|
DEEP STATE PLOT posted:biden not running and dems falling in line behind harris might be the only realistic possibility worse than biden running again There are a lot of governors who are not going to step aside for Harris. It will be a real fight if Biden bows out, and he might even have a real challenger if he does not like Carter did with as unpopular as he is.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
Rigel posted:There are a lot of governors who are not going to step aside for Harris. It will be a real fight if Biden bows out, and he might even have a real challenger if he does not like Carter did with as unpopular as he is. Pritzker's already testing the waters and not waiting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
can we please have AOC? 😞
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
Rigel posted:There are a lot of governors who are not going to step aside for Harris. It will be a real fight if Biden bows out, and he might even have a real challenger if he does not like Carter did with as unpopular as he is. Gavbot has been programmed his entire operating cycle for this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
I don't doubt that Harris would face challengers. But that could possibly make her stronger, if she's the only Black candidate and one of only a couple female candidates (I think Warren might run again, but prolly not any of the others). Kamala vs. the White-Guy Governors (and I'd add Polis to the list) would give her an idpol edge. (Also, a lot's going to ride on which states the DNC ends up selecting for the early primaries. IL, e.g., would be Pritzker's dream.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
If we’re just tossing names into the pot then Roy Cooper is basically centrist libs dream. Won re-election at the same time trump carried the state, has generally come down on the right side of dem idpol issues, puts NC and keeps GA in play etc FizFashizzle fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Jun 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:13
|
|
|
Speaking of Harris, we've got an update on the administration's plans for ensuring women's access to abortion: https://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1541516323217444868 Still seems like they're without a plan, despite it being several days after the decision and two months after the decision was leaked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:20
|
|
|
Dems still in the "Hillary is going to win so it won't matter" mode years later, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
B B posted:Still seems like they're without a plan, despite it being several days after the decision and two months after the decision was leaked. If I was a cold, immoral, calculating rear end in a top hat, I would deliberately choose to have no plan pre-election and tell the voters that if they don't vote blue they are screwed, while also telling everyone that the GOP will likely go for a national ban on abortion and gay marriage next if they don't vote for us. We'll fix everything after victory, but if we don't win, well then I guess we just let Jesusland take away a lot of human rights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:26
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I don't doubt that Harris would face challengers. I am heartily sick of 'because she's the black candidate' or 'because she's the woman candidate'. Frankly, I don't give two shits about what color her skin is or what she carries between her legs. I care if she is the best candidate, and is she going to be a transformative candidate who's going to get poo poo done, or pander to various groups.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
wth does this word salad mean?quote:"In terms of the states, we also have to recognize that we are 130 odd days away from an election, which is going to include Senate races" Honest to god, she's the worst off-the-cuff speaker I've ever heard. At least her boss makes amusing faux pas but her stuff is just nonsensical.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I am heartily sick of 'because she's the black candidate' or 'because she's the woman candidate'. Calm down, friendo; I was just gaming poo poo out according to the Big Lib Minds + Clyburn's pre-game endorsement. Did you read the Greenfield Politico piece I linked? There will be plenty of actual occasions for which to get actually mad about libs using idpol as a fig leaf. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:wth does this word salad mean? I came up with two possible interpretations, both of them bad. Either "eh no reason to go through a lot of work and effort on this because if we win a resounding victory then we just vote our rights back into place in congress." Or possibly, "uhhh, lets calm down the rhetoric about Biden taking bold action, that might hurt some Senate races. We'll do stuff later, trust me". Even if either explanation is true, you don't loving say that out loud where people can write it down and report it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I'm trying to think. In the last 30 years we've had 18 years of democratic leadership and 12 of Republican. What are the big signature policy changes the democrats can point to, and what are the big ones that the republicans can point to? DACA, Paris Agreement, didn't Biden revert some Trump era anti net neutrality stuff? To be fair I haven't kept up with all the tangles of that issue. One issue that becomes apparent is that, while Democrats do actually do things, they aren't as big as we want. For instance, the recent executive order to prevent federal funds from being used for conversion therapy. Like, okay, that's good, and Republicans probably wouldn't have done that, but it's not something I can get excited about or brag to people about to try to motivate people to vote dem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:31
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Oh, I agree. Fetterman’s not that old but sadly he’s not in the best condition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:32
|
|
|
B B posted:Speaking of Harris, we've got an update on the administration's plans for ensuring women's access to abortion: Their plan is do nothing, and ride it to big donations and bigger majorities. This is a foolproof plan that cannot fail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I'm trying to think. In the last 30 years we've had 18 years of democratic leadership and 12 of Republican. What are the big signature policy changes the democrats can point to, and what are the big ones that the republicans can point to? The Iraq War authorization and the Patriot Act were both passed by a Democratic Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I came up with two possible interpretations, both of them bad. Either "eh no reason to go through a lot of work and effort on this because if we win a resounding victory then we just vote our rights back into place in congress." Or possibly, "uhhh, lets calm down the rhetoric about Biden taking bold action, that might hurt some Senate races. We'll do stuff later, trust me". Even if either explanation is true, you don't loving say that out loud where people can write it down and report it. According to the transcript, she was saying: A) That with abortion being regulated at the state level, that it is important to elect state-level reps that are pro-choice and B) That the Senate needs a majority who support codifying abortion rights at the national level and appointing pro-choice Justices alongside the state changes to make sure the changes last. But, even in the full transcript, she is aimlessly meandering and stopping for different non-sequiturs. It takes almost a full page of text to translate into the summary above.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:DACA, Paris Agreement, didn't Biden revert some Trump era anti net neutrality stuff? To be fair I haven't kept up with all the tangles of that issue. One issue that becomes apparent is that, while Democrats do actually do things, they aren't as big as we want. For instance, the recent executive order to prevent federal funds from being used for conversion therapy. Like, okay, that's good, and Republicans probably wouldn't have done that, but it's not something I can get excited about or brag to people about to try to motivate people to vote dem. There's also the element where any democratic president in the modern day has spent more than half their effort restoring the federal government after Reagan or Bush gutted much of it or Trump gutted every last non-evil agency. "Our government is once again capable of a semblance of functionality" is important, good, and not exactly the sort of thing that makes these lists. Unless it manifests as something more immediately visible like daca, or Biden's minimum wage improvements, or what have you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I came up with two possible interpretations, both of them bad. Either "eh no reason to go through a lot of work and effort on this because if we win a resounding victory then we just vote our rights back into place in congress." Or possibly, "uhhh, lets calm down the rhetoric about Biden taking bold action, that might hurt some Senate races. We'll do stuff later, trust me". Even if either explanation is true, you don't loving say that out loud where people can write it down and report it. I figured it was the latter just because that has historically been a frequent dem excuse to not do things. But that's just me extrapolating from some jumbled nonsense!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I came up with two possible interpretations, both of them bad. Either "eh no reason to go through a lot of work and effort on this because if we win a resounding victory then we just vote our rights back into place in congress." Or possibly, "uhhh, lets calm down the rhetoric about Biden taking bold action, that might hurt some Senate races. We'll do stuff later, trust me". Even if either explanation is true, you don't loving say that out loud where people can write it down and report it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I came up with two possible interpretations, both of them bad. Either "eh no reason to go through a lot of work and effort on this because if we win a resounding victory then we just vote our rights back into place in congress." Or possibly, "uhhh, lets calm down the rhetoric about Biden taking bold action, that might hurt some Senate races. We'll do stuff later, trust me". Even if either explanation is true, you don't loving say that out loud where people can write it down and report it. Or it could be 'we're focusing all our attention on retaining the Senate so Republicans don't get hold of both House and Senate.' Either way, yeah its ridiculous that they're just concentrating on elections and not still trying to do poo poo with what power they have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:41
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Real talk: what would it take for Pelosi to lose her speaker (soon minority leader) status? I can’t imagine anybody but the DCCist of the DCC think she’s doing great. Enough shame to compel her to step down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:42
|
|
|
More from the Bash/Kamala interview. Neither Biden nor Kamala will even call for the Senate to end the filibuster or do a special carveout to codify Roe: https://twitter.com/RonBrownstein/status/1541520469395771392
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Real talk: what would it take for Pelosi to lose her speaker (soon minority leader) status? I can’t imagine anybody but the DCCist of the DCC think she’s doing great. Who knows with the minority leader position since that only requires a majority of the caucus and she could then ignore the progressives. If the Dems somehow kept the house though, she already made a deal with progressives agreeing to step down after this year, and she had to make that agreement (along with giving AOC and other progressives good committee seats) to just barely scrape together the votes to be speaker for these last two years. They aren't going to let her hold the gavel next year. During the speaker vote I'm pretty sure some progressives actually withheld their vote for a bit just to prove to her that they could deny Pelosi the gavel so she then had no choice but to deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Easily, the one that has a gun in their home: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M21-3762 Statistics don't map neatly onto people and they don't account for a country in rapid decline with fascist gangs hunting minorities for sport or police knocking on your door to arrest you for miscarriage. I can't believe we're still arguing if people should arm themselves for protection when half the population has less bodily autonomy than a corpse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
B B posted:More from the Bash/Kamala interview. Neither Biden nor Kamala will even call for the Senate to end the filibuster or do a special carveout to codify Roe: They do not care to fix it is the clearest read I can get here. It’s literally not a pressing issue for them so they’ve decided the bar they have to reach to care about it publicly besides some Sad Tweets is impossibly high.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Real talk: what would it take for Pelosi to lose her speaker (soon minority leader) status? I can’t imagine anybody but the DCCist of the DCC think she’s doing great. She has an iron grip on the position so the answer is either whenever she gets bored of it or those opposed to her leadership managing to keep their spines for longer than a day FizFashizzle posted:Enough shame to compel her to step down. I don't think Pelosi has ever been ashamed of anything in her entire life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
selec posted:They do not care to fix it is the clearest read I can get here. It’s literally not a pressing issue for them so they’ve decided the bar they have to reach to care about it publicly besides some Sad Tweets is impossibly high.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
B B posted:More from the Bash/Kamala interview. Neither Biden nor Kamala will even call for the Senate to end the filibuster or do a special carveout to codify Roe. They aren't going to publicly announce that they plan to try to change the rules again if they win enough seats to make Manchin and Sinema irrelevant. There's no political reason to come right out and say that before the election.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:56
|
|
|
Rigel posted:They aren't going to publicly announce that they plan to try to change the rules again if they win enough seats to make Manchin and Sinema irrelevant. There's no political reason to come right out and say that before the election. Oh yeah, I had forgotten that the Democrats play fourth-dimensional chess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
B B posted:Oh yeah, I had forgotten that the Democrats play fourth-dimensional chess. This is basic checkers. For some reason idiot moderate voters don't like the idea of eliminating the filibuster. They aren't going to just giftwrap the GOP an issue to punch back with. edit: this is probably drifting into electoralism chat without new or interesting content. I'll stop. Rigel fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Jun 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:00
|
|
|
Rigel posted:They aren't going to publicly announce that they plan to try to change the rules again if they win enough seats to make Manchin and Sinema irrelevant. There's no political reason to come right out and say that before the election. …except to fire up people who actually want to be able to get an abortion? There are lots of good political reasons to tell people you’ll fight for them. You are out here theorycrafting a reason why promising no details is a great platform for a party who has appeared to be caught off guard about a decision they’ve known was coming for two months and who cannot even exercise the party discipline to keep members in line, and we all see them failing in real time. “There is no reason to give voters hope that if you win you’ll know what to do with power” is an unorthodox approach to campaigning but hell it’s 2022 and nothing they’ve done so far has worked, maybe leaning into that will turn out, somehow?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Isn't the whole "leave the country" thing just unbelievably privileged nonsense and completely out of the possible reach of the people who are actually going to be effected by this? Remember when Bush won and all the rich white libs were about to move to Canada, and we all dismissed them as idiots, and did any of them actually do it? What's different this time around? On the one hand, yes, but on the other hand, millions of migrants and refugees in shittier situations do it annually. So it is privileged to tell people to uproot their lives and the lives of their families if they have to because it's extremely difficult and harrowing but then if that's your only practical option in the immediate future for escaping oppression, what else are you gonna do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Isn't the whole "leave the country" thing just unbelievably privileged nonsense and completely out of the possible reach of the people who are actually going to be effected by this? Remember when Bush won and all the rich white libs were about to move to Canada, and we all dismissed them as idiots, and did any of them actually do it? What's different this time around? That's the truth of most situations that cause people to flee a country for their safety. I don't know if I'm going to call it privileged but it's a fact of life right now that the wealthy and middle class leave and try to rebuild lives to restore what they lost while the poor are often just stuck. Edit: If there is any part of that advice I object to it's when it's the only advice or assistance provided or offered. "Take care of yourself" has an unspoken "because I'm not going to" and that further atomization can't be a path to fixing things. American individualism got us into this mess and it won't get us out. We should be willing to take risks we're comfortable with to protect others. We should be safe but once we have safety we should use that to help others. Just getting out and being safe is "Got mine oh I'm so sorry that's just awful". Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jun 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:wth does this word salad mean? ngl, I've gotten incredibly cynical with the Dems ability and willingness to fix anything, so I find myself interpreting everything they say in a totally negative way. This reads to me that they can't work on restoring people's rights because there is campaigning to do. Or worse, they can't fix it until they're done using it as a cudgel to get people to the polls to vote for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
B B posted:More from the Bash/Kamala interview. Neither Biden nor Kamala will even call for the Senate to end the filibuster or do a special carveout to codify Roe: They almost certainly aren't going to do that anyway, so it is probably a moot point, but if you watch the actual clip, Harris didn't actually say that. That was Bash talking on CNN hyping the full interview release and she said that as her characterization of Harris's response to "Why can't the Senate codify Roe right now?" with "We don't currently appear to have the votes." She's saying they don't have the votes to do so now, not that they never would support it. Barring a miracle, the Dems aren't getting 3-4 Senate seats this election, so it is mostly a moot point practically anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lKNTOv3XQE Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jun 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:They almost certainly aren't going to do that anyway, so it is probably a moot point, but if you watch the actual clip, Harris didn't actually say that. That was Bash talking on CNN hyping the full interview release and she said that as her characterization of Harris's response to "Why can't the Senate codify Roe right now?" with "We don't currently appear to have the votes." She's saying they don't have the votes to do so now, not that they never would support it. Barring a miracle, the Dems aren't getting 3-4 Senate seats this election, so it is mostly a moot point practically anyway. Thanks for the correction; I don't know if this had been uploaded yet when I made my post, and I don't have cable. Watching now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I would love to think that Harris could be talked out of it with a lucrative lobbyist or Netflix deal or something (CA gov if Newsom goes for the presidency?) but I have no idea where her hubris-o-meter is these days, or where it'll be by 2024. You’ll get Clinton/Harris and you’ll love it Goddamnit Comedy option Bernie runs again
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:43 |
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:can we please have AOC? 😞 So you would prefer a figurehead POTUS that would get less done than Biden can in this environment? She sure would screech a lot about good things that need to be accomplished but she has next to no allies in Congress willing to go as far as would need to be done. Great way to show how ineffective Progressives can be when they should continue building support instead. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2022 23:31
|
|
