I agree with this too. It's another example of the unicorn problem. Be perfect or into the trash-heap you go.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliEra 2019 |OT7| It's happening
- Thread starter Ogodei
- Start date
- Status
I agree with this too. It's another example of the unicorn problem. Be perfect or into the trash-heap you go.
As far as I'm aware people actually want a Floor vote on articles of impeachment... Otherwise I have no idea what they're arguing for... Because this is already happening. The House is already using its powers of oversight with a whole bunch of investigations, as adam pointed out.
Except we don't have a Fox News to carry the water for us.
Vote on inquiry into articles not on articles of impeachment itself (which is what Nadler plans to do by end of 2019 afaik). Most people don't want it to go to the Senate because even they know it won't pass there. Maybe an argument can be made that they SHOULD go all the way and when it doesn't pass in the Senate they can be like "but Mitch and his Republican buddies let Trump off the hook!" That's certainly what AOC is saying and then publicly shame all the Republicans for the rest of history. I don't really agree with that because the Senate is immoral enough to confirm Kavanaugh's appointment so of course they gonna acquit Trump. And they won't really care afterwards either, this is their party platform now. Republicans are fine screwing over Americans and playing the role of the bad guy... Mitch McConnel revels in it.
The entire problem is that the left isn't really doing this right now. We're stuck in "We're in an impeachment inquiry!" "No we aren't!" "Yes we are!" hell, which is frankly the worst of both worlds. We're in the midst of the dumbest iteration of "Dems in disarray!?" right now precisely because Democrats aren't treating this like Benghazi. It'd be one thing if Dems never actually wanted to get to an impeachment vote and just wanted the issue to make noise. But Dems can't even decide if this is something they even want to talk about.
Aka Larry Tribe's idea from back when:
WaPo: Impeach Trump. But don't necessarily try him in the Senate
Whatever works best in shaping public opinion; the House completely and utterly controls the rules of the impeachment.
But I'm more of an optimist to believe that the dirt will get so high that enough Repubs will get the message that they're not as protected as they might believe...or were explicitly told. Again, we're beyond high crimes and misdemeanors here and we're way beyond just Trump the individual-1. Lots of threads yet to pull and we still barely comprehend the picture at play here.
That is why I say future conjecture is meaningless at this stage. We're not there yet as Pelosi might say. She's right when it comes to an impeachment vote in the House at least, but that's a no-brainer as no pro-impeachment person wants a floor vote before we've even had a hearing or two or dozens.
I think one of the issues with just being fine with sending it to the Senate is the fallacy that republicans can actually be shamed into anything. They can't. They don't care. IF any of them had any decency, they would have rebuked Trump a long time ago. But they don't so they won't.
And let me be clear, I am not saying I am pro or negative impeachment. I'm just saying I think it's a lot more complex than a lot of folks want to pretend it is. And I simply don't see the "reality" on the ground that a lot are claiming.
Well, see, I think part of the issue is that you can Benghazi the fuck out of it without even using the word impeachment. But there is a subset of folks who really want impeachment, and leadership's job is to kinda toe the line on trying to give everyone what they want (to a degree.) Like, I don't think anyone would dispute Trump should be impeached and removed from office. There is zero doubt that this is what should happen....but it's not what is going to happen no matter how much we know it should. So, I kinda get there being some confusion as to how best to proceed, simply because the politics of it are not going to play the same in every single congressional district. I agree that schrodinger's impeachment needs to be resolved one way or another....but I think a lot of people are gonna be pissed at the end of the day.
And let me be clear, I am not saying I am pro or negative impeachment. I'm just saying I think it's a lot more complex than a lot of folks want to pretend it is. And I simply don't see the "reality" on the ground that a lot are claiming.
He's going to let them keep their nukes, he's going to get that big hotel in Pyongyang to put his name on.
If you don't impeach for all that we know he has done, when would any impeachment ever happen in the future? How low would the bar need to be? Might as well just admit the Judicial branch is now under the Executive branch, and the Legislative branch is some bark and no bite.
Warren has said that nobody is above the law. Let's show that's actually true.
Warren has said that nobody is above the law. Let's show that's actually true.
If i was a betting person
35% Biden
35% Warren
20% Sanders
10% anyone else
Too early to know for sure, but Biden, Bernie, and Warren all have decent chances.
My personal guess: Bernie
CBS News @CBSNews
Condoleezza Rice gives Trump administration "credit" for taking on foreign policy challenges like North Korea and Iran https://cbsn.ws/30mKyBk
11:18 PM - Sep 15, 2019
Condoleezza Rice gives Trump administration "credit" for taking on foreign policy challenges like North Korea and Iran https://cbsn.ws/30mKyBk
11:18 PM - Sep 15, 2019
Mixed messaging on impeachment is just part of a 50 state strategy. Red district Dems get to say they are not impeaching Trump. Blue district Dems get to say they are in the process. Purple district Dems get to say they are thinking very seriously about it. Only Chuck Todd cares that they don't have a uNiFiEd MeSsAgE on impeachment. The disunity is the point.
Toss up between Warren, Sanders, Biden. Too far away for me to put much effort into thinking who has the greatest chance of the three.
I think Beto has replaced Pete as my favorite B lister in the race.
Pete really just seems too scared now of everything, and calculating in a bad way.
Beto has nothing too lose so he's running again like he did in his Senate race, which gives him a shot at at least getting the VP slot.
I would say Warren if she keeps the momentum up, if not, then Biden will.
I just don't see Bernie winning the nom aside from winning a handful like NH, VT, and maybe MI.
Pete may only win IA and IN and not much else.
Harris may only win CA and not much else.
Klob may only win MN and nothing else.
Beto, if he stays in, may only win TX.
But that's just me.
I see my mother's warming up to Warren partly because of the disunity (knowing the plans of her she doesn't like not passing Congress). Hell she may even vote for Sanders if he wins the nomination because the Dem isn't a monolithic hivemind like the GOP.
Speaking of who's going to win...is Killer Mike still a Bernie surrogate?
Because I"m catching up on clips of that Revolt conference...and Killer has gone full black separatist on that stage with Candace. I'm talking "black people should just stay home and not vote if we don't get exactly what we want."
(Sorry, I'd link it, but it's one of those IG TV things...)
Because I"m catching up on clips of that Revolt conference...and Killer has gone full black separatist on that stage with Candace. I'm talking "black people should just stay home and not vote if we don't get exactly what we want."
(Sorry, I'd link it, but it's one of those IG TV things...)
I am guessing Warren for a few reasons.
*Seems to have high likeability and very low dislike percentages on polls. The more people see/hear her the more they generally like her.
*A lot of second vote choices of other candidates have Warren as their pick. A narrower field favors Warren more.
*Generally been gaining in the polls, isn't slowing down.
*Strong debate performances and strong policies/plans (at least in the eyes of the average person, her plan game is strong).
*Isn't as left politically as Sanders and separates herself from the socialist label. Isn't as old as Biden or Sanders either (physically appearing. She is still 70+).
*Is receptive to big donors if she wins the primary. I feel like all the "liberal elites" and big donors will cozy up to her once she actually needs the money to win against Trump. Sanders won't be taking any money from big donors no matter what.
I think she still needs to gain some ground though in the minorities base and general name recognition. She also needs more of middle America and working class on her side. I do fully expect that Sanders to completely endorse her if he bows out early.
Biden I just see losing more and more traction. He isn't exciting the base and the longer, more focused these debates get the more vulnerable he is starting to appear. He is strong in a field of minnows but once consolidation occurs I feel he won't be as favored when the votes of the lesser candidates gets redistributed.
Sanders is a toss up but I find it difficult that he gets nomination over Warren for a few reasons. He seems less likable and more aggressive for the average voter. His no compromise attitude may cost him in certain areas. Warren seems more moderate relative to Sanders I see people on the fence picking Warren over him just based on pure likeability.
For the record, ideologically I agree the most with Sanders. But ideology is different from reality in many cases (like his stance on single payer Medicare, good in terms of theory and morally... but nearly impossible in real world application). Warren is more likely of the two to get something done via compromise. Biden on the other hand is too compromising and willing to settle for status quo. But I am not taking my opinion into consideration, I do consider Warren very likely to become nomination based on trends and despite Biden being frontrunner still.
*Seems to have high likeability and very low dislike percentages on polls. The more people see/hear her the more they generally like her.
*A lot of second vote choices of other candidates have Warren as their pick. A narrower field favors Warren more.
*Generally been gaining in the polls, isn't slowing down.
*Strong debate performances and strong policies/plans (at least in the eyes of the average person, her plan game is strong).
*Isn't as left politically as Sanders and separates herself from the socialist label. Isn't as old as Biden or Sanders either (physically appearing. She is still 70+).
*Is receptive to big donors if she wins the primary. I feel like all the "liberal elites" and big donors will cozy up to her once she actually needs the money to win against Trump. Sanders won't be taking any money from big donors no matter what.
I think she still needs to gain some ground though in the minorities base and general name recognition. She also needs more of middle America and working class on her side. I do fully expect that Sanders to completely endorse her if he bows out early.
Biden I just see losing more and more traction. He isn't exciting the base and the longer, more focused these debates get the more vulnerable he is starting to appear. He is strong in a field of minnows but once consolidation occurs I feel he won't be as favored when the votes of the lesser candidates gets redistributed.
Sanders is a toss up but I find it difficult that he gets nomination over Warren for a few reasons. He seems less likable and more aggressive for the average voter. His no compromise attitude may cost him in certain areas. Warren seems more moderate relative to Sanders I see people on the fence picking Warren over him just based on pure likeability.
For the record, ideologically I agree the most with Sanders. But ideology is different from reality in many cases (like his stance on single payer Medicare, good in terms of theory and morally... but nearly impossible in real world application). Warren is more likely of the two to get something done via compromise. Biden on the other hand is too compromising and willing to settle for status quo. But I am not taking my opinion into consideration, I do consider Warren very likely to become nomination based on trends and despite Biden being frontrunner still.
encouraging black people not to vote for less than ideal candidates might be dumb but it sure as fuck isnt 'separatism' and isnt even what candace owens believes either
Warren's favorable rating (not just the approve-disapprove spread, the % who have a favorable view of her) has overtaken Sanders' and Biden's despite being less known overall.
I would say she is very clearly emerging as the Obama to Biden's Hillary, and I don't think Biden is as strong as Clinton was in 08. Whereas Hillary had a genuine base of support around her, if Obama had gone with any other VP pick we'd be talking about Evan Bayh's polling lead right now.
I would say she is very clearly emerging as the Obama to Biden's Hillary, and I don't think Biden is as strong as Clinton was in 08. Whereas Hillary had a genuine base of support around her, if Obama had gone with any other VP pick we'd be talking about Evan Bayh's polling lead right now.
Black separatism isn't exactly the same thing as separatism. And Killer Mike going back years now has advocated black people build their own economic structures and return to forming Greenwood style black communities. This isn't a controvercial or even little known position about him. This is just the first time I've heard him wade into a political debate and say something like, "you're both just arguing over who has the better massa." Especially considering all the political stumping he did in 2016.
And of course Candace doesn't agree with that. She doesn't have guiding principles to start with.
So, the winner of the primary will be whoever can cobble together the best replica of the Obama/Hillary coalitions from their respective primary wins. Biden and Warren currently have the most pieces of that puzzle, but they each have weakness that is keeping the other one viable. If Warren is going to be the nominee, she absolutely has to win two of the first four states, in my opinion. She needs to win Iowa and probably New Hampshire. That's the only way going into South Carolina and Super Tuesday you're going to try to get people to line up behind you. Biden, I think, has to win one of Iowa, New Hampshire or Nevada to still be considered the front runner. Of those....I'd say Nevada is his best chance? But it's not great//done deal. I think a big question mark is how nasty the primary gets. Castro's thing was a real dumb move, and if there are too many nasty moments there could be a rallying thing around whomever is the front runner. (Probably Biden, tbh). Warren absolutely has to do better with non college whites and minority voters. I don't see a path for Harris or Beto with Biden still being in the race. If Biden would fall hard, say maybe get 4th or 5th in Iowa? Then, ya, there's a lane for another candidate, but as it stands now...not really.
Bernie, I don't see a path for because his 2016 problems are still here, but this time he has 100% name ID and is still polling around his same 15%. His favorables have gone down. He's not winning new supporters. He's losing college educated whites. He's still having issues with minority voters (and yes I know not all his supporters are white.) His supporters are the ones who are paying little attention to the race. He's building a coalition around the people who never vote. As in 2016, he showed that he really wasn't up to turning out millions of new voters (unlike Obama in 2008).
The one interesting thing I can see is someone like Pete winning Iowa. I do not believe for a second Pete can win this thing. But him winning Iowa, or coming in a strong second? That's going to make things a lot more interesting.
Bernie, I don't see a path for because his 2016 problems are still here, but this time he has 100% name ID and is still polling around his same 15%. His favorables have gone down. He's not winning new supporters. He's losing college educated whites. He's still having issues with minority voters (and yes I know not all his supporters are white.) His supporters are the ones who are paying little attention to the race. He's building a coalition around the people who never vote. As in 2016, he showed that he really wasn't up to turning out millions of new voters (unlike Obama in 2008).
The one interesting thing I can see is someone like Pete winning Iowa. I do not believe for a second Pete can win this thing. But him winning Iowa, or coming in a strong second? That's going to make things a lot more interesting.
Although, I suppose i should point out here that I'm not wading into the "are 'black separatists' hate groups" debate. So maybe that's the wrong term to use here, because I wouldn't apply any of that to Killer Mike, despite how annoying I find him.
He is just really, really, really pro-black-people-doing-their-own-thing.
So just on these two points, I can't remember where it was I read it, but even though the two are ideologically aligned... And Warren has been hailed as a progressive firebrand, who is not averse to railing against the powers that be, her overall campaign style has been that of calm persuasive storytelling.
She relates issues to her personal story, to the stories of those she meets and knows. She teaches, rather than just preaches.
She doesn't just deal in grievance and aggression and big statistics, even though I'm sure she has these all memorised.
It is, I think, what is driving her to grow her appeal.
I think she recognises the inherent political barrier to a single payer health system, which is why she has been evasive about eliminating private insurance. Sanders appears to believe the only thing driving opposition is elites or the establishment or whatever. And that's definitely part of it. But realistically there is also significant loss aversion at play with people and their employer based coverage. His answer is to handwave these concerns away or to pivot to moralising.
She is going to need a good answer to this.
She has also signalled her intent to be a party builder. While, I have no idea how Sanders intends to support state Democratic Parties and candidates without bundlers and a Joint Fundraising Committee.
Yup. Red district in red state reps will be the last to go in big bunch with remaining leadership. Call it safety in numbers, call it overwhelming evidence asking no other from them, but that's how I'd hazard it'll go.
202-224-3121 as always.
They'll not go as they saw everyone who did speak out get murked right in front of God and country as a warning to others. Lose 3 of those seats in elections or defections? Don't matter; they'd lose far more than that by holding back "discipline".
Best we'll have is people bailing out for the exits as shit heats up. Given the bickering and swerving media plays, we're moving down that track at a good clip it seems.
They've been ditching money out of that place for a while now.
So they knew the armada of invesitigations incoming and moved to save the blood money.
I think that winning Iowa, NH and Nevada would put Bernie in a powerful position. Winning NH didnt matter that much last time because Nevada and SC turned out to be definitive losses for him
But picking up 3 out of 4? That would mean something.
I dont think that it will happen but its Bernie's only path to the nom regardless
But picking up 3 out of 4? That would mean something.
I dont think that it will happen but its Bernie's only path to the nom regardless
I don't think he does. Like, this isn't me reading him or whatever. But he has never been known to stump for democrats...until 2016 and after. He's been outside the party for decades, and I see no reason to believe he would change now and want to grow the party. He supports his Justice Dem/Democratic Socialist folks, but outside that...meh.
I agree with your assessment of "teach vs preach."
That's kinda true for anyone though. Like, if one person wins the first three, they'll probably be the nominee. The issue is I don't think Bernie can win all three. It's hard to predict what NH will do because they're weird as fuck...but if Iowa is a Warren win, and she's polling close to Bernie in NH...that might be enough to put her over the top. Or NH could NH! Who knows.
FWIW Buttigieg finished a close third in the Minnesota straw poll (er, bean poll) behind favorite daughter Klobuchar (Warren was the clear winner though). He's got a Strong Midwest appeal. Like you I seriously doubt he comes close to winning, but he could spend some time nipping at Biden and Warren's heels.
Rather have him as VP over Sanders, I guess, but my preference is still O'Rourke.
I guess that we will find out soon enough. Bernie is reported to have quite a large team in Iowa and the latest poll showed him 3 points away from Biden. And i expect NH to go to whatever progressives does best in Iowa, while Nevada already has Bernie on top (according to the latest poll).
Warren could also take it all and i see it as more likely because her trend is consistently upwards.
Or maybe we'll get an iowa nightmare scenario where Bernie gets 24%, Warren gets 24% and Biden gets 25%!
Theres an iowa poll coming soon and im dying to see it.
Last edited:
As a gay guy who lives in the midwest....it's weird (not in a bad way!) that one of the most appealing midwestern candidates is a gay man. But, he does have some definite appeal. I think people dismissing it are doing so at their own risk. Him hitting that "I trust you to pick what's best for your family" thing at the debate? That was gold. That's an easy sell, and a good way to position Medicare for America. Of course, his pathetic levels of support among non white voters is haaaarrrible. One spot that was interesting, when I looked through the CNN crosstabs, Pete was only a point or two behind Bernie in voters over 45 (or maybe over 65?) I can't remember specifically, but it was an interesting data point.
Yee, I'm looking forward to Seltzers' poll. The thing with NV polling is, especially with the caucus, it's like dumpster fire levels of bad. In 2016, Hillary was up by 2 in polling, she won by 6. (There was even a poll with them tied a few days before the caucus from CNN). It's just a weird state and really hard to poll. Honestly, Iowa and NH are must wins for Bernie. There's a case to be made that he could leverage a second place win in Iowa...but it would depend who won. If he gets second behind Warren, he's done. If he gets second to Biden? There's a path. NH is an absolute must win for him though, and they don't always vote the most progressive candidate. NH is just freaking weird, honestly. Hillary won in 2008 even though Obama won Iowa. In 2004, it went to Kerry over Dean. Warren being from NE really kinda puts a block in how much support Bernie can expect to get. There's no way he's winning it by anywhere close to 2016s margin.
But, ya, if he has a path (and I'm still iffy on it but I can kinda twist myself into making one) he HAS to win Iowa, NH and NV.
Speaking of Bernie and New Hampshire.
Volunteers weren't too happy with the current leadership, so they're replacing the leadership there. NH is a toss-up right now between the three.
Volunteers weren't too happy with the current leadership, so they're replacing the leadership there. NH is a toss-up right now between the three.
Honestly depends on Iowa and NH. I think Biden is bruised enough to not survive a primary. It's gonna be Bernie.
- Status