OP
OP
Honestly this here is the real crux of the issue in the dem primary.
Do you think we can work with the GOP(Biden/Butti) or nuke that filibuster (Warren).
-
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 |OT9| I'm really glad I'm not on Twitter nearly enough to understand all the references
- Thread starter TheHunter
- Start date
- Status
Do you think we can work with the GOP(Biden/Butti) or nuke that filibuster (Warren).
Going back to Warren's non-response, which was fine, what do you wish she had said?
Would have loved to see Jayapal namedropped myself.
I don't think it has to be binary. You can substantially weaken it unilaterally and "keep" it around and just not have it be the ridiculous thing it is today. You want to target its usage back to 1980s levels.
Would have loved to see Jayapal namedropped myself.
I don't think it has to be binary. You can substantially weaken it unilaterally and "keep" it around and just not have it be the ridiculous thing it is today. You want to target its usage back to 1980s levels.
I probably would've predicted this for Booker tbh
This, on the other hand, would have shocked me back in the day.
First, Butti is actually pro nuking the filibuster.
I don't think we can do anything at all without at least 54-55 senators to drown out people who would die on the not nuking filibuster hill. Well, maybe some reconciliation, and the judicial filibuster would probably stay nuked.
And, honestly, I'm not 100% convinced that Biden and Sanders wouldn't nuke the filibuster. Biden has been on both sides on the filibuster issue when convenient, so I don't see him not nuking it if it's possible and the only way for him to get anything to his name. Sanders overriding the parliamentarian plan... Yeah, I really don't get why he thinks that's easier than nuking the filibuster. Like, I feel you're more likely to convince people to get rid of the filibuster than have them abuse budget reconciliation to that extent and Sanders would eventually realize that.
Of course, this again assumes that there are enough Senators that would agree to override the parliamentarian or nuke the filibuster.
I was thinking Booker, or Harris would be on top. The way Harris has flubbed through is baffling, though. it's like her staff is over tweaking her, cause whenever she's fucked up, it's something her staff forced her to go back on.
Just give the minority a chance to put forward germane amendments on bills that fail cloture. Make them subject to an up or down vote. Then have a forced cloture vote with a lower threshold. Repeat until the bill fails to get a majority vote or cloture is reduced to 51 votes needed.
This "bills go to die" thing is super duper fucking broken.
This "bills go to die" thing is super duper fucking broken.
The issue I think Harris had is that she was thinking of running slightly to the right of Bernie & Warren at the beginning of the primary, potentially her campaign might have sensed that she can co-op some of their platform - while being more easily digestible for donor class and moderates. But Warren's rise meant she needed to go after Biden's base, a few months into the campaign, when he announced.
Sanders was always going to keep his advantage among younger voters, but majority of non-Sanders young voters opted for Warren, Yang and equally among the rest of the field. While Harris was running into a crowded field trying to appease both 65+ while needing to find in-roads with younger folk. Appeasing 65+ requires either very high name recognition or very large ad buys in early states. Because Biden has the name recognition, while Pete won over the big donor class - Harris campaign had no path forward. Had she won over the donors, she would be closer to Pete's position right now & Pete might be the one looking at no path forward. I think her campaign attack on Biden and not being to use that moment in any meaningful way because she can't really propose bold plans while trying to appeal to big money donors is what cost her the most. I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a trend of her losing support with people under 45+ as she changed some of her positions on key issues.
Sanders was always going to keep his advantage among younger voters, but majority of non-Sanders young voters opted for Warren, Yang and equally among the rest of the field. While Harris was running into a crowded field trying to appease both 65+ while needing to find in-roads with younger folk. Appeasing 65+ requires either very high name recognition or very large ad buys in early states. Because Biden has the name recognition, while Pete won over the big donor class - Harris campaign had no path forward. Had she won over the donors, she would be closer to Pete's position right now & Pete might be the one looking at no path forward. I think her campaign attack on Biden and not being to use that moment in any meaningful way because she can't really propose bold plans while trying to appeal to big money donors is what cost her the most. I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a trend of her losing support with people under 45+ as she changed some of her positions on key issues.
Actually looks the opposite. Reminder, she was one of the co-sponsors and helped write Bernie's M4A plan. And when she said private insurance should be eliminated off the cuff in a town hall her campaign tweeted out ASAP that that's not true, which leads me to believe that she herself believes that private insurance should be eliminated but her staffers were freaking out (I happen to believe the stance is incredibly campaign damaging in the GE, but the instant flip-flop was more damaging).
Same goes for the busing thing. She goes into the debate and absolutely commands the stage. Looks completely natural up there, answers everything perfectly. She has this perfect attack on Biden. She goes on to have an interview where she says she supports the federal government mandating busing. Then her campaign turns her around and says she doesn't support federally mandated busing.
Another thing, she's been doing those cringy as hell eating food videos lately. But, in many previous interviews she was pretty genuinely saying that those types of political flexes are stupid and ridiculous. It's on and on with her and her campaign seeming to fight for the driver's seat.
I don't understand this plan to be honest and I feel like people need to reject their desire to compensate the minority for losing their power.
Actually it is fairly noncontroversial in every other democracy in the world to say that the party that wins the election just gets to enact their agenda to the degree that their own politicians support it and the minority has to live with it.
:(
I'm sorry. I have tried, lord knows I have, but the man is like nails on a chalk board to me. It's funny, my best friend randomly sends me screen shots from back in the day (meaning like mid 2000s) where I just go on a 15 post rant about Bernie Sanders. it's been DECADES for me.
God I'm old. :(
Actually, that idea's closer to a UK parliament system. It effectively gives the minority no power, but they can throw in amendments to die and there'd eventually be a simple majority vote.
I think Kamala would do best to end her run as soon as possible before she damages herself in the minds of voters any further. Come back in 2028 with a brand new, much better, campaign and act like this shit never even happened.
its ok. i was frustrated by it before but honestly the rest of you makes up for it
I totally agree with what you are saying Steel. But at the same time it can't be under valued how much money plays into the race. With Warren and Sanders dominating among people who donate under $200, Harris needed to appeal to big donors.
Keep in mind that Pete was mentioned as the person that had dinners with key donors like Bernard Schwartz, that also included Pelosi, Schumer, McAuliffe & Neera Tanden. Harris was never apart of that conversation(as far as we know), & those conversations make Pete a non-starter with anyone who is keeping track of what is happening(aka people who are donating under $200 to Warren, Sanders & to a lesser degree Yang). This is a major part of why Pete only stands a chance if he someone wins over a majority of 65+ voters, who vote in the democratic party.
So Pete's only chance is winning the first three primaries and a narrative being formed and reinforced among mass media about his inevitability. This narrative is something which people donating & volunteering for Sanders & Warren will never buy into. So at some point either Warren or Sanders will need to drop out and make the other their VP choice.
If he loses Nevada, it will take the wind out of Pete. South Carolina, Texas and California will follow.
SC & Nevada is where Biden's campaign will invest the most, even if he is 4th in both Iowa & New Hampshire - this is where Biden takes his last stand.
Bernie's campaign is already signally they are investing 30 million into the 4 early states and California. They have not been burning through their cash-on-hand but now are seemingly going to flex their financial advantage.
Warren also has very good organization in all 4 early states, her main issues is Super Tuesday. I think she will be 2nd on average across the 4, but she needs 3 wins to make it a two person race between herself and Bernie before Super Tuesday.
Keep in mind that Pete was mentioned as the person that had dinners with key donors like Bernard Schwartz, that also included Pelosi, Schumer, McAuliffe & Neera Tanden. Harris was never apart of that conversation(as far as we know), & those conversations make Pete a non-starter with anyone who is keeping track of what is happening(aka people who are donating under $200 to Warren, Sanders & to a lesser degree Yang). This is a major part of why Pete only stands a chance if he someone wins over a majority of 65+ voters, who vote in the democratic party.
So Pete's only chance is winning the first three primaries and a narrative being formed and reinforced among mass media about his inevitability. This narrative is something which people donating & volunteering for Sanders & Warren will never buy into. So at some point either Warren or Sanders will need to drop out and make the other their VP choice.
If he loses Nevada, it will take the wind out of Pete. South Carolina, Texas and California will follow.
SC & Nevada is where Biden's campaign will invest the most, even if he is 4th in both Iowa & New Hampshire - this is where Biden takes his last stand.
Bernie's campaign is already signally they are investing 30 million into the 4 early states and California. They have not been burning through their cash-on-hand but now are seemingly going to flex their financial advantage.
Warren also has very good organization in all 4 early states, her main issues is Super Tuesday. I think she will be 2nd on average across the 4, but she needs 3 wins to make it a two person race between herself and Bernie before Super Tuesday.
Yes, folks, based on these latest #SeattleCouncil votes, you're looking at a trend for potentially a 'progressive super majority"
- Gonzalez
- Mosqueda
- Sawant
- Morales
- Lewis
- Strauss
#Seattle #SeaElex
- Gonzalez
- Mosqueda
- Sawant
- Morales
- Lewis
- Strauss
#Seattle #SeaElex
Well this would sure be a pleasant surprise. Should know tomorrow evening it looks like
Oh, and may as well have an aside about Booker. He's too kumbaya to stick out. Which is kinda funny because he actually does have some pretty good policies. I mean, Bernie used Booker's Marijuana bill as a basis for his own plan (Bernie did co-sponsor that plan, so it isn't surprising), for example, so really, I don't think the hate some people have for Booker is justified. And his climate plan is particularly good.
Oh, and of course we agree on the Butti thing.
I do think money is overvalued, but for someone like Harris it was definitely integral. That being said, she had some pretty huge mailing lists herself from previous elections and was doing pretty well in the fundraising department right out of the gate. IIRC she actually did better than Warren at the beginning before Warren caught on, but I'm not sure. She only began to fizzle in fundraising when she began to fizzle as a candidate. I think it's just flat out that she and her campaign weren't on the same page, and her campaign staff basically screwed her over. But who knows for sure. Would be interesting to see an autopsy there.
Oh, and of course we agree on the Butti thing.
For Warren the smartest thing she did for her campaign was not endorsing anyone in the previous primary - remaining Switzerland in 2016 was very smart political move on her part. Klobuchar was supporting Clinton as early as 2014, Booker endorsed Hillary in June 2015, Kamala endorsed Hillary Aug 2015, Castro endorsed in October, Pete waited till April 2016, Beto waited to the very end and endorsed in June 2016.
I know I've will get Tulsi thrown in my face after making this comment but that's a list of people who have not caught on with younger voters. Warren has made inroads and no one cared about Yang enough to ask him who he was endorsing in 2016
I know I've will get Tulsi thrown in my face after making this comment but that's a list of people who have not caught on with younger voters. Warren has made inroads and no one cared about Yang enough to ask him who he was endorsing in 2016
I'm so fascinated by US politics, I forget sometimes what is happening in my own back yard in New Zealand sometimes.
Thought PoliERA might enjoy seeing what can be accomplished when a driven, compassionate, liberal leader can accomplish under a functional system of governance.
Not to mention she had a baby during that period too. Oh, and we just passed a zero carbon bill today too.
And also when younger politicians here take some inspiration from AOC for real time retorts to jeers from old, white, male politicians
Thought PoliERA might enjoy seeing what can be accomplished when a driven, compassionate, liberal leader can accomplish under a functional system of governance.
Not to mention she had a baby during that period too. Oh, and we just passed a zero carbon bill today too.
And also when younger politicians here take some inspiration from AOC for real time retorts to jeers from old, white, male politicians
Something to aspire to, thanks for sharing - I know that you have a big problem with Wealthy people coming in and buying all that gorgeous land. How is your PM approaching that problem?
Unfortunately (because men and patriarchy suck), I worry that Hilary has become Warren's baggage.
Funny you say that. I was just reading this article Elizabeth Warren isn't Hillary Clinton. I think it does a good job of illustrating why the comparisons to Hillary are so vapid. Warren's got a great central message, on top of just being a helluva lot more charismatic than Clinton was.
I'm not gonna say these were her biggest weaknesses necessarily, because there was literally 10000 reasons she lost. But Hillary was a candidate didn't really have a strong message of why she should be president, besides "more of the same." She was also very close with the donor class, which colored how people viewed her I think. Definitely fed into the idea that she "isn't for us" or is an elitist. And of course, the mountains and mountains of BS the GOP smear campaign laid upon her for literally decades.
Warren doesn't have an issue with any of these things. She is a strong populist who's entire claim to fame is railing against the rich and powerful and has made it the centerpiece of her campaign. She wants to reign in the power and influence of the wealthy and the lobbyists they employ. Being fairly new to the political scene also helps a lot, Warren has basically no real baggage or skeletons in the closet.
The only real similarities are they're both incredibly intelligent women who are known for being policy wonks. And that they aren't men.
Last edited:
They put restrictions on foreign ownership into place last year.
The 100 billion thing isn't the problem with that clip. He spends 2 minutes genuinely whining about higher taxes and then talks about #civility being the key factor on who he's going to vote for. Like all the evil shit Trump is doing is fine, the problem is that he's being impolite about it.
Agreed that Sanders and Warren alone make this field worth it. Nobody else even comes close.
Be prepared for Hillary to drop it on Twitter first though
Yikes.
Oh god lol
Be prepared for Hillary to drop it on Twitter first though
If it's Cory, what are the odds he gets "OK Booker" sent back his way.
It's not just him that feels that way. Liberals have the same attitude even without the billions. But loathe warren and Bernie as well as Yang because they might be billionaires one day too. 2020 is going to be tough.
I was thinking about Warren's response to the PoC in her Cabinet while on the train this morning.
She could have deferred her answer about specific people, and instead spoken about her hiring standards for her Cabinet. She's already spoken about how her Secretary of Education must be a former public school teacher, maybe she could have mentioned that she will fill her Cabinet with people that have lower to middle class backgrounds with an understanding of how PoC have been largely ignored within a majority of previous administrations.
To be honest the answer to that question is a bit of a slam dunk, and instead she went for the layup.
She could have deferred her answer about specific people, and instead spoken about her hiring standards for her Cabinet. She's already spoken about how her Secretary of Education must be a former public school teacher, maybe she could have mentioned that she will fill her Cabinet with people that have lower to middle class backgrounds with an understanding of how PoC have been largely ignored within a majority of previous administrations.
To be honest the answer to that question is a bit of a slam dunk, and instead she went for the layup.
He may want to let some people know he's running for election and is a serious candidate. There are a lot of people who don't pay attention to the primaries or get all their political coverage from MSNBC and Fox News in America.
He has the money and needs to compete in ad buys in the early states
His problem isn't that certain demographics don't know he's running. It's that they don't like him.
Namely older people who vote.
Namely older people who vote.
Warren/Sanders makes it the best field for you. They're still pretty weak in regards to GE matchup, however.
Jonathan Martin @jmartNYTNEW: Democrats in six pivotal battleground states want a moderate nominee and overwhelmingly prefer one who will seek common ground w Rs instead of a bold liberal agenda
Latest NYT/Siena poll, which was not taken on Twitter dot com, w @katieglueck >https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/politics/democrats-poll-moderates-battleground.html …
Latest NYT/Siena poll, which was not taken on Twitter dot com, w @katieglueck >https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/politics/democrats-poll-moderates-battleground.html …
7:47 AM - Nov 8, 2019
I think he wants to prove he's an electable candidate for that demographic and maybe peel away some people who may have a distorted image of him
Pete is just dead outside of Iowa. I was inclined to say he's had the most shocking campaign of the year but Warren's way better positioned in almost every state.
Ugh
At least its NYT
Big Money is going to push hard for a moderate darling to maintain the status quo
Except it would be a big deal for anyone named. The media and the Republicans smear machine would eat them alive over a hypothetical.
I've thought about the idea of candidates naming shadow cabinets before the election and I agree that it's a bad way of making this all even more of a celebrity popularity contest.
2020 is feeling more and more fucked the closer we get
Big Money, Information overload, mountains of candidates
I just hope the best of the best can cut through the bullshit and secure the votes
Big Money, Information overload, mountains of candidates
I just hope the best of the best can cut through the bullshit and secure the votes
According to that poll, battleground states aren't really interested in fighting for things, huh.
Jonathan Martin @jmartNYT
NEW: Democrats in six pivotal battleground states want a moderate nominee and overwhelmingly prefer one who will seek common ground w Rs instead of a bold liberal agenda
Latest NYT/Siena poll, which was not taken on Twitter dot com, w @katieglueck >https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/politics/democrats-poll-moderates-battleground.html …
7:47 AM - Nov 8, 2019
Battleground voters want a moderate Dem yet also prefer Bernie and Warren to every candidate not named Biden.
Whatever I would vote for Biden to buy us some time to regroup and try to get us back to a better springboard for 2024
But ideally a Bernie/Warren victory would be a gamechanger
But ideally a Bernie/Warren victory would be a gamechanger
Jonathan Martin @jmartNYT
NEW: Democrats in six pivotal battleground states want a moderate nominee and overwhelmingly prefer one who will seek common ground w Rs instead of a bold liberal agenda
Latest NYT/Siena poll, which was not taken on Twitter dot com, w @katieglueck >https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/us/politics/democrats-poll-moderates-battleground.html …
7:47 AM - Nov 8, 2019
The fact that Warren+ Sanders > Biden kinda doesn't square with those feely good questions.
- Status