• Light/Dark
  • 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
Aaron

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Ogodei said:
Late quote, but I remember in early 2017 when people were afraid she would lose due to some odd favorability polls.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I took a stance early on with Warren that she had some key vulnerabilities I was worried would be exploited in a general election, but anyone freaking out about favorability polls that early was being irrational.

It's similar to the discussion the other day about Ocasio-Cortez, who is at least nine years away from a presidential bid and whose negative approval ratings right now can be attributed entirely to hardly anyone in the country knowing who a New York freshman representative is outside of hardcore Fox News viewers and the Internet left.

Sho_Nuff82 said:
Mayor Pete's numbers probably make him the best VP pick outside of the current frontrunners.

It's just hard not to dream about Beto helping steal Texas.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, I think Beto would be more beneficial to the campaign but I would hardly complain about a Warren-Buttigieg ticket. If she's still having issues with black support once she wins the primary though, I'd rather she pick a CBC Congressperson from the House.
 
adam387

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
5,215
Obviously, this is one poll and we need more data points to draw any actual conclusions, etc.

But if those Bernie numbers are correct, he's basically collapsing across every constituency. He keeps his 13-14%, but that's literally it. He's not even close to winning over new voters. Hell, he's losing groups he did well with last cycle. His numbers among black voters continue to be abysmal. And it's not because they don't know him, or they don't like his policies, or they just are low information voters. He's done nothing whatsoever to shore up the 2016 issues. The one bright spot is his Latinx numbers, as they are at least not as dire as every other groups. I still think that's probably because of dem latinx voters being a younger cohort. That could help him in NV...but once the machine starts turning up against him...yaaaaaaaa.
 
Kirblar

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
*Insert Nicole Byers' "Uh-Oh" here.*


adam387 said:
Obviously, this is one poll and we need more data points to draw any actual conclusions, etc.

But if those Bernie numbers are correct, he's basically collapsing across every constituency. He keeps his 13-14%, but that's literally it. He's not even close to winning over new voters. Hell, he's losing groups he did well with last cycle. His numbers among black voters continue to be abysmal. And it's not because they don't know him, or they don't like his policies, or they just are low information voters. He's done nothing whatsoever to shore up the 2016 issues. The one bright spot is his Latinx numbers, as they are at least not as dire as every other groups. I still think that's probably because of dem latinx voters being a younger cohort. That could help him in NV...but once the machine starts turning up against him...yaaaaaaaa.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The collapse occurred a long time ago, it's that he's not able to rebuild following it.
 
adam387

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
5,215
Blue Skies said:
Bernie needs to endorse Warren before February.
Will he?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
source.gif
 

Vector

Member
Feb 28, 2018
6,631
Sadly, I think Beto crashed his VP chances with the AR-15 answer.

Harris is done, and Bernie should start thinking about dropping out at some point early in the primaries to help Warren.
 
RailWays

RailWays

One Winged Slayer
Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
15,665
Nice to see that Warren is improving her weaker demographics. Definitely promising for her going into the primary.
 
dabig2

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,116
devSin said:
Contempt citations are referred to the justice department.

I have no doubt they'll do it. I also have no doubt that it will achieve nothing.

You (and others here) seem to think Democrats have more power than they actually do. The reality is that they have very little power to do anything beyond investigate (and even that ability is hamstrung by the administration and the courts). Being in control of one chamber of Congress does not give them magic powers that they can use to do all the things you want in all the ways you want them to be done.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The DOJ has nothing to do with what we're talking about and you're severely underestimating what the House can actually do

Traditionally, Congress has used its contempt power to punish those who refuse to comply with duly issued subpoenas. To this day, the body has used three different methods of enforcement: physically arresting and detaining individuals, pursuant to the "inherent contempt" power; certifying a contempt citation and recommending to the Department of Justice that a criminal action be initiated under 2 U.S.C. §§ 192 and 194 (the Criminal Contempt Statute); or internally granting standing to the appropriate committee or certain members so that a civil action can be initiated in court.

However, all three avenues are futile when the contemnor is an executive branch official. In such cases, triggering inherent contempt has undesirable optics: It is not hard to imagine that the image of a high-level executive official being handcuffed and detained by the sergeant-at-arms will likely undermine any residual sense of comity left between the administration and Congress. Additionally, criminal contempt is unlikely to receive the Justice Department's endorsement, and civil contempt imposes significant undue delay and unpredictability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's the usual lol way. Here's what we're talking about:
Currently, Congress can achieve its endgame of fining federal officials through an indirect route of civil contempt or criminal contempt. In both cases, Congress would have to initiate a lawsuit (either civil or criminal), obtain a favorable order from a judge, and ultimately ask the judge to use the court's contempt power to impose a fine on the contemnor.

However, it is unclear whether Congress can instead issue the fines itself, without having to resort to the courts first. If Congress can issue a fine unilaterally, this power would be more in line with Congress's inherent contempt power of arresting federal officials—the only avenue of enforcement that courts have so far recognized as not requiring judicial involvement. In both cases of arresting or fining a federal official under the inherent contempt power, Congress can exercise its power first and the action will be subject to review by the courts only after the fact.

Therefore, as Schiff has noted, the possibility of fining federal officials under inherent contempt power ameliorates one significant problem with relying on courts to fine officials, namely, the arduous and time-consuming process of obtaining a judicial order.

The legal uncertainty surrounding Congress's power in this area stems from the fact that Congress has never before tried to exert its contempt power by directly issuing fines. Therefore, the courts have never been asked before to judge the legality of such measures. Yet there is clear legal precedent that all but endorses such power.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And goes on from there. But this isn't some pie in the sky ideal we're talking about. This is part of their job to hold the Executive to account, otherwise this will be the new normal in the future regardless of what happens in 2020:

If Congress is denied an efficient way to punish executive officials who stonewall investigations, the executive branch will effectively be able to dismantle the power of the purse. The executive branch will simply ignore congressional mandates on how to spend the federal money and subsequently hinder Congress's oversight of such misuses. This is why, historically, the two powers have been co-dependent. It is sensible to use the power of the purse to protect the investigation power, because one of the main reasons the investigation power exists in the first place is to preserve the power of the purse.

There are reasons to believe that the courts will not object to being left out of contempt enforcement at the first step. Historically, the courts have understood the sense of urgency that accompanies the use of contempt power, in many cases curtailing their own involvement in such conflicts. For these reasons the courts are less likely to find Congress's attempts at fining officials directly, and before going to court, to be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If we have to agitate a little bit in the here and now to restore balance, then that's just what we're going to have to do. Dems need to get onboard if they actually give a shit about salvaging the American experiment.
 
AnotherNils

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,936
Shit actually got real?





Did Dems pull an accidental rope-a-dope? Would definitely hold any contempt citation until after this questioning.
 
Joeytj

Joeytj

Member
Oct 30, 2017
3,673
Kirblar said:
Both Biden and Sanders are trying to win a campaign by standing still. In Biden's case he's acting like a 3rd termer type (Gore/Hillary) when he's in a multiway race.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's it, yeah. Sanders has been doing almost nothing different than his 2016 campaign, and while that scores him points among those who follow him because of his perceived purity or consistency, it doesn't grow his base.

I worry though, about his core supporters and their anger at anyone who isn't Sanders.
 
Royalan

Royalan

I can say DEI; you can't.
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
11,919
Clowns said:
in about 5 months, Harris.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm being serious, because Warren has always been my number two. If my number one ain't winning then my number two needs to plug this hole, and a whole lot sooner than 5 months from now.

Winning Iowa will do a lot to shed black voters from Biden, but not if his campaign is going strong and Warren's campaign is as...light, as it is.

She needs black surrogates.
 
refusi0n1

refusi0n1

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,895
Tuned in a while back, it was perfect timing to catch the r's tripping over themselves to stop this line of questioning
 
Dahbomb

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,612
Damn Dems actually pulled a surprise haymaker that got the Republicans tilted and Lembowski on defense.

They might almost turn this around.
 
Kirblar

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Joeytj said:
That's it, yeah. Sanders has been doing almost nothing different than his 2016 campaign, and while that scores him points among those who follow him because of his perceived purity or consistency, it doesn't grow his base.

I worry though, about his core supporters and their anger at anyone who isn't Sanders.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
He's been doing things differently. Unfortunately for his campaign they're for the worse.
 
Aaron

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Kusagari said:
I don't see what Warren gains from Pete as VP. They seem to overlap with the same exact voters.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Young?

Yeah, it's hard if you want balance for her to go with any of the frontrunners, depending on how picky you are. Like I've seen some people suggest Booker - I can see it on a superficial level, but I'm not really a fan.

Fork said:
Warren/Sanders is the real ticket. College liberal/working class coalition
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But Warren is doing better with uneducated whites than Bernie.
 
Kyra

Kyra

The Eggplant Queen
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,241
New York City
Its crazy that today should have the feeling of bombshells being dropped and it just doesn't. The danger with Trump really was the normalization of shittiness wasnt it.
 
Brian McDoogle

Brian McDoogle

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,927
Royalan said:
I'm being serious, because Warren has always been my number two. If my number one ain't winning then my number two needs to plug this hole, and a whole lot sooner than 5 months from now.

Winning Iowa will do a lot to shed black voters from Biden, but not if his campaign is going strong and Warren's campaign is as...light, as it is.

She needs black surrogates.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't know where you'd find a list of surrogates, but you can look up some key staff and personal endorsements here: https://ballotpedia.org/Elizabeth_Warren_presidential_campaign,_2020

I know it's not exactly what you're looking for, but there ya go.
 
adam387

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
5,215
A 77 year old Vice President, who is ideologically in line 99.9% with the nominee, who has glaring weaknesses with swatches of the electorate adds absolutely nothing to the ticket.
 
Tamanon

Tamanon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
19,718
If Warren were to win the nomination, her number one black surrogates would be Barack and Michelle.
 
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.