Jacksonville decided to reopen their beaches with "social distancing rules in place". It's been open for 30 minutes. Here's a photo. Marvel at the space between everyone:
Would you agree (generally) that the reason Governors like Whitmer, Cuomo and Inslee are getting such high marks from their constituents compared to Trump is that, even though they haven't been perfect, they aren't attempting to bullshit anyone and are leveling with people in a sober and honest way?? I've seen Whitmer alot the last few days, and she hardly strikes me as some kind of liberal ideologue. To put it another way, I seriously doubt most Michigan residents feel they need to "liberated" from Gretchen the Tyrant.
Even Whitmer is talking about opening things up now though. She's getting together with other Midwestern governors (Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota and Illinois) to come up with a plan. She said she'll know more early next week. Should be interesting...
Jacksonville decided to reopen their beaches with "social distancing rules in place". It's been open for 30 minutes. Here's a photo. Marvel at the space between everyone:
There actually is a cure for having stupid policymakers. And this kind of nihilistic fatalism, especially when voiced by conservatives, is also part of the problem. Neither party in America is perfect, nor have they ever been. But right now, one party is disproportionately more stupid and dangerous than the other.
What passes for conservatism now is just religious fundamentalism anymore. I've lost my appetite for it myself. I can't really stomach the Democratic Party and their identity politics either though, and the Libertarians are going off the deep-end now too. I think I'm just going to write-in Bernie Sanders in November as my protest vote. Nobody else appeals to me...
Now this. Is anybody surprised? I'm not sure if I believe it for the same reason I wasn't sure about the Kavanaugh situation but Holy Hell, I can't believe anybody wants to run for political office anymore!
That wasn't the allegation. The Fox News story accepted the virus was natural, but said that it was being studied in the lab at Wuhan and got spread as a result of lax safety precautions.
I said before I did not believe the US government had any reason to believe that story and I did subsequently see a statement from an intelligence official confirming that's the case. Since no-one actually knows the route to the first infection it's not possible to prove any particular theory right or wrong. What annoys me about the way it's being handled though is the US government's use of conspiracy theories and whispering campaigns.
It's not surprising that some individuals resort to this sort of tactic - that's been done for ever. The problem though is this sort of thing used to be done unofficially because people knew they should be ashamed of it. Giving the tactic an official nod of recognition shouldn't of course be a surprise to me - it's just part of Trump's wider campaign against the idea that there is any sort of objective truth in the world. For a little while it did seem as though Trump was struggling to get round the fact that a virus doesn't care whether what he says is true or not. However, he now appears to be back on balance and ready to work around that by proclaiming that anything that happens that's contrary to things he's said before is the fault of (insert name here).
Another Biden article. Funny how the MeToo movement is eerily silent about this. This one is from The Cut, which when I looked it up has a bias to the left, so likely not a right-wing hit job article.
Another Biden article. Funny how the MeToo movement is eerily silent about this. This one is from The Cut, which when I looked it up has a bias to the left, so likely not a right-wing hit job article.
The Biden sexual assault allegations have been running around now for a few weeks. They are mostly getting traction in right wing media sources and in progressive publications that were overtly Pro-Sanders.
For the record - I'm not dismissing their potential validity or anything, but just remaking upon why you may not have seen a whole lot of detail about them before now (unless you were steeping yourself in those news outlets).
His "handsiness" is also pretty well known. Unfortunately, left twitter abdicated some of their ability to influence here because they went off the deep end and tried to play up every apparent contact he has with any women (like a picture I saw of him holding his grandaughter's hand, for example).
Notably, Tara Reade filed a police report in 1993 making that same allegation--it's just that the 1993 documentation doesn't name names. It doesn't refer to Biden specifically, but that police report corroborates the event. It doesn't fit Biden's historical "handsiness" to a tee, exactly, but I think it's credible. I'd call it plausible, actually.
It likely won't change my vote in the fall, simply because there's always a 1 in a million chance of a vote tipping the balance of an election, and while I strongly support ranked-ballot voting so we don't have to side with someone we don't like just to increase the chance of defeating a certain opponent, I don't plan on voting for a third party candidate. But that doesn't mean I find this particular accusation difficult to believe.
I still dislike the choice. Biden primarily won because he was perceived as the safest bet to beat Trump in a two-party election, and that's a very narrow qualification for a 4-year stint as the most powerful person on the planet. We had a lot of excellent candidates in the Democratic primaries and I wish the general election could have included more options without having to split votes.
It's funny... I know more Trump voters who would vote for Sanders than I know Clinton voters who would vote for Biden.
Ranked-ballot voting would be a perfectly workable solution to some of the problems with our two-party system. It's the sort of policy that Sanders might have gotten implemented in 2021 if he had won the primary.
My RL friends have been very upset that Sanders didn't make it. The problems with our governance are structural; they won't get solved just by putting the "right person" or the "right party" in charge for one term. They get solved when we enact campaign finance reform and change how our system distorts political power. They get solved when every subsequent election is untainted by moneyed interests and gerrymandering.
I comfort myself by reminding myself that Biden has supported campaign finance reform since the 1970s. I still think Biden would have made it a far higher priority, but we might still see some larger structural change even with a Biden presidency.
Ultimately, I think it will depend more on reformists winning Congressional seats than on the Oval Office. Those are the folks that would actually bring reform to Biden's desk.
Jacksonville decided to reopen their beaches with "social distancing rules in place". It's been open for 30 minutes. Here's a photo. Marvel at the space between everyone:
There actually is a cure for having stupid policymakers. And this kind of nihilistic fatalism, especially when voiced by conservatives, is also part of the problem. Neither party in America is perfect, nor have they ever been. But right now, one party is disproportionately more stupid and dangerous than the other.
What passes for conservatism now is just religious fundamentalism anymore. I've lost my appetite for it myself. I can't really stomach the Democratic Party and their identity politics either though, and the Libertarians are going off the deep-end now too. I think I'm just going to write-in Bernie Sanders in November as my protest vote. Nobody else appeals to me...
I'm curious, but can you specify what unpalatable "identity politics" you see in the Biden campaign for example?
Because, for me, if your principal objection to supporting Democrats was that, you could not ask for a candidate less prone to centering those kinds of issues than Biden. I dunno, seems to me if that really is an issue for you, you're someone who is simply never going to support socially left-of-center politics ever. But I'm curious if you can name some specific campaign statements by Biden or his people that are turning you off.
IMO, it's undeniable that Trump and his campaign is playing much more on "identity politics" than Biden.
Ranked-ballot voting would be a perfectly workable solution to some of the problems with our two-party system. It's the sort of policy that Sanders might have gotten implemented in 2021 if he had won the primary.
The major hurdle to what you're suggesting is that there is no federal election authority. The only thing that comes close, the Federal Elections Commission mostly just manages campaign contribution reporting and incorporation of things like PAC's, etc. But it does nothing about elections. Instead we have 50+ (DC, territories) separate elections that all happen on the same date.
General elections didn't even always take place on the same date! Presidential campaigns use to be like the primaries are now, with different states on different dates.
Making campaign finance more transparent and even more restrictive could be done by Congress, but it would have to pass Supreme Court muster, and anything that challenges the current interpretation isn't going to pass with the current Court composition. This is where Biden > Trump is key, if this issue matters. At least with Biden you can hold the line when Ginsburg retires. And maybe there's a shot at the majority if Thomas retires. A second Trump term almost certainly locks in a Supreme Court that upholds Citizens United and the other relevant cases as being the correct precedent.
Things like ranked-choice voting are better fought for at the state level. They could literally happen. It's quite easy in most states to change the state constitution if one party wins the legislature and the governorship, or even in some states with direct ballot initiatives. And unlike issues such as the Electoral College, there's no prisoner's dilemma here. Some states have even already experimented with this (in a bad way imo) with the adoption of "jungle primaries" where all the candidates run against each other in the first election, and then the top two voter getters face off in the November election. If it's something that interests you, definitely look up your statehouse representative and write them a letter, email or call their office. You're much more likely to get a response too, since they represent a smaller district than federal representatives.
Personally, I think people should obsess a little less about having an ideal president, and push for electoral reforms at the lower ballot races. It's with legislative seats where you're more likely to get candidates in office with heterodox (or extremely partisan views).
Some states have even already experimented with this (in a bad way imo) with the adoption of "jungle primaries" where all the candidates run against each other in the first election, and then the top two voter getters face off in the November election.
As a point of terminology, that system is usually referred to as a "top two" primary. A "jungle" primary refers to a similar system with the added caveat that a candidate who wins the majority in the primary gets the seat without a second round being held at all. I know the top-two system is currently in use in California and Washington, at least.
While the top two primary can produce some unfavorable results, like a chance of shutting a party out in an what would be a swing district when four or five strong candidates run, that sort of thing is not common at all. And on the flip side, you get results like my home congressional district (Washington 7th) in 2016. Long-term incumbent Democrat Jim McDermott retired, leaving an open seat. Primary results:
1. Pramila Jayapal (D), 42.11%
2. Brady Walkinshaw (D), 21.26%
3. Joe McDermott (D), 19.08%
4. Craig Keller (R), 8.17%
5. Scott Sutherland (R), 4.58%
(Plus several more candidates, none of which broke 2%.)
Because we had the top-two system, the general election was between Jayapal and Walkinshaw; Jayapal won with just under 56% of the vote, making it the second closest congressional election in the state. If we had a partisan primary system instead, forcing a match between a Democrat and a Republican, that would have gone about 85-15.
There is no way to make a perfectly fair voting system for choosing between more than two candidates to hold a seat. Partisan primaries leading into a general election are generally acknowledged as a pretty bad one, by everybody except the major parties. Of the various proposed alternatives - well, this is the one I know. I find that it works pretty well.
Some states have even already experimented with this (in a bad way imo) with the adoption of "jungle primaries" where all the candidates run against each other in the first election, and then the top two voter getters face off in the November election.
As a point of terminology, that system is usually referred to as a "top two" primary. A "jungle" primary refers to a similar system with the added caveat that a candidate who wins the majority in the primary gets the seat without a second round being held at all. I know the top-two system is currently in use in California and Washington, at least.
I don't like being overly pedantic, but I'm going to quibble here. Because I think people might read your post and leave with an important misunderstanding, if they go on to read news coverage of these elections. The US political media overwhelmingly refer to California's system as a "jungle primary". It's not the case that it's usually referred to with another term.
Maybe it's just a catchier name and that's why it caught on. Regardless there are actually several rules for this kind of system, so there could be really unlimited variants. You could have a rule where there's no second election if someone gets 50% in the first round. Or if someone gets at least 40% and at least a 10% advantage over second or, really, limitless permutations. Just like run-off rules with multi-party democratic elections. So, it's also not right to say there's some specific term for even sub-types of these election systems.
I'm curious why the big push to drop our guard now and run around get the virus and die?
Has it stopped being so infectious and fatal?
Can we easily separate the infected from the non-infected?
Can we test for antibodies and possible immunity (even though it seems you can still get it multiple times so this kinda doesn't matter)?
Has the federal government decided to stop profiteering off medical supplies and making states outbid each other? Do we have enough medical supplies and ICU beds to deal with increased demand of people running around contracting the virus?
What the hells wrong with people? Bored of living?
Another Biden article. Funny how the MeToo movement is eerily silent about this. This one is from The Cut, which when I looked it up has a bias to the left, so likely not a right-wing hit job article.
They may be silent about it because a total of about three dozen allegations came out about Trump, Kavanaugh and Moore and exactly jack shit happened to any of them, even with corroborating audio by the alleged perpetrator himself. It's been made abundantly clear no one gives a fuck, so how long do you continue to have standards when the other side clearly doesn't?? It also hasn't gained any traction because 2500 people are dying everyday in no small part due to the criminal negligence of the current occupant of the White House.
So yeah, even assuming the Biden allegation is true (although it's awfully weird he survived two full Presidential campaigns as VP and eight years in office without it managing to come up), it's still roughly 1/20th the amount of allegations against his opponent and his former top adviser, Ron Klaine, was Obama's point man on Ebola, which killed a whopping TWO people in the US, not 10s of thousands. No one here wanted Biden. I didn't want a male candidate at all for this very reason. But what are Trump supporters going to do, pretend they all of a sudden give a fuck about sexual assault allegations??
The man currently in charge lied about and downplayed a pandemic, has been impotent in fighting it (at best), has pitted states against each other to the point where the Governor of Illinois had to fly in PPE from China on a SECRET FLIGHT so the feds wouldn't seize it at the airport, and is now apparently trying to foment civil war in blue states with shutdown orders. If it's between a guy who has all of that and 20 sexual assault allegations vs. the guy who absolutely would NOT have let any of that happen and one allegation......well, it might not be a GOOD choice, but it isn't a hard one in a binary system. It's a coin and one side causes infinitely less immediate harm than the other one. Most votes for Biden at this point are nothing but damage mitigation. And by sometime next week that "damage" is likely to be more people than we lost in Vietnam. Trump has abdicated his duty as President, utterly and completely.
So yeah, even assuming the Biden allegation is true (although it's awfully weird he survived two full Presidential campaigns as VP and eight years in office without it managing to come up), it's still roughly 1/20th the amount of allegations against his opponent and his former top adviser, Ron Klaine, was Obama's point man on Ebola, which killed a whopping TWO people in the US, not 10s of thousands. No one here wanted Biden. I didn't want a male candidate at all for this very reason. But what are Trump supporters going to do, pretend they all of a sudden give a fuck about sexual assault allegations??
I think if the MeToo movement happened during Obama’s presidency (instead of at the tail end of it when the Democrats already told him he wasn’t running and was being put out to pasture), it would have surfaced and he would have been promptly removed.
But just like Kavanaugh’s allegations, timing shouldn’t be important about it being heard. Double standards can’t be applied. Sexual assault isn’t and should never be considered a political weapon or the next person who is assaulted will be brushed aside as such.
But you are right. These allegations have been known for awhile and if people actually cared, he wouldn’t have been the nominee. News organizations going full throttle on this story now (instead of oh say, when he was in trouble with the hair smelling incident) is just click bait sensationalism.
This is EXACTLY the playbook they used in 2009 the moment Obama got into office. Fake-ass protests attended by yahoos organized by right-wing billionaire money. Except this time, they are also disease vectors. I called it a death cult, and that is only becoming more prophetic by the day:
It was generally assumed by everyone that this shit was going to have to go on til at LEAST the end of April everywhere, and likely the end of May in MOST places, at a minimum, to have ANY shot of keeping the numbers down (though down is all relative when you already have the worst outbreak in the world by orders of magnitude). We are now just over halfway though April and the right-wing media is calling out the Gadsden Flag brigade to descend on state capitols. This is what we're dealing with on the right in this country. We've been telling you they are insane. They are insane. Here is one of FOX's brightest stars comparing blue state governors to Saddam Hussein and the Taliban for attempting to not make every nursing home in their state a tomb:
Thing is, I guarantee you Laura Ingraham herself is doing her show safely from her multi-million dollar home in New York. She is not going to be joining you on the front lines. Her, Hannity and Tucker make more in a week than you will in a decade. They all know better. They don't care cause they are nothing but money-grubbing ghouls.
Jacksonville decided to reopen their beaches with "social distancing rules in place". It's been open for 30 minutes. Here's a photo. Marvel at the space between everyone:
There actually is a cure for having stupid policymakers. And this kind of nihilistic fatalism, especially when voiced by conservatives, is also part of the problem. Neither party in America is perfect, nor have they ever been. But right now, one party is disproportionately more stupid and dangerous than the other.
What passes for conservatism now is just religious fundamentalism anymore. I've lost my appetite for it myself. I can't really stomach the Democratic Party and their identity politics either though, and the Libertarians are going off the deep-end now too. I think I'm just going to write-in Bernie Sanders in November as my protest vote. Nobody else appeals to me...
I'm curious, but can you specify what unpalatable "identity politics" you see in the Biden campaign for example?
Because, for me, if your principal objection to supporting Democrats was that, you could not ask for a candidate less prone to centering those kinds of issues than Biden. I dunno, seems to me if that really is an issue for you, you're someone who is simply never going to support socially left-of-center politics ever. But I'm curious if you can name some specific campaign statements by Biden or his people that are turning you off.
IMO, it's undeniable that Trump and his campaign is playing much more on "identity politics" than Biden.
What Biden campaign? He's like the invisible man. They keep him hidden in the back room and only let him out to ramble once in a while so people don't completely forget about him. They might as well just put 'Not Trump' by the 'D' on the ballot...
Jacksonville decided to reopen their beaches with "social distancing rules in place". It's been open for 30 minutes. Here's a photo. Marvel at the space between everyone:
There actually is a cure for having stupid policymakers. And this kind of nihilistic fatalism, especially when voiced by conservatives, is also part of the problem. Neither party in America is perfect, nor have they ever been. But right now, one party is disproportionately more stupid and dangerous than the other.
What passes for conservatism now is just religious fundamentalism anymore. I've lost my appetite for it myself. I can't really stomach the Democratic Party and their identity politics either though, and the Libertarians are going off the deep-end now too. I think I'm just going to write-in Bernie Sanders in November as my protest vote. Nobody else appeals to me...
I'm curious, but can you specify what unpalatable "identity politics" you see in the Biden campaign for example?
Because, for me, if your principal objection to supporting Democrats was that, you could not ask for a candidate less prone to centering those kinds of issues than Biden. I dunno, seems to me if that really is an issue for you, you're someone who is simply never going to support socially left-of-center politics ever. But I'm curious if you can name some specific campaign statements by Biden or his people that are turning you off.
IMO, it's undeniable that Trump and his campaign is playing much more on "identity politics" than Biden.
What Biden campaign? He's like the invisible man. They keep him hidden in the back room and only let him out to ramble once in a while so people don't completely forget about him. They might as well just put 'Not Trump' by the 'D' on the ballot...
That is what they're doing. It is certainly debatable whether it will work (it might) but the entire thing is basically a referendum on Trump. All re-elections are referendums on the incumbent. It could be the contents of your sock drawer up against him and the majority of the country would vote for it. The only question is if roughly 70,000 more people in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan do. The gamble is that Hillary was uniquely hated, and Biden is far easier for people to swallow than the woman they had been to hate for 30 years. There isn't any evidence Trump has gained even a fraction of a percentage of new support among voters. All Biden has to do is regain far less than 1% of the vote in those states.
As for Biden not being out there right now, I mean, this country elected Trump and he's in charge. Biden has no authority over anything. And the media wouldn't cover him over Trump's press conferences anyway. Like I said, in any other timeline, the allegations against Biden are the biggest story in the country. It isn't going to rate when people are making anonymous tips about nursing homes not knowing what to do almost two dozen bodies in their facility. There was alot of coverage of Gary Condit leading up to 9/11. That went away that morning.
Jacksonville decided to reopen their beaches with "social distancing rules in place". It's been open for 30 minutes. Here's a photo. Marvel at the space between everyone:
There actually is a cure for having stupid policymakers. And this kind of nihilistic fatalism, especially when voiced by conservatives, is also part of the problem. Neither party in America is perfect, nor have they ever been. But right now, one party is disproportionately more stupid and dangerous than the other.
What passes for conservatism now is just religious fundamentalism anymore. I've lost my appetite for it myself. I can't really stomach the Democratic Party and their identity politics either though, and the Libertarians are going off the deep-end now too. I think I'm just going to write-in Bernie Sanders in November as my protest vote. Nobody else appeals to me...
I'm curious, but can you specify what unpalatable "identity politics" you see in the Biden campaign for example?
Because, for me, if your principal objection to supporting Democrats was that, you could not ask for a candidate less prone to centering those kinds of issues than Biden. I dunno, seems to me if that really is an issue for you, you're someone who is simply never going to support socially left-of-center politics ever. But I'm curious if you can name some specific campaign statements by Biden or his people that are turning you off.
IMO, it's undeniable that Trump and his campaign is playing much more on "identity politics" than Biden.
What Biden campaign? He's like the invisible man. They keep him hidden in the back room and only let him out to ramble once in a while so people don't completely forget about him. They might as well just put 'Not Trump' by the 'D' on the ballot...
I dont think you're wrong about this statement, but I will play devil's advocate: I dont really think Biden needs to be doing a whole lot right now.
He cant hold campaign rallies (and shouldnt, even if he could). He doesnt have any actual authority in terms of programs or anything else that is meaningful on a national level. I dont know about you, but I have grown disenchanted with the 18 month marathon presidential campaign process we have in the country, so the idea that his campaign isnt front and center for the next two or three months doesnt really bother me.
If anything - it'll give him time to raise money, and organize ground support so that when the election really kicks off in a few months, he'll be as ready as possible.
I can promise you one thing: When we start getting closer to the election - there is going to be *non-stop* campaigning by both sides. He wont be some invisible candidate. He'll have nowhere to hide.
Jacksonville decided to reopen their beaches with "social distancing rules in place". It's been open for 30 minutes. Here's a photo. Marvel at the space between everyone:
There actually is a cure for having stupid policymakers. And this kind of nihilistic fatalism, especially when voiced by conservatives, is also part of the problem. Neither party in America is perfect, nor have they ever been. But right now, one party is disproportionately more stupid and dangerous than the other.
What passes for conservatism now is just religious fundamentalism anymore. I've lost my appetite for it myself. I can't really stomach the Democratic Party and their identity politics either though, and the Libertarians are going off the deep-end now too. I think I'm just going to write-in Bernie Sanders in November as my protest vote. Nobody else appeals to me...
I'm curious, but can you specify what unpalatable "identity politics" you see in the Biden campaign for example?
Because, for me, if your principal objection to supporting Democrats was that, you could not ask for a candidate less prone to centering those kinds of issues than Biden. I dunno, seems to me if that really is an issue for you, you're someone who is simply never going to support socially left-of-center politics ever. But I'm curious if you can name some specific campaign statements by Biden or his people that are turning you off.
IMO, it's undeniable that Trump and his campaign is playing much more on "identity politics" than Biden.
What Biden campaign? He's like the invisible man. They keep him hidden in the back room and only let him out to ramble once in a while so people don't completely forget about him. They might as well just put 'Not Trump' by the 'D' on the ballot...
That is what they're doing. It is certainly debatable whether it will work (it might) but the entire thing is basically a referendum on Trump. All re-elections are referendums on the incumbent. It could be the contents of your sock drawer up against him and the majority of the country would vote for it. The only question is if roughly 70,000 more people in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan do. The gamble is that Hillary was uniquely hated, and Biden is far easier for people to swallow than the woman they had been to hate for 30 years. There isn't any evidence Trump has gained even a fraction of a percentage of new support among voters. All Biden has to do is regain far less than 1% of the vote in those states.
As for Biden not being out there right now, I mean, this country elected Trump and he's in charge. Biden has no authority over anything. And the media wouldn't cover him over Trump's press conferences anyway. Like I said, in any other timeline, the allegations against Biden are the biggest story in the country. It isn't going to rate when people are making anonymous tips about nursing homes not knowing what to do almost half a dozen bodies in their facility. There was alot of coverage of Gary Condit leading up to 9/11. That went away that morning.
Wow, I never thought about voting for my sock drawer. That's a great idea! Although, it kinda reminds me of the two times I voted for Jennifer Granholm... ?
I mean, even Obama lost significant support in 2012 compared to 2008. Who has been sitting here for these four years and said, "you know, I wasn't sold on Trump before, but after seeing how he's handled himself, I'm all in"?? He hasn't made a single gesture of outreach to anyone outside his 2016 voters.
This is a damn good idea, and should be implemented immediately. Because BELIEVE me, the Paycheck Protection Program is a unmitigated disaster on every level, especially a logistical one, and funneling endless money into it isn't going to work:
I mean, even Obama lost significant support in 2012 compared to 2008. Who has been sitting here for these four years and said, "you know, I wasn't sold on Trump before, but after seeing how he's handled himself, I'm all in"?? He hasn't made a single gesture of outreach to anyone outside his 2016 voters.
Don't underestimate Trump though. This is definitely not a shoo in for Biden by any means. I'm frankly worried about Biden's future debate performances.
The only way i might be tempted to vote for Biden myself is if he picks a VP candidate that I like. Klobuchar might win me over. Not sure about Whitmer, but I'd definitely think about it if he chose her. There's a fair chance, in my mind, that his VP might be pressed into service...
I mean, even Obama lost significant support in 2012 compared to 2008. Who has been sitting here for these four years and said, "you know, I wasn't sold on Trump before, but after seeing how he's handled himself, I'm all in"?? He hasn't made a single gesture of outreach to anyone outside his 2016 voters.
Don't underestimate him though. This is definitely not a shoo in for Biden by any means. I'm frankly worried about Biden's future debate performances.
The only way i might be tempted to vote for him myself is if he picks a VP candidate that I like. Klobuchar might win me over. Not sure about Whitmer, but I'd definitely think about it if he chose her. There's a fair chance, in my mind, that his VP might be pressed into service...
I'm the last person who is underestimating him this time. Whitmer does NOT seem interested in the job. I've seen two people ask her about it in the last 72 hours and she's visibly annoyed by the question. There is an 85% chance it's either Klobuchar, Harris, or Abrams. I don't know who else it could be, besides Warren. It's going to be a woman. One of the under the radar implications of the Biden campaign is that his victory is essentially a 4-year placeholder before turning things over to a new generation of Democratic women. I think there is a better than 50/50 chance he only serves one term as a steward of stability.
I mean, even Obama lost significant support in 2012 compared to 2008. Who has been sitting here for these four years and said, "you know, I wasn't sold on Trump before, but after seeing how he's handled himself, I'm all in"?? He hasn't made a single gesture of outreach to anyone outside his 2016 voters.
Don't underestimate him though. This is definitely not a shoo in for Biden by any means. I'm frankly worried about Biden's future debate performances.
The only way i might be tempted to vote for him myself is if he picks a VP candidate that I like. Klobuchar might win me over. Not sure about Whitmer, but I'd definitely think about it if he chose her. There's a fair chance, in my mind, that his VP might be pressed into service...
I'm the last person who is underestimating him this time. Whitmer does NOT seem interested in the job. I've seen two people ask her about it in the last 72 hours and she's visibly annoyed by the question. There is an 85% chance it's either Klobuchar, Harris, or Abrams. I don't know who else it could be, besides Warren. It's going to be a woman. One of the under the radar implications of the Biden campaign is that his victory is essentially a 4-year placeholder before turning things over to a new generation of Democratic women. I think there is a better than 50/50 chance he only serves one term as a steward of stability.
Harris would lose me for sure. I can't stand her. Don't know anything about Abrams. Tulsi Gabbard would probably win me over but Democrats hate her so there's no chance of that. Warren is a wildcard. I don't like her personality so she'd probably lose me too, even though she's (sort of) akin to Bernie. Too bad about Whitmer. She's the only swing-state name that's been tossed around.
Most of us on the left have NOT been fans of Andrew Cuomo over the years, but this is a pretty brutal takedown of Trump, and Trump didn't actually respond afterwards, even though we know he was watching:
Most of us on the left have NOT been fans of Andrew Cuomo over the years, but this is a pretty brutal takedown of Trump, and Trump didn't actually respond afterwards, even though we know he was watching:
Yeah, believe it or not I'd probably vote for Cuomo for President if Covid happened in 2018 and he had a chance to campaign afterward for this election. He's been coherent and on-message with his press conferences. He can also pull off political statements without seeming to be overly emotional (a problem for most politicians these days in my mind). Very refreshing.
Most of us on the left have NOT been fans of Andrew Cuomo over the years, but this is a pretty brutal takedown of Trump, and Trump didn't actually respond afterwards, even though we know he was watching:
Yeah, believe it or not I'd probably vote for Cuomo for President if Covid happened in 2018 and he had a chance to campaign afterward for this election. He's been coherent and on-message with his press conferences. He can also pull off political statements without seeming to be overly emotional (a problem for most politicians these days in my mind). Very refreshing.
His policies are pretty damn conservative, but an event like this really brings things into perspective. I despise Chris Christie, but I think he would be handling this exceptionally as well.
Jacksonville decided to reopen their beaches with "social distancing rules in place". It's been open for 30 minutes. Here's a photo. Marvel at the space between everyone:
There actually is a cure for having stupid policymakers. And this kind of nihilistic fatalism, especially when voiced by conservatives, is also part of the problem. Neither party in America is perfect, nor have they ever been. But right now, one party is disproportionately more stupid and dangerous than the other.
What passes for conservatism now is just religious fundamentalism anymore. I've lost my appetite for it myself. I can't really stomach the Democratic Party and their identity politics either though, and the Libertarians are going off the deep-end now too. I think I'm just going to write-in Bernie Sanders in November as my protest vote. Nobody else appeals to me...
I'm curious, but can you specify what unpalatable "identity politics" you see in the Biden campaign for example?
Because, for me, if your principal objection to supporting Democrats was that, you could not ask for a candidate less prone to centering those kinds of issues than Biden. I dunno, seems to me if that really is an issue for you, you're someone who is simply never going to support socially left-of-center politics ever. But I'm curious if you can name some specific campaign statements by Biden or his people that are turning you off.
IMO, it's undeniable that Trump and his campaign is playing much more on "identity politics" than Biden.
What Biden campaign? He's like the invisible man. They keep him hidden in the back room and only let him out to ramble once in a while so people don't completely forget about him. They might as well just put 'Not Trump' by the 'D' on the ballot...
I'm sorry but this is a dodge. Are you're saying there's no "identity politics" you can name?
I agree that the Biden campaign has been less visible than previous campaigns. Some of that is the virus situation. But there are plenty of resources out there to educate yourself on his positions, so it's not like he's actually an invisible candidate. He has a campaign website. He has done televised interviews with virtually every major news outlet. He participated in something like 10 televised debates.
Not to mention that Biden has an extremely long public career, going all the way back to the Vietnam War. There isn't a lack of information on his stances on issues over the decades, for those who are sincerely curious.
Again, I'm going to insist on the question, because you're the one who brought up "identity politics" as to why you can't vote D right now. But Biden is just about the most politically incorrect candidate I've seen the Democrats nominate in quite some time. So, again, what identity politics issues from Biden are unpalatable to you?
It might be worth ruminating on the fact that all these protests started popping up about 3 or 4 days after we learned that African-Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are being disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Meanwhile, South Korea had eight new cases today. Eight. Or exactly 3,750x less than we did.
Comments
Even Whitmer is talking about opening things up now though. She's getting together with other Midwestern governors (Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota and Illinois) to come up with a plan. She said she'll know more early next week. Should be interesting...
What passes for conservatism now is just religious fundamentalism anymore. I've lost my appetite for it myself. I can't really stomach the Democratic Party and their identity politics either though, and the Libertarians are going off the deep-end now too. I think I'm just going to write-in Bernie Sanders in November as my protest vote. Nobody else appeals to me...
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/scientists-strong-evidence-coronavirus-originated-naturally/story?id=70207409&cid=social_twitter_abcn
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/17/politics/joe-biden-allegations/index.html
That wasn't the allegation. The Fox News story accepted the virus was natural, but said that it was being studied in the lab at Wuhan and got spread as a result of lax safety precautions.
I said before I did not believe the US government had any reason to believe that story and I did subsequently see a statement from an intelligence official confirming that's the case. Since no-one actually knows the route to the first infection it's not possible to prove any particular theory right or wrong. What annoys me about the way it's being handled though is the US government's use of conspiracy theories and whispering campaigns.
It's not surprising that some individuals resort to this sort of tactic - that's been done for ever. The problem though is this sort of thing used to be done unofficially because people knew they should be ashamed of it. Giving the tactic an official nod of recognition shouldn't of course be a surprise to me - it's just part of Trump's wider campaign against the idea that there is any sort of objective truth in the world. For a little while it did seem as though Trump was struggling to get round the fact that a virus doesn't care whether what he says is true or not. However, he now appears to be back on balance and ready to work around that by proclaiming that anything that happens that's contrary to things he's said before is the fault of (insert name here).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thecut.com/amp/2020/04/joe-biden-accuser-accusations-allegations.html
The Biden sexual assault allegations have been running around now for a few weeks. They are mostly getting traction in right wing media sources and in progressive publications that were overtly Pro-Sanders.
For the record - I'm not dismissing their potential validity or anything, but just remaking upon why you may not have seen a whole lot of detail about them before now (unless you were steeping yourself in those news outlets).
His "handsiness" is also pretty well known. Unfortunately, left twitter abdicated some of their ability to influence here because they went off the deep end and tried to play up every apparent contact he has with any women (like a picture I saw of him holding his grandaughter's hand, for example).
It likely won't change my vote in the fall, simply because there's always a 1 in a million chance of a vote tipping the balance of an election, and while I strongly support ranked-ballot voting so we don't have to side with someone we don't like just to increase the chance of defeating a certain opponent, I don't plan on voting for a third party candidate. But that doesn't mean I find this particular accusation difficult to believe.
I still dislike the choice. Biden primarily won because he was perceived as the safest bet to beat Trump in a two-party election, and that's a very narrow qualification for a 4-year stint as the most powerful person on the planet. We had a lot of excellent candidates in the Democratic primaries and I wish the general election could have included more options without having to split votes.
It's funny... I know more Trump voters who would vote for Sanders than I know Clinton voters who would vote for Biden.
Ranked-ballot voting would be a perfectly workable solution to some of the problems with our two-party system. It's the sort of policy that Sanders might have gotten implemented in 2021 if he had won the primary.
My RL friends have been very upset that Sanders didn't make it. The problems with our governance are structural; they won't get solved just by putting the "right person" or the "right party" in charge for one term. They get solved when we enact campaign finance reform and change how our system distorts political power. They get solved when every subsequent election is untainted by moneyed interests and gerrymandering.
I comfort myself by reminding myself that Biden has supported campaign finance reform since the 1970s. I still think Biden would have made it a far higher priority, but we might still see some larger structural change even with a Biden presidency.
Ultimately, I think it will depend more on reformists winning Congressional seats than on the Oval Office. Those are the folks that would actually bring reform to Biden's desk.
I'm curious, but can you specify what unpalatable "identity politics" you see in the Biden campaign for example?
Because, for me, if your principal objection to supporting Democrats was that, you could not ask for a candidate less prone to centering those kinds of issues than Biden. I dunno, seems to me if that really is an issue for you, you're someone who is simply never going to support socially left-of-center politics ever. But I'm curious if you can name some specific campaign statements by Biden or his people that are turning you off.
IMO, it's undeniable that Trump and his campaign is playing much more on "identity politics" than Biden.
The major hurdle to what you're suggesting is that there is no federal election authority. The only thing that comes close, the Federal Elections Commission mostly just manages campaign contribution reporting and incorporation of things like PAC's, etc. But it does nothing about elections. Instead we have 50+ (DC, territories) separate elections that all happen on the same date.
General elections didn't even always take place on the same date! Presidential campaigns use to be like the primaries are now, with different states on different dates.
Making campaign finance more transparent and even more restrictive could be done by Congress, but it would have to pass Supreme Court muster, and anything that challenges the current interpretation isn't going to pass with the current Court composition. This is where Biden > Trump is key, if this issue matters. At least with Biden you can hold the line when Ginsburg retires. And maybe there's a shot at the majority if Thomas retires. A second Trump term almost certainly locks in a Supreme Court that upholds Citizens United and the other relevant cases as being the correct precedent.
Things like ranked-choice voting are better fought for at the state level. They could literally happen. It's quite easy in most states to change the state constitution if one party wins the legislature and the governorship, or even in some states with direct ballot initiatives. And unlike issues such as the Electoral College, there's no prisoner's dilemma here. Some states have even already experimented with this (in a bad way imo) with the adoption of "jungle primaries" where all the candidates run against each other in the first election, and then the top two voter getters face off in the November election. If it's something that interests you, definitely look up your statehouse representative and write them a letter, email or call their office. You're much more likely to get a response too, since they represent a smaller district than federal representatives.
Personally, I think people should obsess a little less about having an ideal president, and push for electoral reforms at the lower ballot races. It's with legislative seats where you're more likely to get candidates in office with heterodox (or extremely partisan views).
While the top two primary can produce some unfavorable results, like a chance of shutting a party out in an what would be a swing district when four or five strong candidates run, that sort of thing is not common at all. And on the flip side, you get results like my home congressional district (Washington 7th) in 2016. Long-term incumbent Democrat Jim McDermott retired, leaving an open seat. Primary results:
1. Pramila Jayapal (D), 42.11%
2. Brady Walkinshaw (D), 21.26%
3. Joe McDermott (D), 19.08%
4. Craig Keller (R), 8.17%
5. Scott Sutherland (R), 4.58%
(Plus several more candidates, none of which broke 2%.)
Because we had the top-two system, the general election was between Jayapal and Walkinshaw; Jayapal won with just under 56% of the vote, making it the second closest congressional election in the state. If we had a partisan primary system instead, forcing a match between a Democrat and a Republican, that would have gone about 85-15.
There is no way to make a perfectly fair voting system for choosing between more than two candidates to hold a seat. Partisan primaries leading into a general election are generally acknowledged as a pretty bad one, by everybody except the major parties. Of the various proposed alternatives - well, this is the one I know. I find that it works pretty well.
I don't like being overly pedantic, but I'm going to quibble here. Because I think people might read your post and leave with an important misunderstanding, if they go on to read news coverage of these elections. The US political media overwhelmingly refer to California's system as a "jungle primary". It's not the case that it's usually referred to with another term.
NPR: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/05/617250124/how-californias-jungle-primary-system-works
Time magazine: https://time.com/100556/the-jungle-primary/
New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/us/california-primary-election-rules-system.html
Even a California daily newspaper: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-what-is-california-jungle-primary-how-does-it-work-20180529-htmlstory.html
Maybe it's just a catchier name and that's why it caught on. Regardless there are actually several rules for this kind of system, so there could be really unlimited variants. You could have a rule where there's no second election if someone gets 50% in the first round. Or if someone gets at least 40% and at least a 10% advantage over second or, really, limitless permutations. Just like run-off rules with multi-party democratic elections. So, it's also not right to say there's some specific term for even sub-types of these election systems.
Has it stopped being so infectious and fatal?
Can we easily separate the infected from the non-infected?
Can we test for antibodies and possible immunity (even though it seems you can still get it multiple times so this kinda doesn't matter)?
Has the federal government decided to stop profiteering off medical supplies and making states outbid each other? Do we have enough medical supplies and ICU beds to deal with increased demand of people running around contracting the virus?
What the hells wrong with people? Bored of living?
They may be silent about it because a total of about three dozen allegations came out about Trump, Kavanaugh and Moore and exactly jack shit happened to any of them, even with corroborating audio by the alleged perpetrator himself. It's been made abundantly clear no one gives a fuck, so how long do you continue to have standards when the other side clearly doesn't?? It also hasn't gained any traction because 2500 people are dying everyday in no small part due to the criminal negligence of the current occupant of the White House.
So yeah, even assuming the Biden allegation is true (although it's awfully weird he survived two full Presidential campaigns as VP and eight years in office without it managing to come up), it's still roughly 1/20th the amount of allegations against his opponent and his former top adviser, Ron Klaine, was Obama's point man on Ebola, which killed a whopping TWO people in the US, not 10s of thousands. No one here wanted Biden. I didn't want a male candidate at all for this very reason. But what are Trump supporters going to do, pretend they all of a sudden give a fuck about sexual assault allegations??
The man currently in charge lied about and downplayed a pandemic, has been impotent in fighting it (at best), has pitted states against each other to the point where the Governor of Illinois had to fly in PPE from China on a SECRET FLIGHT so the feds wouldn't seize it at the airport, and is now apparently trying to foment civil war in blue states with shutdown orders. If it's between a guy who has all of that and 20 sexual assault allegations vs. the guy who absolutely would NOT have let any of that happen and one allegation......well, it might not be a GOOD choice, but it isn't a hard one in a binary system. It's a coin and one side causes infinitely less immediate harm than the other one. Most votes for Biden at this point are nothing but damage mitigation. And by sometime next week that "damage" is likely to be more people than we lost in Vietnam. Trump has abdicated his duty as President, utterly and completely.
I think if the MeToo movement happened during Obama’s presidency (instead of at the tail end of it when the Democrats already told him he wasn’t running and was being put out to pasture), it would have surfaced and he would have been promptly removed.
But just like Kavanaugh’s allegations, timing shouldn’t be important about it being heard. Double standards can’t be applied. Sexual assault isn’t and should never be considered a political weapon or the next person who is assaulted will be brushed aside as such.
But you are right. These allegations have been known for awhile and if people actually cared, he wouldn’t have been the nominee. News organizations going full throttle on this story now (instead of oh say, when he was in trouble with the hair smelling incident) is just click bait sensationalism.
It was generally assumed by everyone that this shit was going to have to go on til at LEAST the end of April everywhere, and likely the end of May in MOST places, at a minimum, to have ANY shot of keeping the numbers down (though down is all relative when you already have the worst outbreak in the world by orders of magnitude). We are now just over halfway though April and the right-wing media is calling out the Gadsden Flag brigade to descend on state capitols. This is what we're dealing with on the right in this country. We've been telling you they are insane. They are insane. Here is one of FOX's brightest stars comparing blue state governors to Saddam Hussein and the Taliban for attempting to not make every nursing home in their state a tomb:
Thing is, I guarantee you Laura Ingraham herself is doing her show safely from her multi-million dollar home in New York. She is not going to be joining you on the front lines. Her, Hannity and Tucker make more in a week than you will in a decade. They all know better. They don't care cause they are nothing but money-grubbing ghouls.
What Biden campaign? He's like the invisible man. They keep him hidden in the back room and only let him out to ramble once in a while so people don't completely forget about him. They might as well just put 'Not Trump' by the 'D' on the ballot...
That is what they're doing. It is certainly debatable whether it will work (it might) but the entire thing is basically a referendum on Trump. All re-elections are referendums on the incumbent. It could be the contents of your sock drawer up against him and the majority of the country would vote for it. The only question is if roughly 70,000 more people in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan do. The gamble is that Hillary was uniquely hated, and Biden is far easier for people to swallow than the woman they had been to hate for 30 years. There isn't any evidence Trump has gained even a fraction of a percentage of new support among voters. All Biden has to do is regain far less than 1% of the vote in those states.
As for Biden not being out there right now, I mean, this country elected Trump and he's in charge. Biden has no authority over anything. And the media wouldn't cover him over Trump's press conferences anyway. Like I said, in any other timeline, the allegations against Biden are the biggest story in the country. It isn't going to rate when people are making anonymous tips about nursing homes not knowing what to do almost two dozen bodies in their facility. There was alot of coverage of Gary Condit leading up to 9/11. That went away that morning.
I dont think you're wrong about this statement, but I will play devil's advocate: I dont really think Biden needs to be doing a whole lot right now.
He cant hold campaign rallies (and shouldnt, even if he could). He doesnt have any actual authority in terms of programs or anything else that is meaningful on a national level. I dont know about you, but I have grown disenchanted with the 18 month marathon presidential campaign process we have in the country, so the idea that his campaign isnt front and center for the next two or three months doesnt really bother me.
If anything - it'll give him time to raise money, and organize ground support so that when the election really kicks off in a few months, he'll be as ready as possible.
I can promise you one thing: When we start getting closer to the election - there is going to be *non-stop* campaigning by both sides. He wont be some invisible candidate. He'll have nowhere to hide.
Wow, I never thought about voting for my sock drawer. That's a great idea! Although, it kinda reminds me of the two times I voted for Jennifer Granholm... ?
https://www.vox.com/2020/4/17/21225177/senate-paycheck-security-act
And I'm just posting this because I find it amusing:
Don't underestimate Trump though. This is definitely not a shoo in for Biden by any means. I'm frankly worried about Biden's future debate performances.
The only way i might be tempted to vote for Biden myself is if he picks a VP candidate that I like. Klobuchar might win me over. Not sure about Whitmer, but I'd definitely think about it if he chose her. There's a fair chance, in my mind, that his VP might be pressed into service...
Edit: Cleaned up the pronouns for better clarity.
I'm the last person who is underestimating him this time. Whitmer does NOT seem interested in the job. I've seen two people ask her about it in the last 72 hours and she's visibly annoyed by the question. There is an 85% chance it's either Klobuchar, Harris, or Abrams. I don't know who else it could be, besides Warren. It's going to be a woman. One of the under the radar implications of the Biden campaign is that his victory is essentially a 4-year placeholder before turning things over to a new generation of Democratic women. I think there is a better than 50/50 chance he only serves one term as a steward of stability.
Harris would lose me for sure. I can't stand her. Don't know anything about Abrams. Tulsi Gabbard would probably win me over but Democrats hate her so there's no chance of that. Warren is a wildcard. I don't like her personality so she'd probably lose me too, even though she's (sort of) akin to Bernie. Too bad about Whitmer. She's the only swing-state name that's been tossed around.
Yeah, believe it or not I'd probably vote for Cuomo for President if Covid happened in 2018 and he had a chance to campaign afterward for this election. He's been coherent and on-message with his press conferences. He can also pull off political statements without seeming to be overly emotional (a problem for most politicians these days in my mind). Very refreshing.
His policies are pretty damn conservative, but an event like this really brings things into perspective. I despise Chris Christie, but I think he would be handling this exceptionally as well.
I'm sorry but this is a dodge. Are you're saying there's no "identity politics" you can name?
I agree that the Biden campaign has been less visible than previous campaigns. Some of that is the virus situation. But there are plenty of resources out there to educate yourself on his positions, so it's not like he's actually an invisible candidate. He has a campaign website. He has done televised interviews with virtually every major news outlet. He participated in something like 10 televised debates.
Not to mention that Biden has an extremely long public career, going all the way back to the Vietnam War. There isn't a lack of information on his stances on issues over the decades, for those who are sincerely curious.
Again, I'm going to insist on the question, because you're the one who brought up "identity politics" as to why you can't vote D right now. But Biden is just about the most politically incorrect candidate I've seen the Democrats nominate in quite some time. So, again, what identity politics issues from Biden are unpalatable to you?