The ultimate redemption ark.
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.Late quote, but I remember in early 2017 when people were afraid she would lose due to some odd favorability polls.
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.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.
The collapse occurred a long time ago, it's that he's not able to rebuild following it.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.
surge warren.College+
Warren 34%
Biden 23%
Buttigieg 9%
Snders 8%
Harris 6%
Klobuchar 4%
Booker 3%
O'Rourke 3%
Non-College
Biden 38%
Warren 25%
Sanders 15%
Buttigieg 6%
Harris 4%
Yang 3%
Booker 3%
Well those Non-college #'s certainly put a hole in a certain narrative.
Wide open.Voters who say they've definitely made up their mind, per the NBC poll:
9%
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would take back many of my comments about him if he were to do so and maybe even have a slightly positive view of him.
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.
Depending on what comes out of his mouth on any given day, Killer Mike :P
in about 5 months, Harris.
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.
They're loud, but small in size. I really don't see much of the anger outside the cesspool of Twitter.I worry though, about his core supporters and their anger at anyone who isn't Sanders.
there was a poll that showed that like, 80% of Bernie supporters would love it if Warren was the nomineeI worry though, about his core supporters and their anger at anyone who isn't Sanders.
He's been doing things differently. Unfortunately for his campaign they're for the worse.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.
Young?I don't see what Warren gains from Pete as VP. They seem to overlap with the same exact voters.
But Warren is doing better with uneducated whites than Bernie.Warren/Sanders is the real ticket. College liberal/working class coalition
Yeah I don't see it. Black voters have issues with Pete for good reason.I don't see what Warren gains from Pete as VP. They seem to overlap with the same exact voters.
Yeah, it's not helping there whatsoever.I don't see what Warren gains from Pete as VP. They seem to overlap with the same exact voters.
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,_2020I'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.
Grivalja would be an interesting pick.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.
I don't think foreign policy experience would be a deciding factor in a general election against Trump. Do you have anybody in mind for that role?Yeah, it's not helping there whatsoever.
Someone with foreign policy experience is going to probably be ideal.
But Warren is doing better with uneducated whites than Bernie.
oh, please share those polls, i cant seem to remember the numbersBut Warren is doing better with uneducated whites than Bernie.