GoP has absolutely screwed this up for themselves and the dems have played it pretty well. Yeah it has eaten up more time doing it this way, but big legislation almost always takes time.GOP seems caught in a terrible position here with the infrastructure bill and that makes me happy. Passing the bi-partisan bill gives Biden a big win which Mitch simply cannot do. On the other hand, not passing it makes the reconciliation bill much larger with zero input from the GOP. And Democrats likely get everything they want in there and more. Manchin seems open to spending a decent amount from what I've seen. Not that the GOP actually cares about spending.
I guess it depends. Are republicans largely going to vote for her? No, absolutely not. But you only really need a small slice of crossovers. It's how governors in opposite states work.Issue is, she's buying support with people who won't vote for her by spending support from people who might.
The base just about always falls in line on both sides. Who are dems/progressives going to vote for? A Republican? They will still vote for her and if she can conti use to get good support from moderates and even a sliver from moderate Republicans she easily wins again.Issue is, she's buying support with people who won't vote for her by spending support from people who might.
Those are "you might get primaried and lose" numbers IMO; so that's her biggest riskThe base just about always falls in line on both sides. Who are dems/progressives going to vote for? A Republican? They will still vote for her and if she can conti use to get good support from moderates and even a sliver from moderate Republicans she easily wins again.
Ah, the classic Claire McCaskill playbook! Worked GREAT for her!Issue is, she's buying support with people who won't vote for her by spending support from people who might.
Of that i could see. It would be a risky move to primary her when she would almost surely win reelection.Those are "you might get primaried and lose" numbers IMO; so that's her biggest risk
The bipartisan bill is going to fall apart quickly and Biden is smart to jump on it and tout the deal as quickly as he can even if it does so republicans are the ones backing away.
Those rebublicans won't actually vote for her though.
Kelly with the overwhelming support from the base who will actually vote for him is in a safer spot than Sinema.
Also I feel like those numbers aren't really that great "for a senator" as this tweet says. I get that AZ is still very much a purple state but MN has a GOP state legislature and both of our senators poll better than that.
And yeah, she's in danger of being successfully primaried as others have said with numbers like that.
So yeah, Sinema doesn't "know what she's doing."
She is an idiot.
what is this logic? Your state legislature is gop because state legislatures are heavily influenced by districts. Your senators are democratic because they ignore boundaries through statewide elections which are easier to take when your population density is lopsided in the twin cities which are highly liberal
Sinema has become a magnet for progressive criticism because of her refusal to scrap the filibuster, which essentially requires 60 voters in the 100-member Senate to approve most legislation. The poll shows that 46 percent of Arizona voters favor it and 36 percent are opposed.
When informed that Sinema's support for the filibuster "may mean the policy priorities of President Biden and the Democratic leadership may not have a chance of becoming law and being implemented," 50 percent said they supported her decision and 39 percent were opposed.
A good few do, sure. It's not quite as big an aberration as the person is putting it.I'm just saying the tweet "haven't seen numbers like this for a senator" is an odd thing to say. Lots of senators poll better than that, even in swingier/purpler states than MN.
Also this:Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) are the only 2020 presidential contenders among the 10 most popular U.S. senators, according to a Morning Consult poll.
Sanders is the most popular senator, with 62 percent approval compared with 31 percent disapproval, according to the poll, while Klobuchar is the third most popular with 58 percent approval and 26 percent disapproval.
The top five are rounded out by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) at number two, with 59 percent approval and 28 percent disapproval; Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) at 58 percent approval to 29 percent disapproval; and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) at 56 percent approval to 26 percent disapproval.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is the senator with the highest disapproval rating, with 50 percent disapproval to 36 percent approval, and also the only one among the least popular senators with disapproval ratings of at least 50 percent. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who won a third term in 2018 by 11 points despite being hit with federal corruption charges in 2015, has the second-highest disapproval rating. The Justice Department dropped the charges in January 2018 after a mistrial the previous November.
Menendez and McConnell were the only senators on the least-popular list with higher disapprovals than approvals. The five least popular were rounded out by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) with 46 percent approval and 41 percent disapproval; Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), with 49 percent approval and 40 percent disapproval; and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), with 42 percent approval and 39 percent disapproval.
Morning Consult also found that Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) was the senator with the greatest portion of constituents who had not heard of him, at 43 percent. The pollster surveyed 472,802 voters from Jan. 31 to March 31. Morning Consult notes that the margin of error in the results differs for each senator.
Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff, who just unseated former Sen. David Perdue (R) in Georgia, had an approval rating of about 50 percent, while just 40 percent of voters had an unfavorable view of him. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D), who flipped Georgia's other Senate seat in a special election and will have to run for a full term in 2022, has a net positive approval rating at 54-37.
Specifically, he's got more years in him but he'll die at the worst possible moment and all his work will probably be undone by someone way more to right than him. All because he's way too stubborn to retire.
Kamala 100% loses. There is no way she wins the states needed to get her the electoral votes to get elected. If Biden doesn't run everyone better hope Kamala gets primaried and loses the nomination.I agree with others in this thread that it's Trump's nomination if he wants it, and I believe he will want it because a) he wants the legal protection, b) he wants the grift, c) he by now genuinely believes his own Big Lie and wants revenge which is always a major driver for him, d) normal people can move on and be happy with being Kingmaker but this clown is so flawed he cannot, physically cannot, endorse someone else for a position he believes is his.
The wild cards are the health of both Biden and Clown in 2-3 years time. One or both may not be able to run, and if we end up with Kamala as the nominee I'm not sure America is ready to vote her in as POTUS running against a white man, especially with all the GOP vote rigging going on.
the problem is he isn't a kingmaker. Everything he touches fails. Special elections and 2022 will solidify his failure amongst the GOP as a whole... but once the GOP gets the balls to finally try to walk away, it'll be too late.I agree with others in this thread that it's Trump's nomination if he wants it, and I believe he will want it because a) he wants the legal protection, b) he wants the grift, c) he by now genuinely believes his own Big Lie and wants revenge which is always a major driver for him, d) normal people can move on and be happy with being Kingmaker but this clown is so flawed he cannot, physically cannot, endorse someone else for a position he believes is his.
The wild cards are the health of both Biden and Clown in 2-3 years time. One or both may not be able to run, and if we end up with Kamala as the nominee I'm not sure America is ready to vote her in as POTUS running against a white man, especially with all the GOP vote rigging going on.
My knee-jerk reaction to this story is a lust for the most severe punishment possible. Like a lot of Americans, I saw the video of George Floyd being killed and was infuriated and heartbroken. Throughout the trial, and the sentencing, I saw a convicted killer who did not seem particularly remorseful — instead, he was stoic and unflinching. And a lot of that made me want to see the judge, in this case, impose the longest sentence he could.
At the same time, throughout my adulthood, I have come to loathe our prison system. It is founded on retribution, not rehabilitation. It is built to accrue profits, not apportion justice. It is designed, explicitly, to break the backs of those who have committed crimes and return cruelty with cruelty. An eye for an eye. It is ancient, primitive and barbaric, and it is only getting better incrementally — bit by bit — thanks to the tireless work of people who recognize the gratuitousness of locking human beings in cages (and the absurdity of how much more often the United States does it than anyone else).
As a result, I've written strongly against the death penalty. I've decried mandatory minimum sentences and lengthy prison stays, which usually result in the formerly incarcerated returning to crime once they're released. I've advocated for decriminalizing all sorts of things, including drugs and sex work. I've called on my readers to extend empathy to criminals, to people whose politics you find grotesque, to politicians who have flip-flopped, to people of color enduring a non-stop barrage of news stories and videos depicting Americans who look like them being brutalized by the police. And I've been criticized by many of you for being "lefty" or a "Libertarian" or some kind of pseudo-anarchist for digging my heels in on this issue. But I don't think I'm following any political lead — I just think our prison system is broken and ineffective, and I try to lead with empathy, and continue to struggle to maintain a consistent ethical code.
And now I'm presented with Derek Chauvin. His case, in many ways, is different because he was an officer of the law — someone who was given our trust, our taxpayer dollars, a badge and a gun by the state, and then violated his oath. Crimes by cops feel worse than crimes by average citizens. I made the case for his conviction and celebrated it when it came. I believe that, by the law, he "got what he deserved." But I'd be a hypocrite not to extend the same grace, even to a murderous cop, that I so frequently call on my readers to extend to others. While working under the assumption that forgiveness is good, I'd be a hypocrite not to attempt it, even (perhaps especially) for the kind of criminal I find most loathsome.
Is 22.5 years in prison "enough?" Sure. I guess. The largest measure of considerations has been sentencing guidelines, the Floyd family and the larger societal impact on policing. But no time can fill the hole left in their hearts or repair the damage done to the country thanks to Chauvin's actions. The judge made a ruling that, given the crime committed (murder), the situation (in front of children) and the context (a cop abusing his power), the sentence should be well above the sentencing guidelines. It's an art, not a science, but I think Judge Cahill did his job admirably.
And yet, I also want to be clear: putting Chauvin in prison won't fix him. Prison won't fix him any more than it will fix a 15-year-old who got caught up in a gang and committed an armed robbery, then served 20 years in prison, because prison doesn't really fix people. Locking him in a 10x10 foot room for 23 hours a day will not change his worldview or improve his policing. It won't fix us, either — it won't usher in major policing reforms and it probably won't calm the anger we feel toward a man who has hardly shown any penance or self-reflection. At best, this sentence will send a message to other officers on the job and may even prevent some cops from using deadly force when they don't need to. But even the question of "deterrence" is an open one. Which is why the Los Angeles Times editorial board's piece — saying the sentence "need not be unremitting, lifelong vengeance" — was so refreshing to read.
The infuriating truth is that lusting for a life sentence for Chauvin is inconsistent with my own values, and my knee-jerk reaction to want to see that is a reminder that emotion can so easily override one's own moral code. Bad cops are bad, and prison is bad, but I truly don't think more bad cops serving 40 years in bad prisons is going to help solve policing or much of anything in our country. Chauvin only got what he deserved in today's context because so many others sitting in prison have gotten something they didn't deserve. But I still hope, one day, we can move toward a future that embraces something more productive than throwing people in jail to address what ails us.
Lol seriously? Many dems have a better chance.I don't think there's a Dem that stands a better chance than Kamala does, assuming Biden doesn't run.
How do they stand a better change? You already talking about what someone will lose which is nonsense.Lol seriously? Many dems have a better chance.
Sherrod Brown would be a instant win against trump imo.
Shit Manchin would do better than Kamala against trump.
Kamala would almost surely lose PA, MI, GA. (Ohio would ONLY be in play with like Sherrod or a Manchin)
Jake Tapper
@jaketapper
Gosar confirms he's doing an event with white supremacist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes
12:50 PM · Jun 29, 2021Paul Gosar
@DrPaulGosar
Not sure why anyone is freaking out. I'll say this: there are millions of Gen Z, Y and X conservatives. They believe in America First. They will not agree 100% on every issue. No group does. We will not let the left dictate our strategy, alliances and efforts. Ignore the left https://twitter.com/gavinwax/status/1409715852958605312…
https://twitter.com/intent/like?ref...con^s1_&ref_url=&tweet_id=1409917087385010178
Lol seriously? Many dems have a better chance.
Sherrod Brown would be a instant win against trump imo.
Shit Manchin would do better than Kamala against trump.
Kamala would almost surely lose PA, MI, GA. (Ohio would ONLY be in play with like Sherrod or a Manchin)
Sharing this issue of Tangle, talking about Chauvin's sentencing and reconciling that with a progressive policing ideals.
I am only referring to whoneoukd have a better chance at the White House.Brown would be a great candidate but that's an instant R gain in the Senate if he runs. Not worth it considering how slim the majority is.
Well they are white men to start vs a mixed woman. While it sucks that's the case, it's the world we live in.How do they stand a better change? You already talking about what someone will lose which is nonsense.