Here's a question: I am having a hard time finding anyone who can make a convincing case for Biden. There is even a NYT opinion piece entitled "The Case for Biden" that is surprisingly weak. So,...
Here's a question: I am having a hard time finding anyone who can make a convincing case for Biden. There is even a NYT opinion piece entitled "The Case for Biden" that is surprisingly weak.
So, why do you suppose so many politicians endorse Biden? I assume they're reasonably well-informed.
Seems like the Dems just dont like Bernie and Biden is the best option they are clinging too. The irony is I personally think Bernie has a better chance with the general public, he is just not the...
Seems like the Dems just dont like Bernie and Biden is the best option they are clinging too. The irony is I personally think Bernie has a better chance with the general public, he is just not the 'safe' option. The way these endorsements are going I feel a repeat of 2016 coming on.
Agreed and it's pretty scary. Bernie Sanders campaign has created an incredible movement. It might all be for nothing come November. These people can easily become disillusioned, because there...
Agreed and it's pretty scary. Bernie Sanders campaign has created an incredible movement. It might all be for nothing come November. These people can easily become disillusioned, because there exists so much hope for a better future with Sanders. There is very little that Biden can give the American people over Sanders. Some might even feel he doesn't provide much more than Trump.
I worry that Sanders could be a big disappointment after becoming president due to stalemate with Congress. Think of all the disappointed Bernie bros after nothing he's promised gets done. It...
I worry that Sanders could be a big disappointment after becoming president due to stalemate with Congress. Think of all the disappointed Bernie bros after nothing he's promised gets done. It might turn them off politics forever?
On the other hand, voting for disappointment because that's all you expect to get anyway seems a bit perverse?
Yeah. This is a very disappointing part of US politics. The biggest election is that of President, but it is not the most important one. The issue is that there are an enormous amount of people...
I worry that Sanders could be a big disappointment after becoming president due to stalemate with Congress.
Yeah. This is a very disappointing part of US politics. The biggest election is that of President, but it is not the most important one.
The issue is that there are an enormous amount of people who are uninsured, living paycheck to paycheck, are in debt, etc. It seems like with Sanders, things might actually change for the better. Even when it can take a few years because you need to wait for successful midterms. That is why he is creating a movement and says it's "not me, us". This movement has the potential to change the future of the US in a positive way.
And then you have Biden with a message of "nothing will fundamentally change". Thar is simply insulting to all these people I mentioned above.
It's a catch 22, but I feel no matter who is picked nothing will get done. I'm sure an ideologue somewhere could point out why I'm wrong about that, I want to believe™. But I think this might...
It's a catch 22, but I feel no matter who is picked nothing will get done. I'm sure an ideologue somewhere could point out why I'm wrong about that, I want to believe™. But I think this might disillusion some people.
There will be a stalemate with Congress no matter what. Even if Democrats get 51 or more votes in the Senate, they won't have 60, so everything they do will be filibustered. Even if they get past...
There will be a stalemate with Congress no matter what. Even if Democrats get 51 or more votes in the Senate, they won't have 60, so everything they do will be filibustered.
Even if they get past the filibuster somehow, there's 5 conservative votes in the Supreme Court to overrule anything that gets passed.
I really liked that Buttigieg (before his moderate pivot) and Warren were talking about this. The filibuster needs to end, and the Supreme Court needs some kind of change or reform (which will inevitably be called court-packing) or we will continue to have a federal government that passes essentially zero new legislation.
There are 45 Democratic senators. Are they blocking anything interesting because they can filibuster? I guess it doesn't matter too much currently because the Democrats control the House. How...
There are 45 Democratic senators. Are they blocking anything interesting because they can filibuster?
I guess it doesn't matter too much currently because the Democrats control the House. How about before that?
Trump's only major legislative accomplishment of his first 4 years is the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", properly titled Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent...
The individual and pass-through tax cuts fade over time and become net tax increases starting in 2027 while the corporate tax cuts are permanent. This enabled the Senate to pass the bill with only 51 votes, without the need to defeat a filibuster, under the budget reconciliation process.
The CR process imposes a major limit, that the legislation must be "budget-related". This is why, for example, after campaigning for years on "repeal every word of Obamacare", what they actually ended up passing was only to repeal the individual mandate (strictly speaking, they didn't even really do that, they changed the penalty for not complying with the mandate to $0). This is because repealing any other part of Obamacare wouldn't have been budget-related, wouldn't have fit the CR rules, so would have required 60 votes, and then would have been filibustered by Democrats.
You haven't heard as much about the filibuster as you might expect, because the actual occurrence of "standing on the Senate floor for 12 hours" has gone down, even as the threat of filibustering has gone up. This is because if Party A has (for example) 55 votes while Party B only has 45, A recognizes that B can filibuster anything it wants. If it proceeds to an actual filibuster, that results in lots of free media airtime for B, and a perception of them as a scrappy underdog. Party A still controls which legislation comes to a vote, so they avoid filibusters by simply not bringing legislation up for a vote if they know it won't get 60 votes for cloture.
Democratic Senators certainly would have filibustered Trump's two Supreme Court picks, but there was a rules change that removed that as an option:
On April 6, 2017, Senate Republicans eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines.
Because of Weird Senate Rules, it takes 60 votes to end an individual filibuster, but only 51 votes to change the rules to remove the filibuster as an option entirely (the so-called "nuclear option").
Protecting Obamacare seems like a pretty good reason for keeping the filibuster? Senators who think ahead might be reluctant to give it up, even if the Democrats are temporarily in power again....
Protecting Obamacare seems like a pretty good reason for keeping the filibuster? Senators who think ahead might be reluctant to give it up, even if the Democrats are temporarily in power again.
It's a double-edged sword to be sure, but ultimately I'm in favor of ending the filibuster. Yes, without a 60-vote requirement, the Republicans could have repealed Obamacare...but then they'd have...
It's a double-edged sword to be sure, but ultimately I'm in favor of ending the filibuster.
Yes, without a 60-vote requirement, the Republicans could have repealed Obamacare...but then they'd have a "put their money where their mouth is" problem. They campaigned on "repealing every single word of Obamacare" because privately they knew it would never happen because they were unlikely to get a 60-vote majority.
If they did fulfill that promise, they'd be getting rid of extremely popular provisions of Obamacare, like the ban on pre-existing conditions, children staying on their parents' insurance until 26, etc. Then they'd have to actually defend the real-world consequences of fulfilling their campaign promises.
Legislative stalemate is fine if you're happy with the status quo. I'm not. Yes, it protects existing laws like Obamacare from being repealed, but it also prevents any expansion of Obamacare passing, in the scenario where Democrats take back the Senate and White House in November. All of the debates about "Medicare for All" vs "Medicare for All who want it" vs whatever weaksauce "expand Obamacare" crap Biden has - absolutely none of it matters if the filibuster stays in place.
It also prevents any climate change legislation from passing. I don't think we can wait until some hypothetical future election where Democrats have 60 Senate seats to take action on it.
The typical workaround proposed to getting things done without ending the filibuster is executive orders. Obama did lots of those, but as we've seen, they can be very easily rolled back by the next President. Doing things that way also essentially cedes the point that one of our three branches of government is feckless and incapable of doing anything more meaningful than naming post offices.
I agree. As that Bernie (Warren is fine too) bro (I'm not American nor voting age, don't worry) I don't really know what Biden is really promising, although from skim through a Wikipedia...
These people can easily become disillusioned, because there exists so much hope for a better future with Sanders. There is very little that Biden can give the American people over Sanders. Some might even feel he doesn't provide much more than Trump.
I agree. As that Bernie (Warren is fine too) bro (I'm not American nor voting age, don't worry) I don't really know what Biden is really promising, although from skim through a Wikipedia spreadsheet on the candidates' positions I would vote for him because according to Wikipedia he wants to abolish VoterID and wants statehood for D.C and Puerto Rico, which would greatly correct the imbalance of power that is in favor of the Republicans in Congress and make sure we actually do have another shot next time since I genuinely believe that Trump wants to turn the US into a dictatorship. (although Biden doesn't want election day to be a federal holiday or to even end felony disenfranchisement which is, to say the least, a compromise with noone, like oh so many things with him.) He would also increase funding for some other things like communnity college and give us a 15 dollar minimum wage which is great, anything above what we have now and he does want publicly funded elections meaning he does show some level of care for grassroots candidacies but ironically it doesn't really feel that he would return us to the Obama years simply because Obama's presidency wasn't about going back, it was about moving forward and the candidates who want to move forward are progressives like Sanders and Warren, not Joe. (His gaffes would also make him a joke at a debate against Trump.)
It's funny that you mention his positions, because it's the first time I've heard of them. Biden has enormous trouble getting an actual message out, which isn't great for a general election. Say...
It's funny that you mention his positions, because it's the first time I've heard of them. Biden has enormous trouble getting an actual message out, which isn't great for a general election.
Say what you want about Trump, but "make America great again" is an incredibly strong message even though it can be different for everyone.
In my opinion, I can't really think of one. However that doesn't mean it cannot change and be an issue in the future. Also in my opinion, DC shouldn't be composed of any land not owned by the...
In my opinion, I can't really think of one. However that doesn't mean it cannot change and be an issue in the future.
Also in my opinion, DC shouldn't be composed of any land not owned by the federal government and so it's only residents would be the President and VP (and their families plus another other government housing provided to elected officials that I can't think of right now).
What about all the people who work for them? What about the roads, fire, and police services they use? What about the schools the people who work for them need to send their kids to? And the...
DC shouldn't be composed of any land not owned by the federal government and so it's only residents would be the President and VP
What about all the people who work for them? What about the roads, fire, and police services they use? What about the schools the people who work for them need to send their kids to? And the grocery stores they need to buy their food at, who staffs and runs those? The bars and restaurants they attend? The hotels that visiting guests and dignitaries stay in? I could go on, but you get the picture. No man is an island, elected officials least of all. There is a society and a community around them with needs that can only be met by collective action, otherwise known as a government.
I'm going to guess that you think that I mean the land area currently known as Washington DC would be entirely owned by the federal government. It is not what I intended by my comment. What I am...
I'm going to guess that you think that I mean the land area currently known as Washington DC would be entirely owned by the federal government. It is not what I intended by my comment. What I am referring to is the shrinking of DC to only those lands that are currently owned and need to be owned by the federal government.
Pretty much all of the land would go back to being in the jurisdiction of Maryland and the public services (police/fire/etc) the provide; houses, schools, stores, restaurants, and the like would be in a state and therefore the people in those areas would have representation without the need to change the rules to give DC representation. The society and community around the elected officials would remain and they would have the representation they should have.
The thing is, the city around those lands still needs to pay to maintain it all. A federal building that isn't up to DC building code that catches on fire isn't going to stay inside the federal...
What I am referring to is the shrinking of DC to only those lands that are currently owned and need to be owned by the federal government.
The thing is, the city around those lands still needs to pay to maintain it all. A federal building that isn't up to DC building code that catches on fire isn't going to stay inside the federal district boundary. And those federal buildings are still going to have workers using DC taxpayer funded plumbing and sewage, DC taxpayer subsidized public transit. Retrocession to Maryland doesn't actually address any of the actual issues people in DC have when it comes to dealing with the Federal Government.
Nor would any building in Texarkana, Texhoma, Bristol, or any other city that straddles or sits close to a border including the buildings that are on the DC/Maryland border currently. No, those...
A federal building that isn't up to DC building code that catches on fire isn't going to stay inside the federal district boundary.
Nor would any building in Texarkana, Texhoma, Bristol, or any other city that straddles or sits close to a border including the buildings that are on the DC/Maryland border currently.
And those federal buildings are still going to have workers using DC taxpayer funded plumbing and sewage, DC taxpayer subsidized public transit.
No, those buildings are going to have workers using federal taxpayer funded plumbing as there will be no DC taxpayer as no one will live there (ignoring restaurants/cafes/businesses inside federal buildings), those payments made to Maryland if at all. They'll use Maryland subsidized public transit because, surprise surprise, it'll be operating on Maryland soil by people that live in Maryland as they don't live in DC any longer.
Retrocession to Maryland doesn't actually address any of the actual issues people in DC have when it comes to dealing with the Federal Government.
The difference is cities along borders are equal on power terms. In cases where they aren't (like Indiana suburbs of Chicago), they actually really don't like it and those suburbs are leeching off...
Nor would any building in Texarkana, Texhoma, Bristol, or any other city that straddles or sits close to a border including the buildings that are on the DC/Maryland border currently.
The difference is cities along borders are equal on power terms. In cases where they aren't (like Indiana suburbs of Chicago), they actually really don't like it and those suburbs are leeching off the tax dollars being paid by the city proper. This all becomes worse when your city is a "company town" with a "company" that has explicit legal supremacy over anything you want to do.
No, those buildings are going to have workers using federal taxpayer funded plumbing as there will be no DC taxpayer as no one will live there (ignoring restaurants/cafes/businesses inside federal buildings), those payments made to Maryland if at all. They'll use Maryland subsidized public transit because, surprise surprise, it'll be operating on Maryland soil by people that live in Maryland as they don't live in DC any longer.
This is just using semantics to dodge the question. The people who live in the area that is currently DC will still be paying their taxes and have even less negotiating power against the Federal Government because the rest of the Maryland polity will have no interest backing them.
What's more, Maryland doesn't even want retrocession because it will take it from being a very lightly blue state to a solid blue one. No Republican would ever win statewide office there again.
You also don't seem to understand exactly how interspersed Federal lands and buildings are throughout the District. The government rents out space in normal office buildings, it's not all stuck in federal land. The government also makes tons of tourism money that's facilitated by DC tax payer infrastructure.
It's not like it just becomes Maryland and every other aspect stays the exact same in a "we'll figure it out later" way. I understand very well, but you can't seem to think that retrocession would...
It's not like it just becomes Maryland and every other aspect stays the exact same in a "we'll figure it out later" way. I understand very well, but you can't seem to think that retrocession would occur without all the other changes needed to address each individual aspect. Being that I have no interest in engaging in goalpost moving pedantry, including how moving from zero representation to being represented by a state somehow means they have less representation, or listing every single little item, I'll just end here.
Maybe I've misunderstood, but as of now the only way to get representation in the US Senate is to become a state. In the House, statehood gets you a voting member instead of the non-voting they...
Maybe I've misunderstood, but as of now the only way to get representation in the US Senate is to become a state. In the House, statehood gets you a voting member instead of the non-voting they have now. Being against statehood means being against representation.
So I guess if they want to change the rules of how congress works, cool with me!
Real people live here my dude. Most of us don't actually work for the Federal Government. And that doesn't seem to stop Congressmen from Maryland coming in and overruling decisions from city...
The whole point of DC is to have a place for the federal government that is independent of any state's influence.
Real people live here my dude. Most of us don't actually work for the Federal Government. And that doesn't seem to stop Congressmen from Maryland coming in and overruling decisions from city government or our rights to manage our own affairs.
He has the best name recognition and he is not Bernie Sanders. In their eyes, this probably makes him very electable. Endorsements by politicians usually back the candidate with the biggest chance...
He has the best name recognition and he is not Bernie Sanders. In their eyes, this probably makes him very electable. Endorsements by politicians usually back the candidate with the biggest chance of winning, so they can actually gain a political advantage down the line. I see Sanders getting endorsements from outside of politics or from organizations. Biden gets them from individual politicians.
But I agree with you. Biden is not running on any platform except beating Trump and being close to Obama. That is not something people get excited for and can easily cost him the general. The votes he gets now are because people know him, not because of his platform.
Yup. The Democratic establishment tends to work that way. There is a really good episode of the Reply All podcast called “the real enemy” that’s worth checking out. It gives you some insight as to...
Yup. The Democratic establishment tends to work that way. There is a really good episode of the Reply All podcast called “the real enemy” that’s worth checking out. It gives you some insight as to how establishment endorsements move votes and how problematic and outdated some of the mindsets motivating these decisions are.
I'm no American, but your politics spills into my local news. I've been reading about the growth of an "anyone but Sanders" movement among Democrats - analogous to the "anyone but Trump" movement...
I'm no American, but your politics spills into my local news.
I've been reading about the growth of an "anyone but Sanders" movement among Democrats - analogous to the "anyone but Trump" movement among Republicans in 2016. The people endorsing Biden aren't for Biden so much as they're against Sanders.
Bernie Sanders is a very polarising divisive politician. He wants to change things. It's good to have a politician with vision, but a lot of pragmatic Democrats are worried that he will alienate too many mainstream voters, and therefore won't get enough votes in a presidential election to oust Donald Trump. So they're shifting their support to a nice reasonable moderate candidate who won't scare the voters. And Biden has been a Vice President. He's known, he's safe, he's moderate - and he has a better chance of attracting the middle-of-the-road swinging voters than Sanders.
More people want to oust Trump at any cost than want to revolutionise America's economy. They want normalcy and stability back - and Sanders is not promising those.
and they're very worried about a socialist coming in and empowering the people to challenge the Capitalist, Corporatist status-quo. Sometimes the first bit is just a cover for the second. Swing...
a lot of pragmatic Democrats are worried that he will alienate too many mainstream voters
and they're very worried about a socialist coming in and empowering the people to challenge the Capitalist, Corporatist status-quo. Sometimes the first bit is just a cover for the second.
he has a better chance of attracting the middle-of-the-road swinging voters than Sanders.
Swing voters aren't a thing that decides US elections. Here's a good paper on it. Ezra Klein also has a book out about polarization in the USA that has parts detailing why swing voters are a fantasy.
More people want to oust Trump at any cost than want to revolutionise America's economy.
This is a narrative you can build about what Democratic votes want. But it's just a narrative. The campaigns of each primary candidate are constructing their public so as to best boost their viability. Biden leans hard on the "oust[ing] Trump" stuff because that's basically all he's got. Sanders or Warren, on the other hand, construct their public as to be constituted of people wanting real change to improve their lives. Both narratives can be true, and further can be true in a single individual member of the public.
From all the data I've seen true swing voters (ie vote between parties) is rare, but now it's all a game of turnout. The question is whether the Biden demographics or Bernie demographics are more...
Swing voters aren't a thing that decided US elections
From all the data I've seen true swing voters (ie vote between parties) is rare, but now it's all a game of turnout. The question is whether the Biden demographics or Bernie demographics are more likely to stay home if they don't agree with the democratic nominee.
Hillary was safe and it didn't pan out so great. It's hard to motivate voters to get out and vote for someone they're not excited about. Fear can be paralyzing.
Hillary was safe and it didn't pan out so great. It's hard to motivate voters to get out and vote for someone they're not excited about. Fear can be paralyzing.
If not Biden who can they endorse? Sanders? Besides Biden, no establishment or moderate candidate looks like they have even a change of viability in these primaries. If you're wondering why they...
If not Biden who can they endorse? Sanders? Besides Biden, no establishment or moderate candidate looks like they have even a change of viability in these primaries.
If you're wondering why they don't endorse Sanders then, well that's simple. Sanders is an anti-establishment candidate who is openly antagonistic to the practices and ideology of establishment Democrats. Sanders is openly antagonistic to the Capitalist, Corporatist 1%, who have are bedfellows with establishment Democrats.
These days Biden represents a return to the optimism of the Obama years. Sanders represents a continuation and entrenchment of partisan politics. It's easy to forget that a lot of the reason for...
These days Biden represents a return to the optimism of the Obama years. Sanders represents a continuation and entrenchment of partisan politics.
It's easy to forget that a lot of the reason for Obama's initial success in 2008 breaking through the "juggernaut" that was Hillary's support came as a direct result of this exact same promise to transcend partisanship. Biden also has a long record of working with Republicans that he can point to for backing that hope up. He's had famously positive working relationships with people across the political spectrum, even as he's been fairly unwaiveringly liberal (though, obviously not as far to the left as Sanders, it's worth remembering that Biden is not really moderate in what he is proposing for a policy agenda for the next four years).
People who like Sanders often will say that this doesn't make a convincing case, which for them is true. These are the type of voters who know that what they want is so far away that they have to fight loudly and hard to get it, because most voters don't agree with them on many of their most valued policy priorities. But it's more than enough for a lot of voters, and that's why you get a lot of people supporting Biden. They know Biden. Like Algernon is pointing out. Biden is safe. He is a return to a more sane political environment, where the average liberal voter can trust in their government officials again, rather than having to live in a constant state of fear and paranoia because ohgodwhatisthatorangemandoingtoday.
"Normal" isn't a word we've been able to say for a while now about our politics. Don't underestimate voter fatigue. Many people will do a lot of things just to get someone in power they can trust and don't have to constantly watch every fucking moment of the day or else there will be another human rights tragedy on the border.
IMO I think the days of bipartisanship are gone simply because FOX news is so powerful in the Republican party (40% of all Republican voters watch them according to pew), and I don't think they...
Biden also has a long record of working with Republicans that he can point to for backing that hope up. He's had famously positive working relationships with people across the political spectrum.
IMO I think the days of bipartisanship are gone simply because FOX news is so powerful in the Republican party (40% of all Republican voters watch them according to pew), and I don't think they would just let Biden compromise with their party. If fox wasn't around/conservative as hell I would agree but since they are, I don't.
Yeah, I've always thought of Obama's legacy as dominated by the utter failure of bipartisanship, at the hands of a republican party no longer interested in participating in a government that they...
Yeah, I've always thought of Obama's legacy as dominated by the utter failure of bipartisanship, at the hands of a republican party no longer interested in participating in a government that they don't control. A hand extended, then slapped away, a song and dance repeated hundreds, if not thousands of times during his eight years.
Biden trying to base his appeal on a return to those halcyon days strikes me as a little tone deaf, or at least targeting a segment of voters that would prefer to stick their heads in the sand, rather than acknowledge and confront the existential threat posed by one of our two parties abandoning democracy and openly embracing authoritarianism.
Biden used to lead the swing states in the polls. Trump also used to fear him. Strangely, that recently changed. You can find the swing states here: https://www.270towin.com/ Swing State Polls are...
Biden used to lead the swing states in the polls. Trump also used to fear him.
Because Biden is part of the main party's establishment and they'd rather elect an insider who will keep the status quo than someone progressively radical like Sanders or Warren. Charlie from...
Because Biden is part of the main party's establishment and they'd rather elect an insider who will keep the status quo than someone progressively radical like Sanders or Warren.
Charlie from Charisma on Command did a really good video explaining why he thought Trump was going to smash Hillary in the 2016 election (and he was right about his prediction.)
I bring this up because Charlie brought up a major weakness of Hillary's campaign. She didn't play to her strengths that she had qualifications, experience and was around for several of America's key victories like the killing of Osama bin Laden. Instead, she tried to paint herself as an outsider by playing the woman card, when in reality she was one of the biggest insiders of the Democratic Party. Trump on the other hand legitimately painted himself as an outsider because he defied the odds and even the Republican Party's own wishes by getting attention, riding off the billions in free publicity his campaign got and eliminating his opponents one by one.
Biden is going to face a similar obstacle against Trump. If he does win big on Super Tuesday and secures the nomination, a lot of disgruntled and pissed off Sanders, Warren or Buttigieg supporters are going to cry corruption and either not vote in 2020, or vote for Trump.
I'm not at all sure that Hillary Clinton pretended to be an outsider or downplayed her experience. I guess I'd need some examples. And it seems clear that Biden isn't doing any pretending about...
I'm not at all sure that Hillary Clinton pretended to be an outsider or downplayed her experience. I guess I'd need some examples. And it seems clear that Biden isn't doing any pretending about being an outsider, so maybe that counts for something?
I am also wondering about the responsibility contingent. How many people will do their duty and vote against Trump, when it comes right down to it?
It's not fun to have your vote taken for granted, but is it wrong? I can tell you right now how I'm voting in November. People get their chance to vote against Trump, their great enemy, and they stay home?
I'm not at all sure that Hillary Clinton pretended to be an outsider or downplayed her experience. I guess I'd need some examples. And it seems clear that Biden isn't doing any pretending about being an outsider, so maybe that counts for something?
Idk. Whenever i see 538 i feel like it cusps on propaganda masquerading as empirical study, This doesn't seem to buck the trend. The premise of an endorsement primary is interesting. But the only...
Idk. Whenever i see 538 i feel like it cusps on propaganda masquerading as empirical study, This doesn't seem to buck the trend.
The premise of an endorsement primary is interesting. But the only people voting in this primary are fucking party elites and people who wield power. These people overwhelmingly favor Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders.
This is a meaningless study delivered by an idiot full of sound, fury, and glaring Stats 101 selection bias. It's a hypothetical study of how the 2016 superdelegate cadre would have leaned had Bernie not pushed for roles in primaries to change. It signifies nothing.
How do you know it doesn't matter? Who got endorsements is factual information. Of course the way 538 counts them is arbitrary, but seems reasonable. I don't know the effect of endorsements. I am...
How do you know it doesn't matter?
Who got endorsements is factual information. Of course the way 538 counts them is arbitrary, but seems reasonable.
I don't know the effect of endorsements. I am wondering if they had anything with Biden's win in South Carolina? I don't have a good understanding of the black vote.
I disagree. They made an educate, conscious decisions about who endorsement matters. This could all be instagram influencers. But it's not. It's party insiders and elected power wielders. It's not...
arbitrary
I disagree. They made an educate, conscious decisions about who endorsement matters. This could all be instagram influencers. But it's not. It's party insiders and elected power wielders.
It's not that it doesn't matter. It's just totally like... not even worth the time. It's like asking what food Cookie Monster wants to eat (or Kale Monster or whatever he is now). Like of course these people like Biden.
The fact that it's coming the day after the party is lining up behind Biden for super tuesday is suss too.
I don't have a good understanding of the black vote.
I can tell you for sure it's not gonna be decided the same as the party elite endorsement vote lmao.
I am wondering if they had anything with Biden's win in South Carolina?
The heads on the screen talked to me that this is because Biden was Obama's VP he has strong showings with older, high-propensity Black people. SC's Democratic party is very Black so there u go. Seems convincing.
Yes, I meant that the 538 point system for endorsements is arbitrarily chosen, by which I mean not fact-based, though I don't know any non-arbitrary way to do it and it doesn't seem unreasonable....
Yes, I meant that the 538 point system for endorsements is arbitrarily chosen, by which I mean not fact-based, though I don't know any non-arbitrary way to do it and it doesn't seem unreasonable.
And as you say, it's explicitly about endorsements by politicians, so there is the choice of who to include at all.
But tracking political endorsements seems interesting to do, though of unclear meaning.
I guess you could think of Obama choosing Biden as VP back in 2008 as an endorsement of sorts, assuming he thought about whether Biden would make a good president? But interestingly, Obama hasn't formally endorsed anyone yet?
That's another reason it's somewhat arbitrary, but not unreasonable, to count formal endorsements.
Here's a question: I am having a hard time finding anyone who can make a convincing case for Biden. There is even a NYT opinion piece entitled "The Case for Biden" that is surprisingly weak.
So, why do you suppose so many politicians endorse Biden? I assume they're reasonably well-informed.
Seems like the Dems just dont like Bernie and Biden is the best option they are clinging too. The irony is I personally think Bernie has a better chance with the general public, he is just not the 'safe' option. The way these endorsements are going I feel a repeat of 2016 coming on.
Agreed and it's pretty scary. Bernie Sanders campaign has created an incredible movement. It might all be for nothing come November. These people can easily become disillusioned, because there exists so much hope for a better future with Sanders. There is very little that Biden can give the American people over Sanders. Some might even feel he doesn't provide much more than Trump.
I worry that Sanders could be a big disappointment after becoming president due to stalemate with Congress. Think of all the disappointed Bernie bros after nothing he's promised gets done. It might turn them off politics forever?
On the other hand, voting for disappointment because that's all you expect to get anyway seems a bit perverse?
Yeah. This is a very disappointing part of US politics. The biggest election is that of President, but it is not the most important one.
The issue is that there are an enormous amount of people who are uninsured, living paycheck to paycheck, are in debt, etc. It seems like with Sanders, things might actually change for the better. Even when it can take a few years because you need to wait for successful midterms. That is why he is creating a movement and says it's "not me, us". This movement has the potential to change the future of the US in a positive way.
And then you have Biden with a message of "nothing will fundamentally change". Thar is simply insulting to all these people I mentioned above.
It's a catch 22, but I feel no matter who is picked nothing will get done. I'm sure an ideologue somewhere could point out why I'm wrong about that, I want to believe™. But I think this might disillusion some people.
There will be a stalemate with Congress no matter what. Even if Democrats get 51 or more votes in the Senate, they won't have 60, so everything they do will be filibustered.
Even if they get past the filibuster somehow, there's 5 conservative votes in the Supreme Court to overrule anything that gets passed.
I really liked that Buttigieg (before his moderate pivot) and Warren were talking about this. The filibuster needs to end, and the Supreme Court needs some kind of change or reform (which will inevitably be called court-packing) or we will continue to have a federal government that passes essentially zero new legislation.
There are 45 Democratic senators. Are they blocking anything interesting because they can filibuster?
I guess it doesn't matter too much currently because the Democrats control the House. How about before that?
Trump's only major legislative accomplishment of his first 4 years is the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act", properly titled Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018. This is because it was passed under a wonky process called budget reconciliation which unlike normal legislation only requires 51 votes to pass and cannot be filibustered:
The CR process imposes a major limit, that the legislation must be "budget-related". This is why, for example, after campaigning for years on "repeal every word of Obamacare", what they actually ended up passing was only to repeal the individual mandate (strictly speaking, they didn't even really do that, they changed the penalty for not complying with the mandate to $0). This is because repealing any other part of Obamacare wouldn't have been budget-related, wouldn't have fit the CR rules, so would have required 60 votes, and then would have been filibustered by Democrats.
You haven't heard as much about the filibuster as you might expect, because the actual occurrence of "standing on the Senate floor for 12 hours" has gone down, even as the threat of filibustering has gone up. This is because if Party A has (for example) 55 votes while Party B only has 45, A recognizes that B can filibuster anything it wants. If it proceeds to an actual filibuster, that results in lots of free media airtime for B, and a perception of them as a scrappy underdog. Party A still controls which legislation comes to a vote, so they avoid filibusters by simply not bringing legislation up for a vote if they know it won't get 60 votes for cloture.
Democratic Senators certainly would have filibustered Trump's two Supreme Court picks, but there was a rules change that removed that as an option:
Because of Weird Senate Rules, it takes 60 votes to end an individual filibuster, but only 51 votes to change the rules to remove the filibuster as an option entirely (the so-called "nuclear option").
Protecting Obamacare seems like a pretty good reason for keeping the filibuster? Senators who think ahead might be reluctant to give it up, even if the Democrats are temporarily in power again.
Stalemate is uninspiring but has its good points.
It's a double-edged sword to be sure, but ultimately I'm in favor of ending the filibuster.
Yes, without a 60-vote requirement, the Republicans could have repealed Obamacare...but then they'd have a "put their money where their mouth is" problem. They campaigned on "repealing every single word of Obamacare" because privately they knew it would never happen because they were unlikely to get a 60-vote majority.
If they did fulfill that promise, they'd be getting rid of extremely popular provisions of Obamacare, like the ban on pre-existing conditions, children staying on their parents' insurance until 26, etc. Then they'd have to actually defend the real-world consequences of fulfilling their campaign promises.
Legislative stalemate is fine if you're happy with the status quo. I'm not. Yes, it protects existing laws like Obamacare from being repealed, but it also prevents any expansion of Obamacare passing, in the scenario where Democrats take back the Senate and White House in November. All of the debates about "Medicare for All" vs "Medicare for All who want it" vs whatever weaksauce "expand Obamacare" crap Biden has - absolutely none of it matters if the filibuster stays in place.
It also prevents any climate change legislation from passing. I don't think we can wait until some hypothetical future election where Democrats have 60 Senate seats to take action on it.
The typical workaround proposed to getting things done without ending the filibuster is executive orders. Obama did lots of those, but as we've seen, they can be very easily rolled back by the next President. Doing things that way also essentially cedes the point that one of our three branches of government is feckless and incapable of doing anything more meaningful than naming post offices.
I agree. As that Bernie (Warren is fine too) bro (I'm not American nor voting age, don't worry) I don't really know what Biden is really promising, although from skim through a Wikipedia spreadsheet on the candidates' positions I would vote for him because according to Wikipedia he wants to abolish VoterID and wants statehood for D.C and Puerto Rico, which would greatly correct the imbalance of power that is in favor of the Republicans in Congress and make sure we actually do have another shot next time since I genuinely believe that Trump wants to turn the US into a dictatorship. (although Biden doesn't want election day to be a federal holiday or to even end felony disenfranchisement which is, to say the least, a compromise with noone, like oh so many things with him.) He would also increase funding for some other things like communnity college and give us a 15 dollar minimum wage which is great, anything above what we have now and he does want publicly funded elections meaning he does show some level of care for grassroots candidacies but ironically it doesn't really feel that he would return us to the Obama years simply because Obama's presidency wasn't about going back, it was about moving forward and the candidates who want to move forward are progressives like Sanders and Warren, not Joe. (His gaffes would also make him a joke at a debate against Trump.)
It's funny that you mention his positions, because it's the first time I've heard of them. Biden has enormous trouble getting an actual message out, which isn't great for a general election.
Say what you want about Trump, but "make America great again" is an incredibly strong message even though it can be different for everyone.
DC should never be a state, it fundamentally goes against what DC is. They should have better representation but never statehood.
Why? If DC becomes a state I don't think anything will change there right? Won't it just add a few democratic seats to Congress?
The whole point of DC is to have a place for the federal government that is independent of any state's influence.
Yes, but I think that's mostly a historical concern? What's the modern scenario where it's a problem?
Give them an inch and suddenly all your state representatives are from the tobacco farming, landed elite of Virginia!
In my opinion, I can't really think of one. However that doesn't mean it cannot change and be an issue in the future.
Also in my opinion, DC shouldn't be composed of any land not owned by the federal government and so it's only residents would be the President and VP (and their families plus another other government housing provided to elected officials that I can't think of right now).
What about all the people who work for them? What about the roads, fire, and police services they use? What about the schools the people who work for them need to send their kids to? And the grocery stores they need to buy their food at, who staffs and runs those? The bars and restaurants they attend? The hotels that visiting guests and dignitaries stay in? I could go on, but you get the picture. No man is an island, elected officials least of all. There is a society and a community around them with needs that can only be met by collective action, otherwise known as a government.
I'm going to guess that you think that I mean the land area currently known as Washington DC would be entirely owned by the federal government. It is not what I intended by my comment. What I am referring to is the shrinking of DC to only those lands that are currently owned and need to be owned by the federal government.
Pretty much all of the land would go back to being in the jurisdiction of Maryland and the public services (police/fire/etc) the provide; houses, schools, stores, restaurants, and the like would be in a state and therefore the people in those areas would have representation without the need to change the rules to give DC representation. The society and community around the elected officials would remain and they would have the representation they should have.
The thing is, the city around those lands still needs to pay to maintain it all. A federal building that isn't up to DC building code that catches on fire isn't going to stay inside the federal district boundary. And those federal buildings are still going to have workers using DC taxpayer funded plumbing and sewage, DC taxpayer subsidized public transit. Retrocession to Maryland doesn't actually address any of the actual issues people in DC have when it comes to dealing with the Federal Government.
Nor would any building in Texarkana, Texhoma, Bristol, or any other city that straddles or sits close to a border including the buildings that are on the DC/Maryland border currently.
No, those buildings are going to have workers using federal taxpayer funded plumbing as there will be no DC taxpayer as no one will live there (ignoring restaurants/cafes/businesses inside federal buildings), those payments made to Maryland if at all. They'll use Maryland subsidized public transit because, surprise surprise, it'll be operating on Maryland soil by people that live in Maryland as they don't live in DC any longer.
Such as?
The difference is cities along borders are equal on power terms. In cases where they aren't (like Indiana suburbs of Chicago), they actually really don't like it and those suburbs are leeching off the tax dollars being paid by the city proper. This all becomes worse when your city is a "company town" with a "company" that has explicit legal supremacy over anything you want to do.
This is just using semantics to dodge the question. The people who live in the area that is currently DC will still be paying their taxes and have even less negotiating power against the Federal Government because the rest of the Maryland polity will have no interest backing them.
What's more, Maryland doesn't even want retrocession because it will take it from being a very lightly blue state to a solid blue one. No Republican would ever win statewide office there again.
You also don't seem to understand exactly how interspersed Federal lands and buildings are throughout the District. The government rents out space in normal office buildings, it's not all stuck in federal land. The government also makes tons of tourism money that's facilitated by DC tax payer infrastructure.
It's not like it just becomes Maryland and every other aspect stays the exact same in a "we'll figure it out later" way. I understand very well, but you can't seem to think that retrocession would occur without all the other changes needed to address each individual aspect. Being that I have no interest in engaging in goalpost moving pedantry, including how moving from zero representation to being represented by a state somehow means they have less representation, or listing every single little item, I'll just end here.
It's pretty wild to me that you think residents of DC, which has more people living in it than Wyoming and Vermont, should not get any representation.
To interject on @MimicSquid's behalf. Where did the user state they think the DC residents shouldn't have representation?
clarity edit
Maybe I've misunderstood, but as of now the only way to get representation in the US Senate is to become a state. In the House, statehood gets you a voting member instead of the non-voting they have now. Being against statehood means being against representation.
So I guess if they want to change the rules of how congress works, cool with me!
Real people live here my dude. Most of us don't actually work for the Federal Government. And that doesn't seem to stop Congressmen from Maryland coming in and overruling decisions from city government or our rights to manage our own affairs.
Me too, and the sense of dread is 100x worse because now we know what a Trump presidency is like and don't have to speculate about it.
He has the best name recognition and he is not Bernie Sanders. In their eyes, this probably makes him very electable. Endorsements by politicians usually back the candidate with the biggest chance of winning, so they can actually gain a political advantage down the line. I see Sanders getting endorsements from outside of politics or from organizations. Biden gets them from individual politicians.
But I agree with you. Biden is not running on any platform except beating Trump and being close to Obama. That is not something people get excited for and can easily cost him the general. The votes he gets now are because people know him, not because of his platform.
I guess that makes him the Schelling point for the "anyone but Sanders" folks? "Vote for me, I'm the Schelling Point!"
Democracy is weird.
Yup. The Democratic establishment tends to work that way. There is a really good episode of the Reply All podcast called “the real enemy” that’s worth checking out. It gives you some insight as to how establishment endorsements move votes and how problematic and outdated some of the mindsets motivating these decisions are.
I'm no American, but your politics spills into my local news.
I've been reading about the growth of an "anyone but Sanders" movement among Democrats - analogous to the "anyone but Trump" movement among Republicans in 2016. The people endorsing Biden aren't for Biden so much as they're against Sanders.
Bernie Sanders is a very polarising divisive politician. He wants to change things. It's good to have a politician with vision, but a lot of pragmatic Democrats are worried that he will alienate too many mainstream voters, and therefore won't get enough votes in a presidential election to oust Donald Trump. So they're shifting their support to a nice reasonable moderate candidate who won't scare the voters. And Biden has been a Vice President. He's known, he's safe, he's moderate - and he has a better chance of attracting the middle-of-the-road swinging voters than Sanders.
More people want to oust Trump at any cost than want to revolutionise America's economy. They want normalcy and stability back - and Sanders is not promising those.
Biden is safe. Sanders is risky.
and they're very worried about a socialist coming in and empowering the people to challenge the Capitalist, Corporatist status-quo. Sometimes the first bit is just a cover for the second.
Swing voters aren't a thing that decides US elections. Here's a good paper on it. Ezra Klein also has a book out about polarization in the USA that has parts detailing why swing voters are a fantasy.
This is a narrative you can build about what Democratic votes want. But it's just a narrative. The campaigns of each primary candidate are constructing their public so as to best boost their viability. Biden leans hard on the "oust[ing] Trump" stuff because that's basically all he's got. Sanders or Warren, on the other hand, construct their public as to be constituted of people wanting real change to improve their lives. Both narratives can be true, and further can be true in a single individual member of the public.
From all the data I've seen true swing voters (ie vote between parties) is rare, but now it's all a game of turnout. The question is whether the Biden demographics or Bernie demographics are more likely to stay home if they don't agree with the democratic nominee.
Hillary was safe and it didn't pan out so great. It's hard to motivate voters to get out and vote for someone they're not excited about. Fear can be paralyzing.
If not Biden who can they endorse? Sanders? Besides Biden, no establishment or moderate candidate looks like they have even a change of viability in these primaries.
If you're wondering why they don't endorse Sanders then, well that's simple. Sanders is an anti-establishment candidate who is openly antagonistic to the practices and ideology of establishment Democrats. Sanders is openly antagonistic to the Capitalist, Corporatist 1%, who have are bedfellows with establishment Democrats.
There's obvious class-politics at play.
These days Biden represents a return to the optimism of the Obama years. Sanders represents a continuation and entrenchment of partisan politics.
It's easy to forget that a lot of the reason for Obama's initial success in 2008 breaking through the "juggernaut" that was Hillary's support came as a direct result of this exact same promise to transcend partisanship. Biden also has a long record of working with Republicans that he can point to for backing that hope up. He's had famously positive working relationships with people across the political spectrum, even as he's been fairly unwaiveringly liberal (though, obviously not as far to the left as Sanders, it's worth remembering that Biden is not really moderate in what he is proposing for a policy agenda for the next four years).
People who like Sanders often will say that this doesn't make a convincing case, which for them is true. These are the type of voters who know that what they want is so far away that they have to fight loudly and hard to get it, because most voters don't agree with them on many of their most valued policy priorities. But it's more than enough for a lot of voters, and that's why you get a lot of people supporting Biden. They know Biden. Like Algernon is pointing out. Biden is safe. He is a return to a more sane political environment, where the average liberal voter can trust in their government officials again, rather than having to live in a constant state of fear and paranoia because ohgodwhatisthatorangemandoingtoday.
"Normal" isn't a word we've been able to say for a while now about our politics. Don't underestimate voter fatigue. Many people will do a lot of things just to get someone in power they can trust and don't have to constantly watch every fucking moment of the day or else there will be another human rights tragedy on the border.
IMO I think the days of bipartisanship are gone simply because FOX news is so powerful in the Republican party (40% of all Republican voters watch them according to pew), and I don't think they would just let Biden compromise with their party. If fox wasn't around/conservative as hell I would agree but since they are, I don't.
Yeah, I've always thought of Obama's legacy as dominated by the utter failure of bipartisanship, at the hands of a republican party no longer interested in participating in a government that they don't control. A hand extended, then slapped away, a song and dance repeated hundreds, if not thousands of times during his eight years.
Biden trying to base his appeal on a return to those halcyon days strikes me as a little tone deaf, or at least targeting a segment of voters that would prefer to stick their heads in the sand, rather than acknowledge and confront the existential threat posed by one of our two parties abandoning democracy and openly embracing authoritarianism.
Biden used to lead the swing states in the polls. Trump also used to fear him.
Strangely, that recently changed.
You can find the swing states here: https://www.270towin.com/
Swing State Polls are here
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/florida/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/north-carolina/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/wisconsin/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/pennsylvania/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/arizona/
Switch the polls to A+ for the best results.
I guess the simplest theory is that he's a front-runner because he started out ahead. Only recently are voters thinking seriously about alternatives.
Because Biden is part of the main party's establishment and they'd rather elect an insider who will keep the status quo than someone progressively radical like Sanders or Warren.
Charlie from Charisma on Command did a really good video explaining why he thought Trump was going to smash Hillary in the 2016 election (and he was right about his prediction.)
I bring this up because Charlie brought up a major weakness of Hillary's campaign. She didn't play to her strengths that she had qualifications, experience and was around for several of America's key victories like the killing of Osama bin Laden. Instead, she tried to paint herself as an outsider by playing the woman card, when in reality she was one of the biggest insiders of the Democratic Party. Trump on the other hand legitimately painted himself as an outsider because he defied the odds and even the Republican Party's own wishes by getting attention, riding off the billions in free publicity his campaign got and eliminating his opponents one by one.
Biden is going to face a similar obstacle against Trump. If he does win big on Super Tuesday and secures the nomination, a lot of disgruntled and pissed off Sanders, Warren or Buttigieg supporters are going to cry corruption and either not vote in 2020, or vote for Trump.
I'm not at all sure that Hillary Clinton pretended to be an outsider or downplayed her experience. I guess I'd need some examples. And it seems clear that Biden isn't doing any pretending about being an outsider, so maybe that counts for something?
I am also wondering about the responsibility contingent. How many people will do their duty and vote against Trump, when it comes right down to it?
It's not fun to have your vote taken for granted, but is it wrong? I can tell you right now how I'm voting in November. People get their chance to vote against Trump, their great enemy, and they stay home?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndoH_GJii8U
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/hillary-clinton-the-true-outsider
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-political-outsider-president/story?id=33898281
They lose if they go against the party candidate, keep in mind Bernie is an independent.
How does that work? Maybe Sanders wouldn't endorse someone who supports him?
Idk. Whenever i see 538 i feel like it cusps on propaganda masquerading as empirical study, This doesn't seem to buck the trend.
The premise of an endorsement primary is interesting. But the only people voting in this primary are fucking party elites and people who wield power. These people overwhelmingly favor Joe Biden over Bernie Sanders.
This is a meaningless study delivered by an idiot full of sound, fury, and glaring Stats 101 selection bias. It's a hypothetical study of how the 2016 superdelegate cadre would have leaned had Bernie not pushed for roles in primaries to change. It signifies nothing.
How do you know it doesn't matter?
Who got endorsements is factual information. Of course the way 538 counts them is arbitrary, but seems reasonable.
I don't know the effect of endorsements. I am wondering if they had anything with Biden's win in South Carolina? I don't have a good understanding of the black vote.
I disagree. They made an educate, conscious decisions about who endorsement matters. This could all be instagram influencers. But it's not. It's party insiders and elected power wielders.
It's not that it doesn't matter. It's just totally like... not even worth the time. It's like asking what food Cookie Monster wants to eat (or Kale Monster or whatever he is now). Like of course these people like Biden.
The fact that it's coming the day after the party is lining up behind Biden for super tuesday is suss too.
I can tell you for sure it's not gonna be decided the same as the party elite endorsement vote lmao.
The heads on the screen talked to me that this is because Biden was Obama's VP he has strong showings with older, high-propensity Black people. SC's Democratic party is very Black so there u go. Seems convincing.
Yes, I meant that the 538 point system for endorsements is arbitrarily chosen, by which I mean not fact-based, though I don't know any non-arbitrary way to do it and it doesn't seem unreasonable.
And as you say, it's explicitly about endorsements by politicians, so there is the choice of who to include at all.
But tracking political endorsements seems interesting to do, though of unclear meaning.
I guess you could think of Obama choosing Biden as VP back in 2008 as an endorsement of sorts, assuming he thought about whether Biden would make a good president? But interestingly, Obama hasn't formally endorsed anyone yet?
That's another reason it's somewhat arbitrary, but not unreasonable, to count formal endorsements.
The rumor is that Obama made some backdoor moves within the shadowy halls of power over the weekend and that's why Mayo and the Klob dropped out.