Mega-Thread: Democratic 2020 Primaries

[Edge-]

And as the leader of the party the president gets it done.

Not always, especially if Sanders is pushing for things that he want that would put a lot of seats in jeopardy.

Again, the presidential budget is a perfect example.

Every year the president's office shares their budget plan with Congress. But, because Congress has the sole authority to set the federal budget, both parties regularly completely ignore the president's budget plans whenever they want.

Why? Because sure, Trump may be the leader of the GOP right now and Obama was the leader of the DNC and they have certain priorities. But those rarely match up with legislative priorities and large swaths of both budgets have been, and are, treated as little more than a polite suggestion that they can pretend they haven't even heard.

The president isn't a dictator.

[cubby]

Sorry, I wasn't clear in the comments to Skroe that you commented on. I've mostly ignored his Bernie whinging after the first few salvos to be honest, and was primarily talking about his "We're taking your president away from you" stuff (though there are other examples).

I'm not going to comment on Bernie Bro nonsense because it's been addressed thoroughly at this point and shouldn't be a relevant part of a conversation among intelligent people.

And to be honest, we've been over the whole "vote blue no matter who" stuff before as well. As the primary marches on and it becomes increasingly likely that Bernie will get the nomination (hell a week from now it should be clear if this is true or not), I damn well hope all the people that have been screaming about "vote blue no matter who" and "party unity" actually fucking mean it and aren't massive hypocrites. (The side point here is that I remain unconvinced that this concern about people not voting for whoever the Dem candidate solely exists within the Bernie camp)

Bah, my bad.

We haven't really seen a lot of people reluctant of vote blue no matter who outside of Bernie Bros people (Yang's people had a huge tic in that poll from awhlie ago, so there is that). Obviously each candidate has their "fringe" followers, but Sanders' seems to have more...a LOT more. We see that in this thread even.

[Draco-Onis]

Not always, especially if Sanders is pushing for things that he want that would put a lot of seats in jeopardy.

Again, the presidential budget is a perfect example.

Every year the president's office shares their budget plan with Congress. But, because Congress has the sole authority to set the federal budget, both parties regularly completely ignore the president's budget plans whenever they want.

Why? Because sure, Trump may be the leader of the GOP right now and Obama was the leader of the DNC and they have certain priorities. But those rarely match up with legislative priorities and large swaths of both budgets have been, and are, treated as little more than a polite suggestion that they can pretend they haven't even heard.

The president isn't a dictator.

Do you honestly think that if Trump put real pressure on the GOP they wouldn't pass his budget? so far these budgets seem to be feel good exercises for people of his administration he doesn't even tweet about it that's how you know he doesn't care. The president isn't a dictator but if he has enough political capital like 85%+ approval rating with the base his party has no choice but to fall in line.

[Levelfive]

so all you have to do is win at everything and change the rules and then you'll never have to deal with the opposing party.
so easy!
then when they inevitably win back power they will do the same to you.

If you keep making up both sides of the argument rather than deal with what I've actually said, there's really no need to reply to me since you've got it covered in your imagination. The model where one side plays by the rules and the other does not is unsustainable, and if Democrats allow it to continue without meting out consequences for Republicans, we will be ushered out of any path to the table at all.

[starlord]

If you keep making up both sides of the argument rather than deal with what I've actually said, there's really no need to reply to me since you've got it covered in your imagination. The model where one side plays by the rules and the other does not is unsustainable, and if Democrats allow it to continue without meting out consequences for Republicans, we will be ushered out of any path to the table at all.

so you think they will or won't win enough seats to not have to deal with the opposing party?
and what consequences will they be able to mete out? giving repubs carte blanche when they are in power isn't really a consequence.

[Zan15]

I think you misread me. I'm pro-Universal health care.

For me individually its a cheaper plan, an easier plan, and save's me a lot of hassle, aggregation and anxiety. On top of that its health care I don't have to struggle for.

ah my bad. sorry

[Elegiac]

And as the leader of the party the president gets it done.

False. This is not a parliamentary system.

[Zan15]

Why do people think healthcare will cost the same as it does now if we have universal/single payer/M4A?

welp it all depends on how its implemented really....

I guess technically it could be anything if both sides have to "negotiate" the parts they want, and whom they want to pay for it all.....and what powers of negotiation the republicans want to give a M4A system (past rules show they don't want them to have the power for some fucking crazy ass reason)

If the system runs like every other nationalized healthcare then there is no way it won't cost less.

[Edge-]

Do you honestly think that if Trump put real pressure on the GOP they wouldn't pass his budget?

Based on history and what's happened the past 3 years, yes. This is standard.

[Levelfive]

so you think they will or won't win enough seats to not have to deal with the opposing party?
and what consequences will they be able to mete out? giving repubs carte blanche when they are in power isn't really a consequence.

Did someone say they would not have to deal with the opposing party or are you being deliberately dishonest? I've linked this to you before; you should try reading it: https://www.vox.com/2018/5/1/1725886...trump-election

[Omega10]

so all you have to do is win at everything and change the rules and then you'll never have to deal with the opposing party.
so easy!
then when they inevitably win back power they will do the same to you.

For President Biden to get anything done, he will have to play hardball with the Senate.

For President Sanders to get anything done, he will have to play hardball with the Senate.

The republicans play hardball regardless. They are creating the new rules now. We need to play by them just as ruthlessly. Regardless of whether Biden or Sanders is President.

[kaid]

Interesting. And I agree re your SC and Super Tuesday analysis. Biden, even with a big SC win, is struggling. Sanders seems to be the candidate to beat right now. Can Sanders do well enough to clinch the nomination and not have the DNC be contested?

I wonder who they are looking at for VP.

Bidens biggest issue I think is going to be running out of money. Until/unless he puts up some HUGE win in SC he is really hand to mouth fund raising as he has basically been in coronation mode and not really ramping up his money machine. I think even warren probably is better suited for going the distance money wise than biden is. So if biden can't show the money guys he does have something fast they are going to aim that money somewhere else.

[starlord]

Did someone say they would not have to deal with the opposing party or are you being deliberately dishonest? I've linked this to you before; you should try reading it: https://www.vox.com/2018/5/1/1725886...trump-election

isn't that what you meant by continually handwaving that legislation requires compromise on many levels?

- - - Updated - - -

For President Biden to get anything done, he would have to play hardball with the Senate.

For President Sanders to get anything done, he would have to play hardball with the Senate.

The republicans play hardball regardless. They are creating the new rules now. We need to play by them just as ruthlessly. Regardless of whether Biden or Sanders is President.

biden's not promising to disrupt a large part of the economy for something that would also potentially jeopardize many of his allies.

[Levelfive]

isn't that what you meant by continually handwaving that legislation requires compromise on many levels?

No. We'll definitely have to deal with the other party, and if, unlike Republicans, we continue to misunderstand the gravity of what's at stake as they do an end run around us and structurally maneuver us out of power, they'll make sure they never have to deal with us at all.

Per the article:

"We’re in the midst of a slow-motion unraveling of democracy in this country. If we don’t return the favor with some of this procedural war stuff, the only other option is to continue watching the other side do it. That’s not an acceptable option in my opinion.

I don’t think we can restore order by respecting rules that are not respected by Republicans. I do believe we’ll have to find a way to end this procedural war at some point, but now is not that time. Republicans need to know what it’s like to be on the other end of normative violations. The Republicans are behaving like a party that believes it will never be held accountable for anything they’re doing, and so far they haven’t been.

That has to change before we can fix this mess."

[starlord]

No. We'll definitely have to deal with the other party, and if, unlike Republicans, we continue to misunderstand the gravity of what's at stake as they do an end run around us and structurally maneuver us out of power, they'll make sure they never have to deal with us at all.

Per the article:

"We’re in the midst of a slow-motion unraveling of democracy in this country. If we don’t return the favor with some of this procedural war stuff, the only other option is to continue watching the other side do it. That’s not an acceptable option in my opinion.

I don’t think we can restore order by respecting rules that are not respected by Republicans. I do believe we’ll have to find a way to end this procedural war at some point, but now is not that time. Republicans need to know what it’s like to be on the other end of normative violations. The Republicans are behaving like a party that believes it will never be held accountable for anything they’re doing, and so far they haven’t been.

That has to change before we can fix this mess."

i don't think "eliminating any power the minority party holds" is a good solution for "ending procedural war" in the same way as "if everyone is dead then there will be no war." it cuts both ways. there's a lot of steps between "repubs take advantage of non-codified rules" and "eliminate the rules entirely."

[Levelfive]

i don't think "eliminating any power the minority party holds" is a good solution for "ending procedural war" in the same way as "if everyone is dead then there will be no war." it cuts both ways. there's a lot of steps between "repubs take advantage of non-codified rules" and "eliminate the rules entirely."

First how about you have a bare modicum of decency and stop mischaracterizing my arguments. Second, out of curiosity, what do you think a good solution is? You have an awful lot of criticism and demands for everyone else--what are your good ideas to solve this? Keep "compromising"? Cause that's working out great.

[TheramoreIsTheBomb]

cant wait to vote tuesday so we can get down to the real business with getting the trash out of DC

[starlord]

First how about you have a bare modicum of decency and stop mischaracterizing my arguments. Second, out of curiosity, what do you think a good solution is? You have an awful lot of criticism and demands for everyone else--what are your good ideas to solve this? Keep "compromising"? Cause that's working out great.

so are we or are we not going to have to compromise with the repubs or dems who don't necessarily agree? the article you wanted me to read said to eliminate the filibuster.
that takes out a big check the minority has on the majority, and it won't just be a blow to repubs but to the dems as well. why not, you know, codify the procedures instead?
every time you shift your argument you say i am "mischaracterizing" it.

[Draco-Onis]

Based on history and what's happened the past 3 years, yes. This is standard.

Ignore the other part but my point was clear you can count with one hand the number of times the GOP has said no to Trump on something he tweets frantically about.

- - - Updated - - -

False. This is not a parliamentary system.

Semantics but the point is the same the president has enough political power to pressure his party to what he wants as many presidents have.

[Edge-]

Ignore the other part but my point was clear you can count with one hand the number of times the GOP has said no to Trump on something he tweets frantically about.

For the most part, yes.

And do you know what you can't count on any hands?

The number of times the GOP has taken the presidents budget and tried to push it through. Because despite pushes, they don't have to do shit on that front.