and/or strategies. Her response to 'what about McConnell and the Senate' was particularly disheartening.
1- They will kill the filibuster if they gain the Senate, because its the only way literally anything will get passed, there's little to no political cost and it means more power.
2- The big plan bills are not going to get passed and most people here aren't so delusional to think that the 50th most left Senator or the 218th most left House member is going to back a lot of the stuff being proposed. However,the current perspective on campaigning is its better to campaign as if they are in the name of big ideas and aspirational thinking. I don't necessarily agree, but it is what it is.
If they didn't vote in 2016, and they didn't vote in 2018, they aren't going to vote in 2020. So they don't actually matter.
People like this decide the election. Because the loyal Democrats always vote Democrat, and the loyal Republicans always vote Republican. And they basically cancel each other out. But getting someone to vote who hasn't voted for 10 years can swing the election. Trump got a lot of people like this because he seemed like something new.
People who haven't voted in 10 years definitely haven't swung any of the elections in the last 10 years. Ask me how I know.
They can swing the next election though. And they tend to defy the polls, since your response gets ranked really low if you say to a pollster "I never vote." This is one of the reasons for Trump's shock win. He convinced enough people in some swing states that he was a new kind of politician that they voted for him despite being intermittent voters at best.
And Trump could suddenly win 50% of the black vote, but such implausible situations don't seem worth much discussion. As a general rule: People who vote, vote. Focusing on anyone else is generally based on a self-deception where the actual voters aren't going to back a candidate/policy/party, because polling won't detect them. It's just not based in anything but wishful thinking.
"Get out the vote" efforts are very effective and focused on getting irregular voters to the polls.
Trump seems to currently be interested in getting black young men to vote for him - meeting with conservative hip hop stars, trying to get A$AP Rocky out of trouble in Sweden etc. Since he's an avowed racist, this is probably on the advice of some clever people who figure that if they could increase the Republican black vote by a smidge, it'd be very effective in marginal districts.
Get Out the Vote efforts get out voters. It doesn't try to get out people who never vote because that's wildly inefficient. If you volunteer for a campaign, they are explicitly not directing you to people who don't vote. They are directing you to supporters who often vote and strong supporters who vote irregularly. The absolute lowest priority is to non-voters. When people canvas a neighborhood, its not blind knocking doors. It's targeted.
And if you think Trump is interested in getting black voters - he's not, even if "well Trump does it" accounted for evidence of strong strategic thinking. The best spin you can put on it is he's trying to effect a plausible sheen to claims he isn't a bigot.
when i've done it we were absolutely seeking out people who didn't care about politics, and it was extremely effective
(not people who didn't vote, because you have to vote here, but people who probably wouldn't have voted if it had been an option)
like, why would i want to talk to people who already support me? when you get to one of those people you thank them, sign them up to volunteer and move on to the people who've never heard of you
Can you guys help me with some Senate math relating to some of the policies that Warren and Sanders are advocating? I'm struggling to get to 60 but maybe I'm forgetting some people.
So right now it's a 53-47 split. To pass some of the big bills they're advocating (MfA, wealth tax, free college, etc) they'd need 60 votes in the Senate. Ideally there would be bipartisan buy-in to make these changes more enduring but I just don't see that happening in this environment. With that in mind the Dems would need to pick up 13 seats. Let's assume for the moment sanity prevails and they don't nuke the filibuster. That leaves as viable pick-up options off the top of my head:
-Gardner (CO) on a personal note I am really looking forward to singing Sha Na Na Na Hey Hey Hey Goodbye on his voicemail on 11/4/20
-McSally (AZ)
-Tillis (NC)
-Collins (ME)
-Daines (MT) easier if Bullock runs for Senate
-McConnell (KY) don't see it happening really
-Isakson (GA)
-Perdue (GA) lets say Stacey Abrams leads a killer get-out-the-vote campaign or runs herself and the Dems get both GA seats
-Roberts (KS) easier if Kobach runs and/or Pompeo can't get the stink of impeachment off him
and lets say Doug Jones keeps his seat in Alabama, which while unlikely may happen now that we've got a chaos primary to look forward to with Sessions, Moore, et al. That puts it at 56-44 in the Dems favor, still 4 short of a filibuster-proof majority. My questions in light of all this are:
1) Where do the other 4 votes come from?
2) What do they do when their signature issues are blocked?
3) What can be done to avoid another 2010 bloodbath as a reaction to these policies, whether or not they are signed into law?
Full disclosure: I'm going to vote for the Dem nominee even if it's a literal piece of shit, as a literal piece of shit has more character, decency, honor, integrity, intelligence, and love for our country than the current metaphorical piece of shit occupying the Oval Office. I am, however, concerned about Sanders and Warren's ability to build a national coalition. I do think Sanders is dead in the water ultimately due to his heart attack and Warren drinking his milkshake, but I'm fairly concerned about Warren's ability to respond to meaningful critiques of her platforms and/or strategies. Her response to 'what about McConnell and the Senate' was particularly disheartening.
There is a nearly 0% chance of getting to 60 votes. That is why the two most important questions you should ask any candidate right now are:
What will you do through executive action?
How will you eliminate and/or work around the filibuster in the Senate?
If the heart attack was going to kill Sanders's camapign we'd have seen real evidence of that by now.
I think it will come back around on Sanders once the primaries really get rolling, either through sheer physical strain or as an unending refrain from his opponents.
@PantsB I hope to god they don't kill the filibuster. Eventually the pendulum will swing back the other way and I don't think any of us want to see what the GOP will get up to without that guardrail in place. And if their big policies aren't do-able, that will cause problems down the road, either through them being seen as weak by progressives, driving down turnout in 2022/2024, or being seen as ineffective by swing voters, causing problems in 2024. Campaigning on things you know you can't enact is pretty shitty in my book, and part of the reason people are so turned off by politicians. I'm not saying don't dream big, I'm saying have a feasible plan to enact your dreams. Shit happens, sometimes people die of brain cancer and then you lose a gimme special election right as your signature domestic issue is getting ready for a vote, but there should at least be a plan in place that could get 60 votes if you're gonna make something so central to your platform.
There is nothing of substance a Democrat could propose which would get 60 votes in the Senate. Reflexive republican opposition to anything even vaguely associated with democrats assures that. There's no point in campaigning on it (I'm looking at you, Biden) because it will never happen.
If they didn't vote in 2016, and they didn't vote in 2018, they aren't going to vote in 2020. So they don't actually matter.
People like this decide the election. Because the loyal Democrats always vote Democrat, and the loyal Republicans always vote Republican. And they basically cancel each other out. But getting someone to vote who hasn't voted for 10 years can swing the election. Trump got a lot of people like this because he seemed like something new.
People who haven't voted in 10 years definitely haven't swung any of the elections in the last 10 years. Ask me how I know.
They can swing the next election though. And they tend to defy the polls, since your response gets ranked really low if you say to a pollster "I never vote." This is one of the reasons for Trump's shock win. He convinced enough people in some swing states that he was a new kind of politician that they voted for him despite being intermittent voters at best.
And Trump could suddenly win 50% of the black vote, but such implausible situations don't seem worth much discussion. As a general rule: People who vote, vote. Focusing on anyone else is generally based on a self-deception where the actual voters aren't going to back a candidate/policy/party, because polling won't detect them. It's just not based in anything but wishful thinking.
"Get out the vote" efforts are very effective and focused on getting irregular voters to the polls.
Trump seems to currently be interested in getting black young men to vote for him - meeting with conservative hip hop stars, trying to get A$AP Rocky out of trouble in Sweden etc. Since he's an avowed racist, this is probably on the advice of some clever people who figure that if they could increase the Republican black vote by a smidge, it'd be very effective in marginal districts.
Get Out the Vote efforts get out voters. It doesn't try to get out people who never vote because that's wildly inefficient. If you volunteer for a campaign, they are explicitly not directing you to people who don't vote. They are directing you to supporters who often vote and strong supporters who vote irregularly. The absolute lowest priority is to non-voters. When people canvas a neighborhood, its not blind knocking doors. It's targeted.
And if you think Trump is interested in getting black voters - he's not, even if "well Trump does it" accounted for evidence of strong strategic thinking. The best spin you can put on it is he's trying to effect a plausible sheen to claims he isn't a bigot.
when i've done it we were absolutely seeking out people who didn't care about politics, and it was extremely effective
(not people who didn't vote, because you have to vote here, but people who probably wouldn't have voted if it had been an option)
like, why would i want to talk to people who already support me? when you get to one of those people you thank them, sign them up to volunteer and move on to the people who've never heard of you
Australia has mandatory voting which I think may color your experience and the campaign techniques there a little more than you think. What percentage of people there are actually nonvoters?
"People who don't care about politics" and "people who have never heard of the candidate" are not necessarily the same as the group we are talking about, which is people who do not have a recent habit of voting aka nonvoters. Many of those people you mentioned still vote here, especially in presidential years, which means they are already going to be part of the targeted canvassing if they are likely to support or lean support toward a Dem candidate.
If the heart attack was going to kill Sanders's camapign we'd have seen real evidence of that by now.
I think it will come back around on Sanders once the primaries really get rolling, either through sheer physical strain or as an unending refrain from his opponents.
PantsB I hope to god they don't kill the filibuster. Eventually the pendulum will swing back the other way and I don't think any of us want to see what the GOP will get up to without that guardrail in place. And if their big policies aren't do-able, that will cause problems down the road, either through them being seen as weak by progressives, driving down turnout in 2022/2024, or being seen as ineffective by swing voters, causing problems in 2024. Campaigning on things you know you can't enact is pretty shitty in my book, and part of the reason people are so turned off by politicians. I'm not saying don't dream big, I'm saying have a feasible plan to enact your dreams. Shit happens, sometimes people die of brain cancer and then you lose a gimme special election right as your signature domestic issue is getting ready for a vote, but there should at least be a plan in place that could get 60 votes if you're gonna make something so central to your platform.
I would like to see them actually try to pass the wildly unpopular shit they claim to want. The fillibuster is a new and shitty invention in the scheme of our democracy.
The easier it is to pass stuff, the easier it is to fix it later. I don't like that every law basically has to pass the scrutiny of an amendment at this point.
jones, manchin, sinema, etc aren't going to suddenly support the major progressive policies we desperately for anything short of sustained, forceful pressure from an activated activist and voter base and unions
unfortunately this is patently impossible, so we'll simply wait for joe manchin to stop loving coal
Can you guys help me with some Senate math relating to some of the policies that Warren and Sanders are advocating? I'm struggling to get to 60 but maybe I'm forgetting some people.
So right now it's a 53-47 split. To pass some of the big bills they're advocating (MfA, wealth tax, free college, etc) they'd need 60 votes in the Senate. Ideally there would be bipartisan buy-in to make these changes more enduring but I just don't see that happening in this environment. With that in mind the Dems would need to pick up 13 seats. Let's assume for the moment sanity prevails and they don't nuke the filibuster. That leaves as viable pick-up options off the top of my head:
-Gardner (CO) on a personal note I am really looking forward to singing Sha Na Na Na Hey Hey Hey Goodbye on his voicemail on 11/4/20
-McSally (AZ)
-Tillis (NC)
-Collins (ME)
-Daines (MT) easier if Bullock runs for Senate
-McConnell (KY) don't see it happening really
-Isakson (GA)
-Perdue (GA) lets say Stacey Abrams leads a killer get-out-the-vote campaign or runs herself and the Dems get both GA seats
-Roberts (KS) easier if Kobach runs and/or Pompeo can't get the stink of impeachment off him
and lets say Doug Jones keeps his seat in Alabama, which while unlikely may happen now that we've got a chaos primary to look forward to with Sessions, Moore, et al. That puts it at 56-44 in the Dems favor, still 4 short of a filibuster-proof majority. My questions in light of all this are:
1) Where do the other 4 votes come from?
2) What do they do when their signature issues are blocked?
3) What can be done to avoid another 2010 bloodbath as a reaction to these policies, whether or not they are signed into law?
Full disclosure: I'm going to vote for the Dem nominee even if it's a literal piece of shit, as a literal piece of shit has more character, decency, honor, integrity, intelligence, and love for our country than the current metaphorical piece of shit occupying the Oval Office. I am, however, concerned about Sanders and Warren's ability to build a national coalition. I do think Sanders is dead in the water ultimately due to his heart attack and Warren drinking his milkshake, but I'm fairly concerned about Warren's ability to respond to meaningful critiques of her platforms and/or strategies. Her response to 'what about McConnell and the Senate' was particularly disheartening.
1- They will kill the filibuster if they gain the Senate, because its the only way literally anything will get passed, there's little to no political cost and it means more power.
2- The big plan bills are not going to get passed and most people here aren't so delusional to think that the 50th most left Senator or the 218th most left House member is going to back a lot of the stuff being proposed. However,the current perspective on campaigning is its better to campaign as if they are in the name of big ideas and aspirational thinking. I don't necessarily agree, but it is what it is.
Also, having the "big plan bills" gives you a larger range to negotiate down, if you have to.
Using a past election, it's like one nominee railing for a $15 minimum wage, and another arguing for a $12 minimum wage. Even if that candidate won, that wasn't likely to happen. But the $15 can drop to $12, and it's still an improvement. The $12 will drop to $10, and while it's still an improvement, it's substantially less, even though they didn't give up quite as much.
So sometimes it's about setting an aspirational goal that'll hopefully move things in the right direction for a big idea passing. But other times it's about not undercutting yourself before you step up to the negotiating table.
In this current process, M4A might get negotiated down to Public Option. Not what was wanted, but better than current. But Public Option gets negotiated down to a piecemeal approach (50+ year olds only, or something). And ACA improvements (like what I believe Biden is calling for) get negotiated into some trivial changes.
If you don't start out big, first, you won't change minds that bigger than status quo is possible, and second, you don't have as much bargaining power when the opposition demand concessions (I'm talking centrist Democrats, not obstructionist Republicans).
If the heart attack was going to kill Sanders's camapign we'd have seen real evidence of that by now.
I think it will come back around on Sanders once the primaries really get rolling, either through sheer physical strain or as an unending refrain from his opponents.
PantsB I hope to god they don't kill the filibuster. Eventually the pendulum will swing back the other way and I don't think any of us want to see what the GOP will get up to without that guardrail in place. And if their big policies aren't do-able, that will cause problems down the road, either through them being seen as weak by progressives, driving down turnout in 2022/2024, or being seen as ineffective by swing voters, causing problems in 2024. Campaigning on things you know you can't enact is pretty shitty in my book, and part of the reason people are so turned off by politicians. I'm not saying don't dream big, I'm saying have a feasible plan to enact your dreams. Shit happens, sometimes people die of brain cancer and then you lose a gimme special election right as your signature domestic issue is getting ready for a vote, but there should at least be a plan in place that could get 60 votes if you're gonna make something so central to your platform.
Like what? Massive tax cuts for the rich? Usurping the judiciary? Declaring a moratorium on 100% of legislature unless they control the House, the Senate, AND the Presidency? There are no good arguments for keeping the filibuster that stand up to any serious scrutiny, and there is far too much good that can be done by scrapping it when one side is straight up saying that they refuse to compromise or work with the other party on literally anything whatsoever. We cannot be afraid to do good because some day, someone else might do something worse. And if they do that, and they don't pay for it politically, then we were fucked from the start.
I forget where I read it (WaPo?), but several Senate dems recently came out and said, unequivocally, that they're not getting rid of the filibuster. Getting to 50 dems is already a longshot, getting the 53+ we probably need to make eliminating the filibuster even possible is a pipe dream.
I know Manchin, Tester and Sinema were on the list, I think there were a couple more. Jones, maybe?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Risking going more OT, if we assume that actual policies are not necessarily going to match up with campaign promises for electoral reasons, I don't know why we wouldn't apply the same to the filibuster. That's doubly so for an inside baseball thing like the filibuster.
I don't really know who Bloomberg's theoretical base even is. I'm fairly certain its not largely black so I don't know why it would hurt Biden particularly in the Super Tuesday contests.
I don't really know who Bloomberg's theoretical base even is. I'm fairly certain its not largely black so I don't know why it would hurt Biden particularly in the Super Tuesday contests.
Its donors Biden needs and who are skittish because his campaign is one fuck up after the next
Bloomberg is not even bothering with the February contests. So basically he's just here to try to kneecap Warren.
But...his electorate and Warren's electorate won't overlap. If anything, he'd kneecap Biden and Pete.
I'm not saying it's well thought out. But he's just going to get a lot of press and attack Warren with it.
Is that going to play well in Iowa and NH?
I think one could argue that everyone attacking Warren is responsible for the blip in her rising support. If there's one more person piling on, who has no political aspirations beyond killing Warren's chances, it might have an effect.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I suppose up to a certain point attacks are putting eyes on Warren/Sanders/3%ers from the dinguses who don't know who they are still that keep showing up in polling.
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
It's politics. Attacks are always going to be a thing in elections, its a tried and true tactic that goes back as far as we've ever had elections. If our candidates can't handle criticism then they don't deserve to be our candidates. I'd much rather a thorough vetting in the primary to make sure that whoever makes it through doesn't have a massive liability that just hadn't been exposed. It was a different, pre-Trump time in terms of standards, but I think John Edwards flaming out in the primary was better than him flaming out in the general, as an example of the primary process doing its job in terms of protecting the credibility of the people who put forward.
It's politics. Attacks are always going to be a thing in elections, its a tried and true tactic that goes back as far as we've ever had elections. If our candidates can't handle criticism then they don't deserve to be our candidates. I'd much rather a thorough vetting in the primary to make sure that whoever makes it through doesn't have a massive liability that just hadn't been exposed. It was a different, pre-Trump time in terms of standards, but I think John Edwards flaming out in the primary was better than him flaming out in the general, as an example of the primary process doing its job in terms of protecting the credibility of the people who put forward.
Damn straight. If you can't hack it through the Dem primary, then you sure as shit couldn't take the general.
which is people who do not have a recent habit of voting aka nonvoters.
I think this is the issue Crimson and others are talking about. Nonvoters defined as this are an incredibly diverse group qua motivations and it seems very short-sighted to dismiss them all as never-voters. Certainly there are people who are in principle or in practice non voting, but I think there are also many people who can be convinced to vote. I think very few people actually don't believe in voting as such or are uninterested to the degree that they would never bother. I think most nonvoters just don't see a reason to vote, but can be convinced of a reason.
I'm coming from an outsider perspective too for sure, but my experience with Americans has been that a lot of people simply don't see the point in going through all the hassle to put in a pretty meaningless vote. People here talk about combatting the "both sides are the same" stances, but I think it's important to note that in many ways both sides are the same from those people's perspectives. The parties may be different, but in what way are they different that matters to my material interests?
But both sides are very much NOT the same at all. One side wants to raise their taxes so they can lower them for the wealthy. One side wants to make it harder for them to vote. One side wants to make it so they can't afford health care. One side wants to poison their air and water. One side wants to destroy the educational system.
They might THINK that both sides are the same, but they are dead wrong.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+23
Options
Lord_AsmodeusgoeticSobriquet:Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered Userregular
which is people who do not have a recent habit of voting aka nonvoters.
I think this is the issue Crimson and others are talking about. Nonvoters defined as this are an incredibly diverse group qua motivations and it seems very short-sighted to dismiss them all as never-voters. Certainly there are people who are in principle or in practice non voting, but I think there are also many people who can be convinced to vote. I think very few people actually don't believe in voting as such or are uninterested to the degree that they would never bother. I think most nonvoters just don't see a reason to vote, but can be convinced of a reason.
I'm coming from an outsider perspective too for sure, but my experience with Americans has been that a lot of people simply don't see the point in going through all the hassle to put in a pretty meaningless vote. People here talk about combatting the "both sides are the same" stances, but I think it's important to note that in many ways both sides are the same from those people's perspectives. The parties may be different, but in what way are they different that matters to my material interests?
They are the same in the way a dog and a wolf are the same. By species, they are the same. The difference is one between letting a starving wolf into your home, and letting in a friendly, well known dog.
The only way you could reasonably claim the Democrats and the Republicans are the same in any meaningful way is through willful denial of the available evidence, or a willful ignorance of it.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. - Lincoln
Warren just said there should be billionaires. I don’t see how some people here manage to square that circle, given their vehement opposition to anyone with more than $999,999,999 in assets.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
POTUS isn't going to abolish our landed gentry in 8 years starting in 2021.
Warren just said there should be billionaires. I don’t see how some people here manage to square that circle, given their vehement opposition to anyone with more than $999,999,999 in assets.
I think you'll find most of the people most vehmantly over that opinion are Sanders supporters, and some probably think he isn't left enough. :P
Alternative answer: you realize people will never agree 100% with everything right? And that it's kind of obvious this was Warren's position as her wealth tax proposal isn't that punative?
(My own position is that wealth and income taxes should gradually scale to like 90%. The tax income would make everyone including the rich better off)
Posts
No matter his answer, I then want that moment to haunt him in years to come once he's forced to concede he does not have a chance of winning.
Basically fuck that guy, his ideas and opinions are bad and he should feel bad.
Edit: Note, save the hot takes about him not being a real Democrat or whatever. If he's in the Democratic primary, he can answer to that level of expectation. And if he runs independent, well, that's says something else entirely about him and his ilk.
So right now it's a 53-47 split. To pass some of the big bills they're advocating (MfA, wealth tax, free college, etc) they'd need 60 votes in the Senate. Ideally there would be bipartisan buy-in to make these changes more enduring but I just don't see that happening in this environment. With that in mind the Dems would need to pick up 13 seats. Let's assume for the moment sanity prevails and they don't nuke the filibuster. That leaves as viable pick-up options off the top of my head:
-Gardner (CO) on a personal note I am really looking forward to singing Sha Na Na Na Hey Hey Hey Goodbye on his voicemail on 11/4/20
-McSally (AZ)
-Tillis (NC)
-Collins (ME)
-Daines (MT) easier if Bullock runs for Senate
-McConnell (KY) don't see it happening really
-Isakson (GA)
-Perdue (GA) lets say Stacey Abrams leads a killer get-out-the-vote campaign or runs herself and the Dems get both GA seats
-Roberts (KS) easier if Kobach runs and/or Pompeo can't get the stink of impeachment off him
and lets say Doug Jones keeps his seat in Alabama, which while unlikely may happen now that we've got a chaos primary to look forward to with Sessions, Moore, et al. That puts it at 56-44 in the Dems favor, still 4 short of a filibuster-proof majority. My questions in light of all this are:
1) Where do the other 4 votes come from?
2) What do they do when their signature issues are blocked?
3) What can be done to avoid another 2010 bloodbath as a reaction to these policies, whether or not they are signed into law?
Full disclosure: I'm going to vote for the Dem nominee even if it's a literal piece of shit, as a literal piece of shit has more character, decency, honor, integrity, intelligence, and love for our country than the current metaphorical piece of shit occupying the Oval Office. I am, however, concerned about Sanders and Warren's ability to build a national coalition. I do think Sanders is dead in the water ultimately due to his heart attack and Warren drinking his milkshake, but I'm fairly concerned about Warren's ability to respond to meaningful critiques of her platforms and/or strategies. Her response to 'what about McConnell and the Senate' was particularly disheartening.
1- They will kill the filibuster if they gain the Senate, because its the only way literally anything will get passed, there's little to no political cost and it means more power.
2- The big plan bills are not going to get passed and most people here aren't so delusional to think that the 50th most left Senator or the 218th most left House member is going to back a lot of the stuff being proposed. However,the current perspective on campaigning is its better to campaign as if they are in the name of big ideas and aspirational thinking. I don't necessarily agree, but it is what it is.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
when i've done it we were absolutely seeking out people who didn't care about politics, and it was extremely effective
(not people who didn't vote, because you have to vote here, but people who probably wouldn't have voted if it had been an option)
like, why would i want to talk to people who already support me? when you get to one of those people you thank them, sign them up to volunteer and move on to the people who've never heard of you
There is a nearly 0% chance of getting to 60 votes. That is why the two most important questions you should ask any candidate right now are:
I think it will come back around on Sanders once the primaries really get rolling, either through sheer physical strain or as an unending refrain from his opponents.
@PantsB I hope to god they don't kill the filibuster. Eventually the pendulum will swing back the other way and I don't think any of us want to see what the GOP will get up to without that guardrail in place. And if their big policies aren't do-able, that will cause problems down the road, either through them being seen as weak by progressives, driving down turnout in 2022/2024, or being seen as ineffective by swing voters, causing problems in 2024. Campaigning on things you know you can't enact is pretty shitty in my book, and part of the reason people are so turned off by politicians. I'm not saying don't dream big, I'm saying have a feasible plan to enact your dreams. Shit happens, sometimes people die of brain cancer and then you lose a gimme special election right as your signature domestic issue is getting ready for a vote, but there should at least be a plan in place that could get 60 votes if you're gonna make something so central to your platform.
Australia has mandatory voting which I think may color your experience and the campaign techniques there a little more than you think. What percentage of people there are actually nonvoters?
"People who don't care about politics" and "people who have never heard of the candidate" are not necessarily the same as the group we are talking about, which is people who do not have a recent habit of voting aka nonvoters. Many of those people you mentioned still vote here, especially in presidential years, which means they are already going to be part of the targeted canvassing if they are likely to support or lean support toward a Dem candidate.
I would like to see them actually try to pass the wildly unpopular shit they claim to want. The fillibuster is a new and shitty invention in the scheme of our democracy.
The easier it is to pass stuff, the easier it is to fix it later. I don't like that every law basically has to pass the scrutiny of an amendment at this point.
jones, manchin, sinema, etc aren't going to suddenly support the major progressive policies we desperately for anything short of sustained, forceful pressure from an activated activist and voter base and unions
unfortunately this is patently impossible, so we'll simply wait for joe manchin to stop loving coal
Also, having the "big plan bills" gives you a larger range to negotiate down, if you have to.
Using a past election, it's like one nominee railing for a $15 minimum wage, and another arguing for a $12 minimum wage. Even if that candidate won, that wasn't likely to happen. But the $15 can drop to $12, and it's still an improvement. The $12 will drop to $10, and while it's still an improvement, it's substantially less, even though they didn't give up quite as much.
So sometimes it's about setting an aspirational goal that'll hopefully move things in the right direction for a big idea passing. But other times it's about not undercutting yourself before you step up to the negotiating table.
In this current process, M4A might get negotiated down to Public Option. Not what was wanted, but better than current. But Public Option gets negotiated down to a piecemeal approach (50+ year olds only, or something). And ACA improvements (like what I believe Biden is calling for) get negotiated into some trivial changes.
If you don't start out big, first, you won't change minds that bigger than status quo is possible, and second, you don't have as much bargaining power when the opposition demand concessions (I'm talking centrist Democrats, not obstructionist Republicans).
Like what? Massive tax cuts for the rich? Usurping the judiciary? Declaring a moratorium on 100% of legislature unless they control the House, the Senate, AND the Presidency? There are no good arguments for keeping the filibuster that stand up to any serious scrutiny, and there is far too much good that can be done by scrapping it when one side is straight up saying that they refuse to compromise or work with the other party on literally anything whatsoever. We cannot be afraid to do good because some day, someone else might do something worse. And if they do that, and they don't pay for it politically, then we were fucked from the start.
I know Manchin, Tester and Sinema were on the list, I think there were a couple more. Jones, maybe?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
But...his electorate and Warren's electorate won't overlap. If anything, he'd kneecap Biden and Pete.
I'm not saying it's well thought out. But he's just going to get a lot of press and attack Warren with it.
Maybe? Ideological devotion isnt always that sticky. See: sanders supporters with Biden as a second choice.
Is that going to play well in Iowa and NH?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Its donors Biden needs and who are skittish because his campaign is one fuck up after the next
I think one could argue that everyone attacking Warren is responsible for the blip in her rising support. If there's one more person piling on, who has no political aspirations beyond killing Warren's chances, it might have an effect.
Damn straight. If you can't hack it through the Dem primary, then you sure as shit couldn't take the general.
That's how we got the Trump tax cuts and how they almost killed Obamacare.
Only if you can argue that it's a change in tax code.
I think this is the issue Crimson and others are talking about. Nonvoters defined as this are an incredibly diverse group qua motivations and it seems very short-sighted to dismiss them all as never-voters. Certainly there are people who are in principle or in practice non voting, but I think there are also many people who can be convinced to vote. I think very few people actually don't believe in voting as such or are uninterested to the degree that they would never bother. I think most nonvoters just don't see a reason to vote, but can be convinced of a reason.
I'm coming from an outsider perspective too for sure, but my experience with Americans has been that a lot of people simply don't see the point in going through all the hassle to put in a pretty meaningless vote. People here talk about combatting the "both sides are the same" stances, but I think it's important to note that in many ways both sides are the same from those people's perspectives. The parties may be different, but in what way are they different that matters to my material interests?
They might THINK that both sides are the same, but they are dead wrong.
They are the same in the way a dog and a wolf are the same. By species, they are the same. The difference is one between letting a starving wolf into your home, and letting in a friendly, well known dog.
The only way you could reasonably claim the Democrats and the Republicans are the same in any meaningful way is through willful denial of the available evidence, or a willful ignorance of it.
She's wrong, but who cares.
I think you'll find most of the people most vehmantly over that opinion are Sanders supporters, and some probably think he isn't left enough. :P
Alternative answer: you realize people will never agree 100% with everything right? And that it's kind of obvious this was Warren's position as her wealth tax proposal isn't that punative?
(My own position is that wealth and income taxes should gradually scale to like 90%. The tax income would make everyone including the rich better off)
If she is wrong about something so fundamental to her base then she must be wrong about other things.
The left is a whole spectrum from socialists to people who are wrong
You really don't get her base. Also apply this logic to Biden and see where it gets you.