Joe Biden- why?

[Gestopft]

Weird, I cant find any liberals mass protesting it in 2008.

It's almost as though Obama also won the popular vote, and thus would've won by either standard...

[Orbitus]

That must be relative from your political viewpoint.

Clinton and Obama were left of center. Obama got Obamacare passed for instance.

It is a right wing idea, coming from the Heritage Foundation, it is the biggest passage of forced capitalism in the history of the US. Either buy insurance or pay a fine.

- - - Updated - - -

How did he cut medicare? And social security and medicaid? The tax cut has helped a lot of people. It helped me.

It hasn't helped the majority of the US. Most of the people in the country had to pay in after losing a lot of tax credits they had before.

[Felya]

Electoral College: Totally fine for 230+ years but became a problem when Hillary Clinton lost to Trump.

Don’t forget also when Gore lost to Bush. Also, when Romney was winning the popular vote, Trump called for a revolution. Just... FYI...

- - - Updated - - -

It's almost as though Obama also won the popular vote, and thus would've won by either standard...

Just a reminder, Gore also faced this issue. Even Romney faced it, according to Trump:

https://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-ro...ctoral-college

Trump called the Electoral College “a disaster for a democracy … a total sham and a travesty.”

But either Trump or his team was deleting his tweets as fast as he sent them, including two that called for a “revolution.”

One read: “We should have a revolution in this country!”

Another said: “More votes equals a loss...revolution!”

So... there’s that... that did not last well... lol... one of the best Trumpisms.

[Stormspellz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...Compact_Clause

Thats thin even for you and even goes everything the concept of states rights.

But with the activist scotus, they would prob find some way to hold up preventing states from awarding their EC votes to the national popular vote.

[Deletedaccount1]

Thats thin even for you and even goes everything the concept of states rights.

But with the activist scotus, they would prob find some way to hold up preventing states from awarding their EC votes to the national popular vote.

Yeah they would. Which is why the people pushing for the compact understand it is a largely symbolic measure in their fight against the EC.

[Stormspark]

I'm still so ashamed of the Electoral College. I understand that states are close to having legislation passed in 270+ electoral number states that will automatically give their votes to the popular vote winner in an election.

Yep, that's a big step to getting the electoral college abolished. It needs to be...it completely utterly failed at its mandate, the reason that it was supposed to be in place.

[Kokolums]

Biden is a neocon that vote for the Iraq War in 2002. I find it hard to believe he would win the democratic nomination but who knows. We need to see how he fares in fundraising.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, that's a big step to getting the electoral college abolished. It needs to be...it completely utterly failed at its mandate, the reason that it was supposed to be in place.

How would you feel about a 1 world government with no electoral college? Over 50% of the earth's population is in the China-India region, meaning they would basically tell the rest of the world what to do. Would that be fair to you? Or should there be a way for the other regions to have their voice heard?

ATM 15 states with 196 EVs have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. But those are all hardcore democrat states and there isn't enough support outside of them to get close to 270.

On top of that, if it was ever enacted, the Supreme Court may strike down the NPVIC as it could violate the civil rights act of 1965 by discriminating against minorities who may vote a different way compared to the nation.

[Endus]

Weird, I cant find any liberals mass protesting it in 2008.

Let's look back to 2008 and earlier, then, shall we?

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/o...l-college.html
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...l-college.html
https://history.house.gov/Records-an...isting/pm_030/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary...toral-college/
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...9-e3db9761efa7
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/c...magazine_home/
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27283314/n...toral-college/

That's mostly from Bush 43's era, though. What about earlier?

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/23/a...ial-votes.html
https://www.fairvote.org/past_attempts_at_reform

Or, in short, literally the only reason you can't find anything is because you deliberate shut your eyes and made precisely no effort to actually look.

[Michh]

Frankly, fuck Bernie Sanders.

I applauded his run in 2016, his decision to swallow his independence and caucus with the Democrats to try and achieve something.

And then he lost the primary, and demonstrated he'd never had a change of heart, went back to being an Independent, and kept on doing his thing.

Now he's trying to caucus with the Democrats again, and it's become clear that he has only one reason for doing so. Because he thinks he can use their party to help him maybe win the Presidency. He doesn't want to be a Democrat; if he did, he'd have stayed with the Party. He just wants to use them for his own, personal, self-aggrandizement.

Fuck that guy. If he'd stuck with being a Democrat, or ran this time around as an Independent, I wouldn't feel nearly this strongly, but he didn't, and he's not.

There's also no way he's gonna back Warren; he only cares about his own victory. And there's no way Warren will back him; he's not a Democrat and has proven he doesn't want to work within the party unless it's to his benefit. He's only going to split votes and cause problems, and he doesn't give a shit, because he only cares about his own potential for winning. He wants the Presidency as a final feather in his cap before he retires. He's Socialist Trump.

I think you nailed this. I also think he’s mostly in this to elevate his name and chances at making money. No doubt he’d like to win and is playing to win, but I think it’s more about his personal gain. Also fits the Trump comparison too, but trump didn’t care about money as much, but his ego more.

[Orbitus]

I think you nailed this. I also think he’s mostly in this to elevate his name and chances at making money. No doubt he’d like to win and is playing to win, but I think it’s more about his personal gain. Also fits the Trump comparison too, but trump didn’t care about money as much, but his ego more.

How can you say that Trump doesn't care about money? Considering he won't do anything to the Saudis that killed Kashoggi, won't do anything to the Russians that hacked our elections and whatever else they are doing now. He is getting hundreds of millions from the US tax payers from his golf trips that he charges us for, for staying at his properties, he gets hundreds of millions from other countries for them staying at the Trump hotels when he goes to them, even the DC hotel that he shouldn't legally own right now. Just because he isn't taking his measley $400k a year and donating it to programs that he has cut millions from, means nothing. Not when he gets hundreds of millions from tax payers and other countries. This is why all other presidents, divested from everything even if it couldn't be used to make them money and put everything in blind trusts.

[stathwathal]

I think you nailed this. I also think he’s mostly in this to elevate his name and chances at making money. No doubt he’d like to win and is playing to win, but I think it’s more about his personal gain. Also fits the Trump comparison too, but trump didn’t care about money as much, but his ego more.

Wow, someone watches too much TV. Look up how much Sanders earns. Then look up how much literally almost every other senator earns and how much more being corrupt earns you. If he was in it for personal gain don't you think he would take backhanders like everyone else does?

As for him "not being democrat" what the fuck does that mean? You think the Democrat party is about Clinton-era corporatism and faux identity politics? Sanders is what the Democrat always was and should be, it is people like you that destroyed it.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Sanders would be an absolute lame duck President. He would get stone walled at every turn by both parties.

[Draco-Onis]

Sanders would be an absolute lame duck President. He would get stone walled at every turn by both parties.

Not necessarily he can easily weaponize the base and the DNC to force everyone in line like Trump is doing now with republicans and something Obama didn't have the balls to do to get his way.

[Skroe]

Not necessarily he can easily weaponize the base and the DNC to force everyone in line like Trump is doing now with republicans and something Obama didn't have the balls to do to get his way.

And all of it will be stopped by Mitch McConnell, who likely would refuse to confirm any judges, and maybe even cabinet members. He'll have Sanders (well, probably any Democratic President) running a skeleton crew White House.

Winning back the House in 2018 was crucial for the good of the country, but Senate Democrats massively fucked up in the Senate by losing Florida and probably Missouri or Indiana. Mitch McConnell will almost certainly maintain his Senate majority in 2020, and it'll take the kind of Democrat progressives hate to get it back in Red States in 2022 or 2024. And that'll involve doing things like beating Marco Rubio in Florida, or winning seats in North Carolina and Iowa.

Impossible? No. Likely? Not very.

You know my position: I don't give a fig about a conservative agenda at the moment and care much more about meat and potatoes issues of restoring the rule of law, ethical behavior, accountability and anti-corruption in this country than I care about downsizing government. I'll probably get back to that some day, but not anytime soon. Our issues are much more pressing. So take to heart when I say to my Democratic friends, they should be under no illusion that winning the Presidency in 2020 opens the door way to Medicare for all, raising taxes, or anything else on the progressive agenda. Factually, Mitch McConnell will see it die and revel in it.

In my view what Democrats should focus on having obtained the Presidency is making sure future Donald Trumps are impossible. That means things like trying to pass laws that allow the President can be prosecuted, and the Democratic President surrendering many of the vast powers granted by Congress since World War II that Trump has abused.

Like for real... what's this State of Emergency nonsense? Regardless of the border, the President getting to declare one unilaterally is so fragile democracy / developing country, it's a fucking farce that it's on the books here. Things like that are obtainable for the next Democrat, largely because McConnell won't stand in the way of it.

As for the progressive want list... Democrats need to come up with a hell of plan to hold the House in 2022 and 2024, and win Senate Seats both those years. And it will take both those years. And to pass anything, since 60 votes will be out of the question when Mitch McConnell is minority leader, Democrats need to plan to nuke the legislative filibuster. Because the progressive wish list isn't happening without that either. Mitch McConnell simply does not see the need to even consider a consensus on any thing, because fundamentally he doesn't respect Democracy. He'd be right at home in Iran's assembly or the Russian Duma really. He's about power and control.

[NED funded]

Not necessarily he can easily weaponize the base and the DNC to force everyone in line like Trump is doing now with republicans and something Obama didn't have the balls to do to get his way.

No, he can't. People need to realize that the main difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is that the former is an alliance of convenience between its members. A lot of democrats represent very conservative states and when pushed they WILL get voted out by a republican. Take the case of Russ Feingold who after voting for the ACA he was voted out by his republican opponent Ron Johnson. Like where do you think the majority of the votes of the ACA came from? Primary people in very blue places if you want, but Sanders can't weaponize the base, his base probably doesn't even live in the places necessary to get the majority.

[Draco-Onis]

No, he can't. People need to realize that the main difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is that the former is an alliance of convenience between its members. A lot of democrats represent very conservative states and when pushed they WILL get voted out by a republican. Take the case of Russ Feingold who after voting for the ACA he was voted out by his republican opponent Ron Johnson. Like where do you think the majority of the votes of the ACA came from? Primary people in very blue places if you want, but Sanders can't weaponize the base, his base probably doesn't even live in the places necessary to get the majority.

Neither does some of the people that Trump pushes around like Susan Collins the threat of a primary can be very effective. Also most of these blue dogs have been voted out aside from Joe Manchin who isn't really a democrat which shows the foolishness of this past strategy of bipartisanship to keep seats.

[Skroe]

Neither does some of the people that Trump pushes around like Susan Collins the threat of a primary can be very effective. Also most of these blue dogs have been voted out aside from Joe Manchin who isn't really a democrat which shows the foolishness of this past strategy of bipartisanship to keep seats.

And yet, without the likes of Joe Manchin, Democrats have no hope of winning back the Senate.


[img]https://media.graytvinc.com/images/810*455/1280x720_81018C00-ZDPXM.jpg[/img]
Keep in mind since this, Democrats have lost Florida, Missouri, Indiana and North Dakota. But they gained Nevada and Arizona.

In 2020 they're going to lose Alabama. So let's say they have a baseline of 47. They need to get to 50 or 51. So 3-4

Their pickup opportunities are Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona (2020) and Maine.

Let's go down the list.

Maine, you have to beat Susan Collins. Possible? Maybe. Doable? Unlikely. She's a ferocious politician in her state. Worth trying but I wouldn't count on it. Also do able only by a centrist or conservative Democrat.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are potentials... but probably only with Blue Dog Democrats. In Wisconsin, Ron Johnson beat progressive Russ Feingold handily in 2016. Pennsylvania requires a Democrat who can win in Republican counties.

Colorado... Democrats have a great shot at taking out Corey Gardner next year. But they're going to do it with a pro-gun "libertarian" Democrat, not a progressive.

Arizona... Mark Kelly has a good shot of winning in 2020... but he's again, a blue dog.

So where exactly do you see ideologically purist progressive Democrats winning? Because these are your options? North Carolina? Not happening. Florida? Hell no. Louisiana? Good one. Iowa? Gonna take a blue dog to get Ernst out.

This thing you say is something progressive Democrats keep saying but the map simply does not support it.

Oh and for the record, keep in mind that after the 2020 Census, due to population trends, safe Blue states will be losing House seats and electoral votes in favor of red states, regardless of what those districts look like.



Which means that in order to hold a House Majority in the future that starts in 2022, it means more Blue Dogs. It means winning in new districts in North Carolina, Florida, Texas, Arizona, Colorado and Montana, and not thinking you can win just by holding New York, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania and California districts.

This is not politics. This is math. Democrats have their majority in the House because of blue dogs, just as Mitch McConnell has his majority in the Senate due to purple and blue state Republicans.

[Draco-Onis]

And yet, without the likes of Joe Manchin, Democrats have no hope of winning back the Senate.


[img]https://media.graytvinc.com/images/810*455/1280x720_81018C00-ZDPXM.jpg[/img]
Keep in mind since this, Democrats have lost Florida, Missouri, Indiana and North Dakota. But they gained Nevada and Arizona.

In 2020 they're going to lose Alabama. So let's say they have a baseline of 47. They need to get to 50 or 51. So 3-4

Their pickup opportunities are Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona (2020) and Maine.

Let's go down the list.

Maine, you have to beat Susan Collins. Possible? Maybe. Doable? Unlikely. She's a ferocious politician in her state. Worth trying but I wouldn't count on it. Also do able only by a centrist or conservative Democrat.

Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are potentials... but probably only with Blue Dog Democrats. In Wisconsin, Ron Johnson beat progressive Russ Feingold handily in 2016. Pennsylvania requires a Democrat who can win in Republican counties.

Colorado... Democrats have a great shot at taking out Corey Gardner next year. But they're going to do it with a pro-gun "libertarian" Democrat, not a progressive.

Arizona... Mark Kelly has a good shot of winning in 2020... but he's again, a blue dog.

So where exactly do you see ideologically purist progressive Democrats winning? Because these are your options? North Carolina? Not happening. Florida? Hell no. Louisiana? Good one. Iowa? Gonna take a blue dog to get Ernst out.

This thing you say is something progressive Democrats keep saying but the map simply does not support it.

Oh and for the record, keep in mind that after the 2020 Census, due to population trends, safe Blue states will be losing House seats and electoral votes in favor of red states, regardless of what those districts look like.



Which means that in order to hold a House Majority in the future that starts in 2022, it means more Blue Dogs. It means winning in new districts in North Carolina, Florida, Texas, Arizona, Colorado and Montana, and not thinking you can win just by holding New York, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania and California districts.

This is not politics. This is math. Democrats have their majority in the House because of blue dogs, just as Mitch McConnell has his majority in the Senate due to purple and blue state Republicans.

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree, what does winning mean to you? it seems you are focused on kicking out Trump and rolling back executive power but let's be frank once democrats have power they are not very likely to do that. What will happen is they will write Trump off as a one shot something that won't happen again and go back to the status quo which is what Joe Biden will do. After Biden runs his term the problems with the conservative base remain making them easy pickings for the next Trump who won't be as obvious, stupid or clumsy.

[Skroe]

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree, what does winning mean to you? it seems you are focused on kicking out Trump and rolling back executive power but let's be frank once democrats have power they are not very likely to do that. What will happen is they will write Trump off as a one shot something that won't happen again and go back to the status quo which is what Joe Biden will do. After Biden runs his term the problems with the conservative base remain making them easy pickings for the next Trump who won't be as obvious, stupid or clumsy.

No, because I'm not talking about any policy goals. I'm talking about, objectively, getting to 50 or 51 votes to do anything (insert for X). Democrats could have a platform of giving every American a free box of Lucky Charms... it's entirely irrelevant to the point being made.

Without 50 or 51 votes, Democrats will be unable to pass their Lucky Charms-For-All bill.

Democrats cannot get 50 or 51 votes without winning in places where the ideological purity you're asking for does not get Democrats elected - and it's not for lack of trying by the way.

So how do you square these two things? How do you solve the equation? Lets say you got 40 which you like, +4 you tolerate to varying degrees, + 3 "Joe Manchins". You're at 47. You need 3 + the Presidency or 4. Where, specifically, on the map, do these ideological pure progressives come from that don't already have an reliable Democrat?

And remember: there is no policy here. This is electoral math.

[Draco-Onis]

No, because I'm not talking about any policy goals. I'm talking about, objectively, getting to 50 or 51 votes to do anything (insert for X). Democrats could have a platform of giving every American a free box of Lucky Charms... it's entirely irrelevant to the point being made.

Without 50 or 51 votes, Democrats will be unable to pass their Lucky Charms-For-All bill.

Democrats cannot get 50 or 51 votes without winning in places where the ideological purity you're asking for does not get Democrats elected - and it's not for lack of trying by the way.

So how do you square these two things? How do you solve the equation? Lets say you got 40 which you like, +4 you tolerate to varying degrees, + 3 "Joe Manchins". You're at 47. You need 3 + the Presidency or 4. Where, specifically, on the map, do these ideological pure progressives come from.

And remember: there is no policy here. This is electoral math.

I think people greatly overestimate the need for the Joe Manchin of the world, how did politicians win before? presenting ideas and defending them look at the ACA how different would it have played out if the democrats countered instead of hiding in their holes and hope it will pass. The progressive agenda is popular but they can't fight republicans and establishment democrats at the same time, I am fine with taking the loss in 2020 if it means we destroy the system that allows people like Donald Trump to take power.

The fact is with a Joe Manchin we are still fucked because he will vote with republicans and McConnell like he did with Kavanaugh. What's the point of electing more Joe Manchins? I do not want the democratic party to continue on this path of being republican lite aside from social issues, if you want conservatism back then purge the cancer that made republicans become the Trump party.