|
Who do you want to be the 2020 Democratic Nominee? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe "the liberal who fights busing" Biden |
|
27 | 1.40% |
| Bernie "please don't die" Sanders |
|
1017 | 52.69% |
| Cory "charter schools" Booker |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Kirsten "wall street" Gillibrand |
|
24 | 1.24% |
| Kamala "truancy queen" Harris |
|
59 | 3.06% |
| Julian "who?" Castro |
|
7 | 0.36% |
| Tulsi "gay panic" Gabbard |
|
25 | 1.30% |
| Michael "crimes crimes crimes" Avenatti |
|
22 | 1.14% |
| Sherrod "discount bernie" Brown |
|
21 | 1.09% |
| Amy "horrible boss" Klobuchar |
|
12 | 0.62% |
| Tammy "stands for america" Duckworth |
|
48 | 2.49% |
| Beto "whataburger" O'Rourke |
|
32 | 1.66% |
| Elizabeth "instagram beer" Warren |
|
284 | 14.72% |
| Tom "impeach please" Steyer |
|
4 | 0.21% |
| Michael "soda is the devil" Bloomberg |
|
9 | 0.47% |
| Joseph Stalin |
|
287 | 14.87% |
| Howard "coffee republican" Schultz |
|
10 | 0.52% |
Jay "nobody cares about climate change  " Inslee |
|
13 | 0.67% |
| Pete "gently caress the homeless" Butt Man |
|
17 | 0.88% |
| Total: | 1930 votes | ||
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Good way to reform the Senate: senators represent large regions rather than states. Regions can be redrawn as populations shift, unlike States. I mean, that's just cross-state Congresspeople. At that point, just get PR in the house and have them be the balancers.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:28 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Good way to reform the Senate: senators represent large regions rather than states. Regions can be redrawn as populations shift, unlike States. Except that stopping something like this is the reason the Senate exists, so you might as well abolish the whole thing if you're gonna go that far. Our founders never envisioned the scope of a situation where some states would have 40 to 80 times the population of others. Unfortunately, the only solutions to this problem require the approval of the Senate and, uhh, good luck!
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:12
|
|
|
Frankly I think we are absolutely hosed unless we somehow are able to get some of the midwest to abandoned the death cult and stop legislating like maniacs since the Senate is never getting fixed because it requires to Senate to destroy itself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
The Senate was designed to overrepresent small states. You can change debate rules and get rid of the filibuster, but anything beyond that definitely requires a Constitutional amendment to change. You can’t pull what the Brits did with the Parliament Act of 1911.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:14
|
|
|
Radish posted:Frankly I think we are absolutely hosed unless we somehow are able to get some of the midwest to abandoned the death cult and stop legislating like maniacs since the Senate is never getting fixed because it requires to Senate to destroy itself. I've had people tell me I'm crazy when I say this might lead to a civil war, but it's easily the biggest structural problem our nation faces and I have no idea how we fix it because lol at the idea of the Senate voluntarily voting itself out of existence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
The Senate's bad, but it's not Forever Bad. Puerto Rico + DC statehood gains a lot. There's also a number of states that are getting purpler with each election, and likely to turn blue within a decade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:I've had people tell me I'm crazy when I say this might lead to a civil war, but it's easily the biggest structural problem our nation faces and I have no idea how we fix it because lol at the idea of the Senate voluntarily voting itself out of existence. also anything that requires a constitutional amendment will never happen. that's why i really want a candidate to push for ranked choice voting in federal congressional elections: doesn't require a constitutional amendment, opens up representation by third parties, eliminates stupid bullshit like tactical voting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:The Senate's bad, but it's not Forever Bad. Puerto Rico + DC statehood gains a lot. There's also a number of states that are getting purpler with each election, and likely to turn blue within a decade. It may fluctuate a bit, but no, it's forever bad. The ongoing process of urbanization will invariably lead to a situation where a small minority of the population—like sub 30%—controls the majority of the Senate in perpetuity. Regardless of which party has the reigns, that is an awful recipe for fixing any of our nation's systemic issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:27
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I feel like the size of the insurance industry workforce is being exaggerated here. The entire insurance industry, including healthcare, home, life, business, etc only employs Again, the impact will not just be limited to the insurance industry. If a hypothetical M4A plan decides that Part D drug price negotiation goes from ~0% to 50% or that a single universal formulary will be much more unfavorable to expensive novel therapies then that will have significant impact on the biopharma industry and all related fields. Now it's totally fair to say "well good -- long time coming, gently caress 'em." But I imagine if you're running for congress or senate in New Jersey or Massachusetts then you'd like to be able to talk to the impact given the importance to the local economy and your constituents. Or if you're a voter whether you're essentially signing up for a career change by supporting M4A. It is still early and maybe we will get there. My skepticism is the strategy now seems focused on browbeating people over the moral necessity rather than coalescing around proposals and giving wonky data types time to provide data-driven support for their argument. I don't think most people "in the real world" will be more so motivated by absolute equality in healthcare access than just a simple calculator to understand if they'll be paying less money for better service.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:34
|
|
|
Radish posted:We never have this conversation about so many people getting laid off for almost any other industry. When some techlord decides he wan't to disrupt something and crush a bunch of people's jobs he's innovating the market or a billionaire buying up all the newspapers and firing everyone it's whatever but when we want to stop sacrificing diabetics to the thrown of big pharma we suddenly care about a bunch of people losing their jobs working for an industry actively killing people. Their argument is either disingenuous or utter ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:35
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:I agree with this Uh, advocating for things that can't pass right now is sort of the point of campaigning, isn't it? You're telling the voters that you need a lot of votes in the upcoming election in order to make the gains necessary to implement those policies. That aside, it seems like kind of an odd time to bring this objection up, and the choice of candidate to level the charge against is also odd. Half the candidates are busy trying to redefine M4A so they can claim the buzzword without supporting the actual policy, and Obama's speechwriter is busy attacking Warren of all people for supposedly being dishonest about it? Skippy McPants posted:I've had people tell me I'm crazy when I say this might lead to a civil war, but it's easily the biggest structural problem our nation faces and I have no idea how we fix it because lol at the idea of the Senate voluntarily voting itself out of existence. There isn't any fundamental reason that small states can't vote for progressive policies. All this poo poo about the Senate being doomed to inevitable permanent conservative domination seems silly if you consider the fact that the Dems routinely held supermajorities or near-supermajorities in the Senate until the Third Way took over the Democratic Party in the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
KingNastidon posted:Again, the impact will not just be limited to the insurance industry. If a hypothetical M4A plan decides that Part D drug price negotiation goes from ~0% to 50% or that a single universal formulary will be much more unfavorable to expensive novel therapies then that will have significant impact on the biopharma industry and all related fields. It would be interesting if you had any data to back your speculation here because otherwise there isn't much to talk about. You're hypothesizing theoretical job losses because MFA would mean no more investment into biopharam or something, and that those losses would be financially impactful to NJ or MA. I kinda doubt it. Instead I'll argue MFA will be amazing for those workers because now they'll be able to get biophrama jobs working on antibiotics and other unprofitable but socially required goods MFA could support. Besides, instead of delaying MFA so that we can make sure some biopharma plant in New Jersey gets kickbacks, instead we should fight for MFA and a Job Guarantee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Uh, advocating for things that can't pass right now is sort of the point of campaigning, isn't it? You're telling the voters that you need a lot of votes in the upcoming election in order to make the gains necessary to implement those policies. Uh he wasn't attacking Warren. He was attacking the other candidates in that article who seem more hesitant. Also the problem with advocating for something with no hope of passing it (if you're not willing to get rid of the fillibuster) is you're giving people a false impression and expectation. I mean if you're going to advocate for M4A, then be honest and say what I'm pushing for stands no chance of passing in our current climate unless the fillibuster is ended. If a candidate doesn't want to abolish it fine. . But at least let people know the reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Apologies if this was covered, but: I read a thing a few months ago saying that the DNC or whoever, would not allow Bernie to run as a democrat? What is going to happen now that he's running? Also has Clinton made any noises about running?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
redreader posted:Apologies if this was covered, but: I read a thing a few months ago saying that the DNC or whoever, would not allow Bernie to run as a democrat? What is going to happen now that he's running? Sanders hasn't announced that he's running yet, Clinton hasn't made any really serious signals that she's running, and I haven't heard the thing about the DNC not allowing Bernie to run as a Democrat. I don't think they'd do that, because not even they're that stupid. e: \/\/\/ Captain_Maclaine posted:Let's not say things we might not be able to take back. Yeah, I realize I just jinxed basically the whole world with that. Sorry folks!\/\/\/ Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Feb 1, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Sanders hasn't announced that he's running yet, Clinton hasn't made any really serious signals that she's running, and I haven't heard the thing about the DNC not allowing Bernie to run as a Democrat. I don't think they'd do that, because not even they're that stupid. Let's not say things we might not be able to take back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
I genuinely don't see the value in advertising up-front that you're going to do power-boosting parliamentary moves as opposed to just winning and then doing them. I don't think this is the kind of thing that motivates voters, but it does make a great soundbite against you ("they're just winning so they can change the rules and seize more power!").
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
redreader posted:Apologies if this was covered, but: I read a thing a few months ago saying that the DNC or whoever, would not allow Bernie to run as a democrat? What is going to happen now that he's running? If they didn’t stop Bernie from running in 2016 as a Democrat, they really can’t do that now. Anyway, Bernie is the one who has opted to stay independent. His justification is that Vermont voted for him as an independent and he needs to stay as one to respect that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:55
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:I've had people tell me I'm crazy when I say this might lead to a civil war, but it's easily the biggest structural problem our nation faces and I have no idea how we fix it because lol at the idea of the Senate voluntarily voting itself out of existence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 19:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/cushbomb/status/1091402184493813765
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
redreader posted:Apologies if this was covered, but: I read a thing a few months ago saying that the DNC or whoever, would not allow Bernie to run as a democrat? What is going to happen now that he's running?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I genuinely don't see the value in advertising up-front that you're going to do power-boosting parliamentary moves as opposed to just winning and then doing them. I don't think this is the kind of thing that motivates voters, but it does make a great soundbite against you ("they're just winning so they can change the rules and seize more power!"). The value is in convincing voters you’ll actually fight for your aggressive and meaningful promises and not compromise on something far less. Also the risk is nonexistent since any of the vastly important policies we need will be declared as “Democrats seizing power!!” Should Democratic nominees refuse to take a stand on voting day as a holiday because Republicans call it a power grab? What about PR or DC statehood? What about voter protections? All of those get the same attacks. Hell, the GND and MFA will be attacked along the same lines too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
Shes never going to make it in the primaries. She is completely embarrassing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I genuinely don't see the value in advertising up-front that you're going to do power-boosting parliamentary moves as opposed to just winning and then doing them. I don't think this is the kind of thing that motivates voters, but it does make a great soundbite against you ("they're just winning so they can change the rules and seize more power!"). It does because it gives people important information when deciding whether to support you. If someone won't abolish the fillibuster I won't support them because it doesn't matter how absolutely awesome their ideas are, because they will stand no chance in hell of actually passing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Uh he wasn't attacking Warren. He was attacking the other candidates in that article who seem more hesitant. Fair enough, I didn't click all the way through the entire chain of links. The thing is that you're unilaterally deciding that these widely popular policies are impossible two years before the election. "It's literally impossible to get 60 votes for M4A in 2020" is not, by any means, a given. And even if it were definitely true, "what I'm pushing for stands no chance of passing" is the most poorly-conceived idea of campaign rhetoric I've heard all day. How about "I'll pass it, unless it's blocked by corrupt lawmakers who want to fund their careers by screwing everyday Americans for the sake of pocket-stuffing billionaires who jack up your medical bills so they can skim off a larger portion for themselves"? How about "I'll pass it, but there's a lot of well-funded opposition marching to the orders of industry lobbyists, so elect as many M4A supporters as possible and make sure that anyone who prioritized pharma interests loses their seat"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
Oh. Weird! I totally thought I saw that Bernie announced he was running on Saturday or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The value is in convincing voters you’ll actually fight for your aggressive and meaningful promises and not compromise on something far less. Indeed, the Dems being more open about seizing power in the name of their constituents is a good way to motivate those constituents. People don't like that Congress is inexorably gridlocked, and that nothing good seems to come from it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I genuinely don't see the value in advertising up-front that you're going to do power-boosting parliamentary moves as opposed to just winning and then doing them. I don't think this is the kind of thing that motivates voters, but it does make a great soundbite against you ("they're just winning so they can change the rules and seize more power!"). Yup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ShaneGoldmacher/status/1091413252393893889 Cory sucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Yea making a definite "no I won't abolish private insurance" is a deal breaker. I don't mind being open to whether we keep it or not. But flat out dismissing eliminating it is disqualifying. Not that I was ever going to vote for him in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/ShaneGoldmacher/status/1091414769029074945 Ahaha, even cable news doesn't give a poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
So, question: who would make a good VP pick for Sanders? I don't see anyone else in the field right now that I'd be happy with. I'd like someone under 60 who is at least close to him on progressive issues. Does this person exist?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
It's also a funny one-two strategy that gets tried where first the discussion is "Green New Deal/Medicare For All is impossible because of the Senate Filibuster, so no reason to consider those plans when picking candidates" followed by "it is foolish for candidates to say they'll get rid of the filibuster." So that's exactly why progressive candidates should embrace a willingness to get rid of the filibuster, take executive action, etc. Because if they don't then the conservative wing of the party will use that as proof the policies are impossible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:So, question: who would make a good VP pick for Sanders? I don't see anyone else in the field right now that I'd be happy with. I'd like someone under 60 who is at least close to him on progressive issues. Does this person exist? Abrams
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:So, question: who would make a good VP pick for Sanders? I don't see anyone else in the field right now that I'd be happy with. I'd like someone under 60 who is at least close to him on progressive issues. Does this person exist? Nina Turner
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:So, question: who would make a good VP pick for Sanders? I don't see anyone else in the field right now that I'd be happy with. I'd like someone under 60 who is at least close to him on progressive issues. Does this person exist? Ilhan Omar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Peter Daou Bundy posted:Ilhan Omar. She's not eligible, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Peter Daou Bundy posted:Ilhan Omar. Other considerations aside, wouldn't being a naturalized citizen disqualify her?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
Yeah, that filibuster answer is just plain bad. He might as well say, "I promise to accomplish absolutely nothing as president".
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:28 |
|
|
Public Service Announcement: Any D primary candidate who is pushing any kind of policy agenda but says they don't support ending the filibuster thinks you're an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2019 20:35
|
|