Payroll tax holiday: essentially defunds the two most popular social welfare programs in history, and would have to be paid back in bulk by everyone next year
Unemployment: half of what it was, and contingent on cash strapped states footing a large part of the bill and all the administrative costs
Evictions: Basically nothing whatsoever
In other words, about what you'd expect from an announcement made at a golf club. A whole lot of bullshit that MILLIONS of people are now likely expecting to come to fruition instantaneously. There isn't just some fine print here, it's ALL fine print.
You've made the argument that Trump does not have the legal power to do what he originally said he would and, from the detail provided, it would seem he agrees. One perspective on this is that Trump is acting stupidly and irresponsibly, but there is an alternative one, i.e. that Congress has acted stupidly and irresponsibly and Trump is doing as much as he possibly can within the law to rescue the situation.
I don't think the issue is black and white and I doubt that this action will change many minds about what presidential candidate to vote for. Taking the perspective that Congress is at fault would of course reinforce the idea that American democracy is a rather broken system, but I imagine Trump sees that as a benefit rather than the reverse.
Payroll tax holiday: essentially defunds the two most popular social welfare programs in history, and would have to be paid back in bulk by everyone next year
Unemployment: half of what it was, and contingent on cash strapped states footing a large part of the bill and all the administrative costs
Evictions: Basically nothing whatsoever
In other words, about what you'd expect from an announcement made at a golf club. A whole lot of bullshit that MILLIONS of people are now likely expecting to come to fruition instantaneously. There isn't just some fine print here, it's ALL fine print.
You've made the argument that Trump does not have the legal power to do what he originally said he would and, from the detail provided, it would seem he agrees. One perspective on this is that Trump is acting stupidly and irresponsibly, but there is an alternative one, i.e. that Congress has acted stupidly and irresponsibly and Trump is doing as much as he possibly can within the law to rescue the situation.
I don't think the issue is black and white and I doubt that this action will change many minds about what presidential candidate to vote for. Taking the perspective that Congress is at fault would of course reinforce the idea that American democracy is a rather broken system, but I imagine Trump sees that as a benefit rather than the reverse.
If people want to completely dismantle the American system of government they should at least be honest about it. Understand that Democrats are not opposed to doing ANY of this. They want to do MORE than this. Mitch McConnell has said no. If Trump has no issue spending the money, and Democrats certainly don't have an issue with doing so (because, as I said, they already passed a 3 trillion dollar bill over a month ago in the House) then the problem is not "Congress" it's the "Republican-controlled Senate".
Which doesn't even get into the Pandora's Box we are opening. If we're now at the point where if Congress doesn't act on the something, the President just signs a piece of paper and circumvents them, then I again ask, what reason do they even have to exist?? If Congress doesn't push back on an Executive power-grab this broad and brazen, then they are basically telling him he can issue an Executive Order on ANYTHING and get away with it while it's litigated for months or years at a time. Today it's conjuring unemployment benefits out of thin air with no appropriation. In 3 months it could be "these ballots are all invalid, I dare you to stop me". He's now issuing them at the same pace Al Pacino was snorting coke at the end of "Scarface". As I mentioned before, Politico is reporting that they are having talks in the White House about EOs as far-reaching as ordering certain mail-in ballots to not be delivered to their recipients.
So yeah, the Democrats can only push back in a certain way, and yet letting him get away with this is tantamount to making one of the three branches of government totally irrelevant, when an argument can made the original intent was that it would be the MOST powerful. So if the argument is that things are broken, the answer to that question is, yes they are. Because we are now seeing that the system cannot hold when someone is determined to destroy it. So I mean, by all means, let's let the President unilaterally decide to stop collecting the taxes that fund the two most important social programs in history and also embolden him to just issue edicts whenever he chooses because he will learn there are no consequences for doing so. Some long-term thinking is required here, no matter how dire the situation we are in (which is 95% his fault anyway).
Oh I agree with your arguments, I'm just not sure that most Americans that have supported Trump in the past will see it that way. Quite a lot of the people that voted for him do not appear to support the US system of government - and many of those would probably be quite happy for him to destroy it (at least until the results of that become apparent).
While I agree with you it's hard to see the impact of Covid-19 on health as anything other than detrimental to Trump, I don't think the debate about how to deal with the economic impact is as clear-cut. Trump's standard tactics when he's caught bang to rights on anything are to blame others and confuse the argument by throwing as many issues as possible into the mix and that's certainly happening now.
The most difficult thing for him to deal with is the virus as he's been pretty unsuccessful in painting the virus as "the enemy". However, he does seem to have had some success in setting China up as a new red menace and I would expect a lot more of that in the run-up to the election. The strategy of picking both external and internal enemies and then stimulating the economy by moving it onto a pre-war footing may not have ended well for the Nazis, but it did successfully push the US into pre-eminence in the second half of the twentieth century - although the USSR is commonly seen as the instigator of the cold war, it was really Truman's massive increase in military expenditure (from 5% of GDP in 1950 to 14.2% in 1953) that set up that conflict.
With unemployment rising sharply, I would be surprised if there's not a proposal to boost military spending over the next few months to soak some of that up. The danger with that of course is that a real conflict could ultimately occur. It was luck as much as judgment that prevented the US and USSR from getting into a direct war and luck is not something we want to rely on ...
Another thing about the payroll holiday (and this is really important) is that employers are the ones who are on the hook for making sure that money is taken out every two weeks, and are also the ones who must make sure it's all paid when it ends. There is absolutely NOTHING preventing employers from simply holding onto this money until next spring when it all has to be paid back. In fact, many will do just this, because their accountants and tax lawyers will tell them to. On unemployment, many legislatures on the state level would have to pass entirely new laws or statutes to implement what the President is asking for.
So (for example) let's say you get paid again on August 21, or your benefits ran out on August 7 and you're expecting another weekly stipend on August 14. Does Trump actually think people aren't going to notice that their payroll taxes are still being withheld and they didn't get a direct deposit (or it wasn't as big) from unemployment in the coming weeks?? His announcement implied immediate relief, essentially promised it. But in many cases, not a single cent is going to show up for anyone in the month of August, if ever. If you're promising people in no uncertain terms significant, immediate economic relief that you are making a huge dog and pony show about, you damn well better be able to actually deliever it, and quickly. And nothing I have read about how all this would actually work indicates that will happen.
Every single bit of this requires an opt-in from another entity. The order on evictions "encourages" landlords not to evict people, but it's completely up to them whether they actually do so. The payroll tax holiday is contingent upon employers deciding NOT to cover their asses in regards to future liability next year. And the unemployment requires states to set up the program and cover 25% of costs. The only thing that is real is the student loan deferral.
Another thing in anticipation of the argument is that "all recent Presidents issued Executive Orders". True. And Trump is set to far eclipse any of them by leaps and bounds. For the most recent comparison, Obama issued 276. Given 8 years at his current pace, Trump would be at 472. So in the realm of TWICE as many.
Payroll tax holiday: essentially defunds the two most popular social welfare programs in history, and would have to be paid back in bulk by everyone next year
Unemployment: half of what it was, and contingent on cash strapped states footing a large part of the bill and all the administrative costs
Evictions: Basically nothing whatsoever
In other words, about what you'd expect from an announcement made at a golf club. A whole lot of bullshit that MILLIONS of people are now likely expecting to come to fruition instantaneously. There isn't just some fine print here, it's ALL fine print.
You've made the argument that Trump does not have the legal power to do what he originally said he would and, from the detail provided, it would seem he agrees. One perspective on this is that Trump is acting stupidly and irresponsibly, but there is an alternative one, i.e. that Congress has acted stupidly and irresponsibly and Trump is doing as much as he possibly can within the law to rescue the situation.
I don't think the issue is black and white and I doubt that this action will change many minds about what presidential candidate to vote for. Taking the perspective that Congress is at fault would of course reinforce the idea that American democracy is a rather broken system, but I imagine Trump sees that as a benefit rather than the reverse.
If people want to completely dismantle the American system of government they should at least be honest about it. Understand that Democrats are not opposed to doing ANY of this. They want to do MORE than this. Mitch McConnell has said no. If Trump has no issue spending the money, and Democrats certainly don't have an issue with doing so (because, as I said, they already passed a 3 trillion dollar bill over a month ago in the House) then the problem is not "Congress" it's the "Republican-controlled Senate".
Yes, I do want to completely dismantle the American system of government. Nothing that comes out of any American institution represents my beliefs or interests and as far as i'm concerned I am an unwilling participant in a system i'd rather see done away with. I don't think having a singular government from California to Texas to Pennsylvania is necessary or results in democratic outcomes.
Really though, issuing some executive orders to give money to people during a one-in-a-lifetime pandemic is hardly a democracy-destroying power move. Some perspective on over-reaches of power is important here. Supreme Court judgements have been defied, human rights been abandoned, and much more has happened in our time, yet the democratic system ultimately withstood it. I think it will survive some extralegal payments to citizens in need. Though perhaps it would be better if it didn't.
But yes, it's the Republican controlled Senate that is the problem, and who are ultimately being circumvented by these Executive Orders. It isn't a Republican vs. Democrat thing, the way I see it. Democrats would have went along with it. Some Republicans won't spend a dime on helping anyone, and i'm perfectly satisfied with them getting no say in the matter.
College football is on the verge of being cancelled. This is depressing, but not because of the games not taking place. It's because people will get 100x more up in arms about their entertainment being taken away than they will about mass death. I love sports. It hasn't been that big of an adjustment or sacrifice without them. The ones we have back (baseball and basketball) seem like exhibitions and seasons that will forever come with an asterisk. None of it means anything in the grand scheme of things. There is a reason it's on the verge of not taking place, and it isn't because the higher-ups of the Power 5 conferences are keen on throwing 100s of millions of dollars into a bonfire. Maybe people should reflect on that and alter their behavior.
College football is on the verge of being cancelled. This is depressing, but not because of the games not taking place. It's because people will get 100x more up in arms about their entertainment being taken away than they will about mass death. I love sports. It hasn't been that big of an adjustment or sacrifice without them. The ones we have back (baseball and basketball) seem like exhibitions and seasons that will forever come with an asterisk. None of it means anything in the grand scheme of things. There is a reason it's on the verge of not taking place, and it isn't because the higher-ups of the Power 5 conferences are keen on throwing 100s of millions of dollars into a bonfire. Maybe people should reflect on that and alter their behavior.
Clearly the NCAA wants to make Trump look bad...
(I'll add them to my sister's conspiracy list.)
Scuttlebutt right now is that Biden's VP pick will be announced today or tomorrow. The only juice flight info I saw was about a direct flight from South Bend Indiana to Delaware. Probably nothing, but could signal either Duckworth or Whitmer.
It's Kamala Harris. So all the noise and speculation were just that, and the odds on favorite the whole time ends up being the selection. It's my understanding from recent reporting the Trump camp was hoping for anyone else. Were practically begging for it to be Susan Rice so they could re-run "Benghazi!!" for the umpteenth time.
It's Kamala Harris. So all the noise and speculation were just that, and the odds on favorite the whole time ends up being the selection. It's my understanding from recent reporting the Trump camp was hoping for anyone else. Were practically begging for it to be Susan Rice so they could re-run "Benghazi!!" for the umpteenth time.
They still will. Just have to find a way to twist it so that it was Biden responsible instead of Clinton. Give them about 2 weeks.
I would have preferred to see Harris as AG but I would take her as VP over a lot of the other candidates.
Oh good, I was hoping she'd be on for VP. I think she's EXACTLY the kind of person that the Democratic party needs right now.
Heck, our entire political spectrum in general needs more new blood.
Yeah great. The easy pick. Why am I not surprised? Biden/Harris it's like milktoast and raisins. Why would the Democrats take any advantage of the situation to shake things up now? I'm sure the Bernie camp is ecstatic. Who exactly is fired up by Kamala Harris? The Californians Who were going to vote Democrat anyway? The East Coast Liberals who were going to vote Democrat anyway? Good God is this pathetic...
Yeah great. The easy pick. Why am I not surprised? Biden/Harris it's like milktoast and raisins. Why would the Democrats take any advantage of the situation to shake things up now? I'm sure the Bernie camp is ecstatic. Who exactly is fired up by Kamala Harris? The Californians Who were going to vote Democrat anyway? The East Coast Liberals who were going to vote Democrat anyway? Good God is this pathetic...
It is the safe pick, but it also shakes things up a good bit. Kinda why it makes all the sense in the world.
Harris is the first Black woman to be placed on a VP ticket. That's significant. She's also the first Asian American (Mother was from India). She's also one of the 4 or 5 most progressive senators since she joined that body (4 years ago). She isnt dyed in the wool progressive like Bernie or Warren, but she's comfortably in between the liberal and progressive camps (Just like Biden is comfortably in between the centrist and liberal camp) of the party.
People are fired up. The reaction to the pick points to that.
FWIW - the whole "make your running mate someone from a swing state shtick" hasnt really meant much in a long time. When was the last time it worked?
Trump had Pence (Indiana, Not a swing state)
Obama had Biden (Delaware, not a Swing State)
Bush had Cheney (Wyoming, not a Swing State)
The last time putting someone from a "swing state" worked was in 1996, when Gore helped Clinton carry Tennessee. Gore himself ended up losing Tennessee in 2000.
It's fairly meaningless these days. Harris does more to bring back the Obama coalition.
Yeah great. The easy pick. Why am I not surprised? Biden/Harris it's like milktoast and raisins. Why would the Democrats take any advantage of the situation to shake things up now? I'm sure the Bernie camp is ecstatic. Who exactly is fired up by Kamala Harris? The Californians Who were going to vote Democrat anyway? The East Coast Liberals who were going to vote Democrat anyway? Good God is this pathetic...
It is the safe pick, but it also shakes things up a good bit. Kinda why it makes all the sense in the world.
Harris is the first Black woman to be placed on a VP ticket. That's significant. She's also the first Asian American (Mother was from India). She's also one of the 4 or 5 most progressive senators since she joined that body (4 years ago). She isnt dyed in the wool progressive like Bernie or Warren, but she's comfortably in between the liberal and progressive camps (Just like Biden is comfortably in between the centrist and liberal camp) of the party.
People are fired up. The reaction to the pick points to that.
FWIW - the whole "make your running mate someone from a swing state shtick" hasnt really meant much in a long time. When was the last time it worked?
Trump had Pence (Indiana, Not a swing state)
Obama had Biden (Delaware, not a Swing State)
Bush had Cheney (Wyoming, not a Swing State)
The last time putting someone from a "swing state" worked was in 1996, when Gore helped Clinton carry Tennessee. Gore himself ended up losing Tennessee in 2000.
It's fairly meaningless these days. Harris does more to bring back the Obama coalition.
I'm just not sure it'll fire up anybody who wasn't going to vote Democrat anyway. I know I'm on the fence, and that pick did nothing for me. Well, truthfully I'm not on the fence about voting for Trump but this does not make me want to vote for Biden. Harris was absolutely last on my list. I don't really like Warren but picking her would have been preferable since I was in Bernie's court for the primary. God that seems like years ago already...
Yeah great. The easy pick. Why am I not surprised? Biden/Harris it's like milktoast and raisins. Why would the Democrats take any advantage of the situation to shake things up now? I'm sure the Bernie camp is ecstatic. Who exactly is fired up by Kamala Harris? The Californians Who were going to vote Democrat anyway? The East Coast Liberals who were going to vote Democrat anyway? Good God is this pathetic...
It is the safe pick, but it also shakes things up a good bit. Kinda why it makes all the sense in the world.
Harris is the first Black woman to be placed on a VP ticket. That's significant. She's also the first Asian American (Mother was from India). She's also one of the 4 or 5 most progressive senators since she joined that body (4 years ago). She isnt dyed in the wool progressive like Bernie or Warren, but she's comfortably in between the liberal and progressive camps (Just like Biden is comfortably in between the centrist and liberal camp) of the party.
People are fired up. The reaction to the pick points to that.
FWIW - the whole "make your running mate someone from a swing state shtick" hasnt really meant much in a long time. When was the last time it worked?
Trump had Pence (Indiana, Not a swing state)
Obama had Biden (Delaware, not a Swing State)
Bush had Cheney (Wyoming, not a Swing State)
The last time putting someone from a "swing state" worked was in 1996, when Gore helped Clinton carry Tennessee. Gore himself ended up losing Tennessee in 2000.
It's fairly meaningless these days. Harris does more to bring back the Obama coalition.
I'm just not sure it'll fire up anybody who wasn't going to vote Democrat anyway. I know I'm on the fence, and that pick did nothing for me. Well, truthfully I'm not on the fence about voting for Trump but this does not make me want to vote for Biden. Harris was absolutely last on my list. I don't really like Warren but picking her would have been preferable since I was in Bernie's court for the primary. God that seems like years ago already...
Picking Warren would have played into the fear mongering that Biden is taken his cues from the socialist wing of the Democratic Party.
Trump is losing in the polls because he can’t control the narrative about the Democrats this time like he did against Clinton. The Democrats just need to keep it like that.
538's model is out, and (currently) it gives Biden a 71% chance of victory as of this morning. People don't seem to understand what Silver's same model was saying in 2016, and now. Hillary's final probability was basically like having three balls in a paper bag. two are blue, and one is red. While it is much more likely you are going to pull a blue ball, no one with any intelligence should be SHOCKED if they pull a red one. Mind you, Obama was somewhere in the 90%+ range in 2012 against Romney, meaning the paper bag in question had nine blue balls and one red one. So, in this case, currently, Biden has moved out of the three ball scenario which holds up to about 66% and moved into the ten ball scenario, though he has two less balls than Obama, sitting at seven blue and Trump with three red. Biden is doing about 5-10% better than Hillary. That may not seem like much, until you realize that Trump won because of less than 75,000 votes in 3 states.
As for Kamala Harris......though they don't have the sheer numbers in comparison, black women are the beating heart of the Democratic base in the same way evangelicals are to the Republicans. Picking someone like Whitmer or Warren would have been a slap in the face in the current climate. I'm fairly certain Joe Biden has cornered the market on the "you can vote for me I'm not scary" white suburbanite who can't stand Trump. I see no benefit in doubling down on it. Whitmer needs to stay in Michigan. Warren (in my dream world) should be Senate Majority or Minority Leader (because Schumer is a joke next to McConnell's mastery). Put Stacy Abrams in charge of the DNC. You can bring Susan Rice back as National Security Advisor after you win, without replaying the Benghazi nonsense on FOX 24/7 by making her VP (and one no one knows). Karen Bass has zero name recognition. There was never really any reason NOT to pick Harris, besides the fact that I and many others have seen her as the heir apparent for some time, despite her campaign failing to really launch. And she will eviscerate Mike Pence in the debate, where I expect her to put the current Administration "on trial" (so to speak) in regards to the last 6 months.
This far out, a lot of the uncertainty in the model is based on the possibility of something happening to shift voter opinions. If Biden had the same lead he has now a week before the election, the model would be reporting a far higher probability for him - but still less than some other models. Here's the 538 article explaining some of the basics.
@Balrog99 "I'm just not sure it'll fire up anybody who wasn't going to vote Democrat anyway."
Here's the thing though, no Democratic candidate would be able to pull that off. The conservative movement is very much like a cult. What they will accept as true, is what they think should be true. That's the beginning and end of their thought process. They've picked their team, and their team is always right, no matter what anybody on any side does. Republican voters are Trump's to lose, not some theoretical Democratic candidate's to win. Which he has been doing.
As for Kamala Harris, she actually has TEETH, unlike 90% of Democratic Candidates. Its gonna be harder for Republicans to use her as a punching bag or to try and control any narrative around her because of this.
Look at the artcle @jmerry just cited. It may not fully assuage you, but the reason Trump is given a roughly 1 in 3 chance right now is because its a long way until the election.
Silver's own model also says that if the election were held tonight, it would have Biden at a 93% chance to win.
As for Kamala Harris, she actually has TEETH, unlike 90% of Democratic Candidates. Its gonna be harder for Republicans to use her as a punching bag or to try and control any narrative around her because of this.
Harris seems like a fantastic pick to be the aggressive VP candidate that's supposed to undercut the current administration. @jjstraka34 is absolutely right that she'll spend the next 3 months as if she's speaking to a jury for why the Trump presidency has failed the American people.
I dont think she's an A+ pick. I dont think an A+ pick exists for a VP selection. I do think she's a B or B+ though.
@Balrog99 "I'm just not sure it'll fire up anybody who wasn't going to vote Democrat anyway."
Here's the thing though, no Democratic candidate would be able to pull that off. The conservative movement is very much like a cult. What they will accept as true, is what they think should be true. That's the beginning and end of their thought process. They've picked their team, and their team is always right, no matter what anybody on any side does. Republican voters are Trump's to lose, not some theoretical Democratic candidate's to win. Which he has been doing.
As for Kamala Harris, she actually has TEETH, unlike 90% of Democratic Candidates. Its gonna be harder for Republicans to use her as a punching bag or to try and control any narrative around her because of this.
No one cares about Trump’s 35% cult except for Republicans that are afraid of being replaced in primaries.
It’s the gullible swing voters that the Democrats need to keep in check. The ones that will fall for the Venezuela crap come election
@Balrog99 "I'm just not sure it'll fire up anybody who wasn't going to vote Democrat anyway."
Here's the thing though, no Democratic candidate would be able to pull that off. The conservative movement is very much like a cult. What they will accept as true, is what they think should be true. That's the beginning and end of their thought process. They've picked their team, and their team is always right, no matter what anybody on any side does. Republican voters are Trump's to lose, not some theoretical Democratic candidate's to win. Which he has been doing.
As for Kamala Harris, she actually has TEETH, unlike 90% of Democratic Candidates. Its gonna be harder for Republicans to use her as a punching bag or to try and control any narrative around her because of this.
No one cares about Trump’s 35% cult except for Republicans that are afraid of being replaced in primaries.
It’s the gullible swing voters that the Democrats need to keep in check. The ones that will fall for the Venezuela crap come election
I prefer to think that as a 'swing' voter myself, I'm more open-minded than most folks and don't believe either sides' political dogma and fear-mongering. There may be 'gullible' swing-voters but there are also 'gullible' Democrats and 'gullible' Republicans...
@Balrog99 "I'm just not sure it'll fire up anybody who wasn't going to vote Democrat anyway."
Here's the thing though, no Democratic candidate would be able to pull that off. The conservative movement is very much like a cult. What they will accept as true, is what they think should be true. That's the beginning and end of their thought process. They've picked their team, and their team is always right, no matter what anybody on any side does. Republican voters are Trump's to lose, not some theoretical Democratic candidate's to win. Which he has been doing.
As for Kamala Harris, she actually has TEETH, unlike 90% of Democratic Candidates. Its gonna be harder for Republicans to use her as a punching bag or to try and control any narrative around her because of this.
No one cares about Trump’s 35% cult except for Republicans that are afraid of being replaced in primaries.
It’s the gullible swing voters that the Democrats need to keep in check. The ones that will fall for the Venezuela crap come election
I prefer to think that as a 'swing' voter myself, I'm more open-minded than most folks and don't believe either sides' political dogma and fear-mongering. There may be 'gullible' swing-voters but there are also 'gullible' Democrats and 'gullible' Republicans...
Kinda hoped it would be higher. A lot of stuff hinges on this election. Covid is just one of many issues.
It's 70% now because of the time between now and the election, as jj said. The conventions haven't even happened yet. If Biden's polling stays the same or heck, even dips a tiny bit, that percentage will slowly climb.
@Balrog99 "I'm just not sure it'll fire up anybody who wasn't going to vote Democrat anyway."
Here's the thing though, no Democratic candidate would be able to pull that off. The conservative movement is very much like a cult. What they will accept as true, is what they think should be true. That's the beginning and end of their thought process. They've picked their team, and their team is always right, no matter what anybody on any side does. Republican voters are Trump's to lose, not some theoretical Democratic candidate's to win. Which he has been doing.
As for Kamala Harris, she actually has TEETH, unlike 90% of Democratic Candidates. Its gonna be harder for Republicans to use her as a punching bag or to try and control any narrative around her because of this.
No one cares about Trump’s 35% cult except for Republicans that are afraid of being replaced in primaries.
It’s the gullible swing voters that the Democrats need to keep in check. The ones that will fall for the Venezuela crap come election
I prefer to think that as a 'swing' voter myself, I'm more open-minded than most folks and don't believe either sides' political dogma and fear-mongering. There may be 'gullible' swing-voters but there are also 'gullible' Democrats and 'gullible' Republicans...
I have to say, if you're unwilling to pull the lever for the only other candidate that has a chance of winning in a potentially competitive election, you may not be as open-minded as you believe. I know that sounds critical, but give the current circumstances, I think it's warranted. The US is in the midst of one of the worst crises of governance it has seen in a long, long time. Not since the Hoover administration have things seemed this bad.
And the US is more or less alone in this predicament. No other well-off country's government has failed to the extent as Trump's. Only seriously corrupt and resource limited places like Brazil have done as bad. And these other governments in places like Europe, Canada, Australia, are ruled by parties and politicians that are not terribly different from US Democrats. If circumstances like that are not persuasive enough for someone, I don't think that person can be persuaded by anything.
Comments
You've made the argument that Trump does not have the legal power to do what he originally said he would and, from the detail provided, it would seem he agrees. One perspective on this is that Trump is acting stupidly and irresponsibly, but there is an alternative one, i.e. that Congress has acted stupidly and irresponsibly and Trump is doing as much as he possibly can within the law to rescue the situation.
I don't think the issue is black and white and I doubt that this action will change many minds about what presidential candidate to vote for. Taking the perspective that Congress is at fault would of course reinforce the idea that American democracy is a rather broken system, but I imagine Trump sees that as a benefit rather than the reverse.
If people want to completely dismantle the American system of government they should at least be honest about it. Understand that Democrats are not opposed to doing ANY of this. They want to do MORE than this. Mitch McConnell has said no. If Trump has no issue spending the money, and Democrats certainly don't have an issue with doing so (because, as I said, they already passed a 3 trillion dollar bill over a month ago in the House) then the problem is not "Congress" it's the "Republican-controlled Senate".
Which doesn't even get into the Pandora's Box we are opening. If we're now at the point where if Congress doesn't act on the something, the President just signs a piece of paper and circumvents them, then I again ask, what reason do they even have to exist?? If Congress doesn't push back on an Executive power-grab this broad and brazen, then they are basically telling him he can issue an Executive Order on ANYTHING and get away with it while it's litigated for months or years at a time. Today it's conjuring unemployment benefits out of thin air with no appropriation. In 3 months it could be "these ballots are all invalid, I dare you to stop me". He's now issuing them at the same pace Al Pacino was snorting coke at the end of "Scarface". As I mentioned before, Politico is reporting that they are having talks in the White House about EOs as far-reaching as ordering certain mail-in ballots to not be delivered to their recipients.
So yeah, the Democrats can only push back in a certain way, and yet letting him get away with this is tantamount to making one of the three branches of government totally irrelevant, when an argument can made the original intent was that it would be the MOST powerful. So if the argument is that things are broken, the answer to that question is, yes they are. Because we are now seeing that the system cannot hold when someone is determined to destroy it. So I mean, by all means, let's let the President unilaterally decide to stop collecting the taxes that fund the two most important social programs in history and also embolden him to just issue edicts whenever he chooses because he will learn there are no consequences for doing so. Some long-term thinking is required here, no matter how dire the situation we are in (which is 95% his fault anyway).
While I agree with you it's hard to see the impact of Covid-19 on health as anything other than detrimental to Trump, I don't think the debate about how to deal with the economic impact is as clear-cut. Trump's standard tactics when he's caught bang to rights on anything are to blame others and confuse the argument by throwing as many issues as possible into the mix and that's certainly happening now.
The most difficult thing for him to deal with is the virus as he's been pretty unsuccessful in painting the virus as "the enemy". However, he does seem to have had some success in setting China up as a new red menace and I would expect a lot more of that in the run-up to the election. The strategy of picking both external and internal enemies and then stimulating the economy by moving it onto a pre-war footing may not have ended well for the Nazis, but it did successfully push the US into pre-eminence in the second half of the twentieth century - although the USSR is commonly seen as the instigator of the cold war, it was really Truman's massive increase in military expenditure (from 5% of GDP in 1950 to 14.2% in 1953) that set up that conflict.
With unemployment rising sharply, I would be surprised if there's not a proposal to boost military spending over the next few months to soak some of that up. The danger with that of course is that a real conflict could ultimately occur. It was luck as much as judgment that prevented the US and USSR from getting into a direct war and luck is not something we want to rely on ...
So (for example) let's say you get paid again on August 21, or your benefits ran out on August 7 and you're expecting another weekly stipend on August 14. Does Trump actually think people aren't going to notice that their payroll taxes are still being withheld and they didn't get a direct deposit (or it wasn't as big) from unemployment in the coming weeks?? His announcement implied immediate relief, essentially promised it. But in many cases, not a single cent is going to show up for anyone in the month of August, if ever. If you're promising people in no uncertain terms significant, immediate economic relief that you are making a huge dog and pony show about, you damn well better be able to actually deliever it, and quickly. And nothing I have read about how all this would actually work indicates that will happen.
Every single bit of this requires an opt-in from another entity. The order on evictions "encourages" landlords not to evict people, but it's completely up to them whether they actually do so. The payroll tax holiday is contingent upon employers deciding NOT to cover their asses in regards to future liability next year. And the unemployment requires states to set up the program and cover 25% of costs. The only thing that is real is the student loan deferral.
Another thing in anticipation of the argument is that "all recent Presidents issued Executive Orders". True. And Trump is set to far eclipse any of them by leaps and bounds. For the most recent comparison, Obama issued 276. Given 8 years at his current pace, Trump would be at 472. So in the realm of TWICE as many.
Yes, I do want to completely dismantle the American system of government. Nothing that comes out of any American institution represents my beliefs or interests and as far as i'm concerned I am an unwilling participant in a system i'd rather see done away with. I don't think having a singular government from California to Texas to Pennsylvania is necessary or results in democratic outcomes.
Really though, issuing some executive orders to give money to people during a one-in-a-lifetime pandemic is hardly a democracy-destroying power move. Some perspective on over-reaches of power is important here. Supreme Court judgements have been defied, human rights been abandoned, and much more has happened in our time, yet the democratic system ultimately withstood it. I think it will survive some extralegal payments to citizens in need. Though perhaps it would be better if it didn't.
But yes, it's the Republican controlled Senate that is the problem, and who are ultimately being circumvented by these Executive Orders. It isn't a Republican vs. Democrat thing, the way I see it. Democrats would have went along with it. Some Republicans won't spend a dime on helping anyone, and i'm perfectly satisfied with them getting no say in the matter.
Clearly the NCAA wants to make Trump look bad...
(I'll add them to my sister's conspiracy list.)
They still will. Just have to find a way to twist it so that it was Biden responsible instead of Clinton. Give them about 2 weeks.
I would have preferred to see Harris as AG but I would take her as VP over a lot of the other candidates.
Heck, our entire political spectrum in general needs more new blood.
It is the safe pick, but it also shakes things up a good bit. Kinda why it makes all the sense in the world.
Harris is the first Black woman to be placed on a VP ticket. That's significant. She's also the first Asian American (Mother was from India). She's also one of the 4 or 5 most progressive senators since she joined that body (4 years ago). She isnt dyed in the wool progressive like Bernie or Warren, but she's comfortably in between the liberal and progressive camps (Just like Biden is comfortably in between the centrist and liberal camp) of the party.
People are fired up. The reaction to the pick points to that.
FWIW - the whole "make your running mate someone from a swing state shtick" hasnt really meant much in a long time. When was the last time it worked?
Trump had Pence (Indiana, Not a swing state)
Obama had Biden (Delaware, not a Swing State)
Bush had Cheney (Wyoming, not a Swing State)
The last time putting someone from a "swing state" worked was in 1996, when Gore helped Clinton carry Tennessee. Gore himself ended up losing Tennessee in 2000.
It's fairly meaningless these days. Harris does more to bring back the Obama coalition.
I'm just not sure it'll fire up anybody who wasn't going to vote Democrat anyway. I know I'm on the fence, and that pick did nothing for me. Well, truthfully I'm not on the fence about voting for Trump but this does not make me want to vote for Biden. Harris was absolutely last on my list. I don't really like Warren but picking her would have been preferable since I was in Bernie's court for the primary. God that seems like years ago already...
Picking Warren would have played into the fear mongering that Biden is taken his cues from the socialist wing of the Democratic Party.
Trump is losing in the polls because he can’t control the narrative about the Democrats this time like he did against Clinton. The Democrats just need to keep it like that.
As for Kamala Harris......though they don't have the sheer numbers in comparison, black women are the beating heart of the Democratic base in the same way evangelicals are to the Republicans. Picking someone like Whitmer or Warren would have been a slap in the face in the current climate. I'm fairly certain Joe Biden has cornered the market on the "you can vote for me I'm not scary" white suburbanite who can't stand Trump. I see no benefit in doubling down on it. Whitmer needs to stay in Michigan. Warren (in my dream world) should be Senate Majority or Minority Leader (because Schumer is a joke next to McConnell's mastery). Put Stacy Abrams in charge of the DNC. You can bring Susan Rice back as National Security Advisor after you win, without replaying the Benghazi nonsense on FOX 24/7 by making her VP (and one no one knows). Karen Bass has zero name recognition. There was never really any reason NOT to pick Harris, besides the fact that I and many others have seen her as the heir apparent for some time, despite her campaign failing to really launch. And she will eviscerate Mike Pence in the debate, where I expect her to put the current Administration "on trial" (so to speak) in regards to the last 6 months.
The model will change, often daily. It's a good way to drive yourself nuts.
Here's the thing though, no Democratic candidate would be able to pull that off. The conservative movement is very much like a cult. What they will accept as true, is what they think should be true. That's the beginning and end of their thought process. They've picked their team, and their team is always right, no matter what anybody on any side does. Republican voters are Trump's to lose, not some theoretical Democratic candidate's to win. Which he has been doing.
As for Kamala Harris, she actually has TEETH, unlike 90% of Democratic Candidates. Its gonna be harder for Republicans to use her as a punching bag or to try and control any narrative around her because of this.
Look at the artcle @jmerry just cited. It may not fully assuage you, but the reason Trump is given a roughly 1 in 3 chance right now is because its a long way until the election.
Silver's own model also says that if the election were held tonight, it would have Biden at a 93% chance to win.
Harris seems like a fantastic pick to be the aggressive VP candidate that's supposed to undercut the current administration. @jjstraka34 is absolutely right that she'll spend the next 3 months as if she's speaking to a jury for why the Trump presidency has failed the American people.
I dont think she's an A+ pick. I dont think an A+ pick exists for a VP selection. I do think she's a B or B+ though.
No one cares about Trump’s 35% cult except for Republicans that are afraid of being replaced in primaries.
It’s the gullible swing voters that the Democrats need to keep in check. The ones that will fall for the Venezuela crap come election
I prefer to think that as a 'swing' voter myself, I'm more open-minded than most folks and don't believe either sides' political dogma and fear-mongering. There may be 'gullible' swing-voters but there are also 'gullible' Democrats and 'gullible' Republicans...
I prefer "independent voter" personally.
It's 70% now because of the time between now and the election, as jj said. The conventions haven't even happened yet. If Biden's polling stays the same or heck, even dips a tiny bit, that percentage will slowly climb.
I have to say, if you're unwilling to pull the lever for the only other candidate that has a chance of winning in a potentially competitive election, you may not be as open-minded as you believe. I know that sounds critical, but give the current circumstances, I think it's warranted. The US is in the midst of one of the worst crises of governance it has seen in a long, long time. Not since the Hoover administration have things seemed this bad.
And the US is more or less alone in this predicament. No other well-off country's government has failed to the extent as Trump's. Only seriously corrupt and resource limited places like Brazil have done as bad. And these other governments in places like Europe, Canada, Australia, are ruled by parties and politicians that are not terribly different from US Democrats. If circumstances like that are not persuasive enough for someone, I don't think that person can be persuaded by anything.