-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliERA 2019 |OT2| #PresidentPelosi
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- Status
Nailed the top three opportunities.
CO is almost as much of a sure flip as AL.
You're correct that those three would leave us with 49. We need one more to reach 50, which would give us control if we have a Democratic VP. NC, GA, IA, and MT (if Governor Bullock runs) present opportunities to get that last seat.
Thankfully, besides AL we have no truly vulnerable seats.
And i'm guessing that, if they don't have control in 2020, there's no chance 2022 will see them pick up seats like Republicans did in 2018 (assuming they win, party in power disadvantage and all), right?
Not necessarily.
We don't that many vulnerable seats in 2022, either, because 2016 was kind of a blah year in the Senate for us. The only vulnerable Democratic seat that year will be the other NH seat, the one Hassan holds.
However, we'll have a few pickup opportunities in purple states - specifically, Toomey's seat in PA and an open seat in WI because Ron Johnson plans to retire (so he says). Depending on how 2020 goes, we might have the wind in our faces in 2022, but I think we have a fighting chance for both of those seats. Toomey has never won by more than ~1.5-2% of the vote, even in the 2010 GOP wave. A strong candidate like Conor Lamb could flip the seat even in a mediocre year for Democrats.
Obama couldn't go stronger than that, that's why he relied so much on executive orders. His hands were tied when a GOP held congress for the majority of his tenure in office. Put any candidate in there with a (D) next to their name and they'd get the same result.
I get that Obama couldn't do more I'm not blaming him.
But when we are in power hopefully in 2020, we can go further than what Feinstein is proposing.
I have already posted before where even environmental scientists and experts don't like the green new deal. Every 2020 Dem looking up behind it doesn't make it good policy or politics.
Yes bad randos.
Like most people you quote from twitter or the internet.
Shit no one is saying its perfect, I have my problems with it even Energy wiz like Jesse Jenkins has faults with it but he still supports it and is helping to improve the GND.
Jeez, did some nerve got hit on you or something with this?
The green new deal is unrealistic hyperbole bullshit that is never going to happen.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/green-new-deal-unrealistic-impossible-experts.html
Yeah I'll trust this guy:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/klobuchar-bad-boss-good-president.html
If you want better pieces then this tripe here you go:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/02/green-new-deal-economic-principles/582943/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-things-you-need-know/?utm_term=.98f4ceb9e96e
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612780/lets-keep-the-green-new-deal-grounded-in-science/
The only part of the bill this talks about as unrealistic is 100% renewables by 2030. But here's the only mention of 2030 in her proposal:
"A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emis- sions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030"
And it's basically listed as a goal to aspire to — not some enforced requirement.
Maybe it's based on an old FAQ or something but basically none of that article is about AOC's green new deal. Here's an explainer:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envi...al-resolution-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-markey
Pesca's recent article history is teeming with AOC hate an dismissals with little to no evidence backing his claims. Get outta here with that bullshit
Trying to draw attention to a catastrophe isn't what I'd call bad politics but ok.
Gotta keep hitting the Dems wherever we can i guess.
So let's just sit here and shit on the Dems all day for daring to try to fix a glaring human caused disaster.
Sounds like a cartoon solider special to me. Fuck you don't even live in my country.
The GND resolution is even more vague and basically even more meaningless than the outline laid out before that by Sunlight Foundation.
And why does the GND talk about job guarantee and other things unrelated to climate change fight?
Like the new deal, jobs go toward new green infrastructure
Because it's modeled after the new deal. It's in the title.
Aren't GND backers shitting on Dems trying to offer more realistic alternatives anyway? Like the whole fucking thing started with AOC doing a sit down in Pelosi's office or something. That isn't shitting on other Dems?
I'm pretty sure they're shitting on the "no action" types; or at least the one's just kicking the can down the road.
For the 50th time.
You think Feinstein's four page outline that's even more vague than the thing you criticize for being too vague is more likely to pass?
But don't you see...it's realistic.
And we can continue to kick the can down the road.
The "realistic" alternatives result in all of us being supremely fucked over as the century progresses. Take them and shove them up Feinsteins 30 years of experience.
She kinda seemed like she dealt with those kids fine in the full video, tbh?
Especially since kids are gross.
Especially since kids are gross.
We can't sit here and make marginal changes either.
That's what happens when you kick the can down the road. You run out of road to kick down.
Pelosi is the no action type? The Dems who put everything on the line and passed cap and trade?
Realistic is what will get us to some place. This is the same argument that kept being made for Obamacare being bad because it did not go far enough. But guess what, it dropped uninsured rate by almost 9% in US and would have dropped by even more if not for medicare becoming optional. Governing requires building coalitions, otherwise you are there for nothing more than just making noise.
And we will keep running out of more time if you don't build a coalition on climate change to enact realistic meaningful legislation versus just creating a ruckus for I don't even know why.
It's not creating a rukus.
Look how many people are talking about it. It accomplished what it needed to.
Just releasing a heavily edited video is creating a ruckus. The whole interaction with Feinstein is not shown but just showing something to rile people up - AOC and her staff have basically been attacking fellow Dems ever since I can remember. Before this they attacked the staff of other Dems as being from "ivy league" and only being interested in retiring to K-street which was also all false. It's not that surprising, it is Justice Dems after all.
Is there still a senate vote planned for the green thingamabob? I'm not sure what it's supposed to accomplish. Dems just finished their hard-as-crap election cycle and fared relatively well, and there are only 2 red-red-red state dems left + red Montana, and only 1 is up for reelection in 2020. There's no senator strongly going against the grain in their home state that is being put in an awkward position. There are more purple Rs up that will actually have to answer questions about it back home than Ds at risk. And of course that's ignoring the fact that it's a show vote that no one is going to substantively give a crap about long term.
All any D has to say is that it's aspirational and not meant to be a word-for-word final plan, and the average American can largely agree on the core ideas. And it's better to campaign on at least something versus the generic R answer of "idk, green stuff but also coal?" when asked about climate change.
All any D has to say is that it's aspirational and not meant to be a word-for-word final plan, and the average American can largely agree on the core ideas. And it's better to campaign on at least something versus the generic R answer of "idk, green stuff but also coal?" when asked about climate change.
Dropping the uninsured rate by 9% when the quality and cost of those insurance plans is absolute garbage (https://splinternews.com/im-drowning-your-stories-of-buying-healthcare-for-2019-1831261498) means nothing.
Once again another argument that better things aren't possible. "It's not a realistic solution" - because people like you don't want it to be one. I'm so sick of hearing about the need for pragmatic realistic solutions. That shit hasn't worked for the last 20 years and it's not going to start working. There are people with actual demonstrable needs right fucking now, and you're telling them, "well sorry, I'm not going to even try because it won't pass." Have you ever heard of the concept of starting a negotiation already making a compromise? It's the exact way you end up getting nothing you actually want. These people need to be strong armed in every way possible. No voter (other than maybe the politically plugged in types like people here) actually cares about what's politically possible, they want a concrete change that they can see would tangibly improve their lives.
And guess what - when these Democrats say they don't think it can pass because it's not politically feasible, they're not even willing to try, it's probably because they're not for it in the first place and are dancing around saying that because of how popular it is.
That helped a lot of people, but it's nothing? As opposed to what? What better plan did you have in mind that was going to get Liebermann to vote for it? The Public Option, something Pelosi got passed the House, got taken off in the Senate and was for Single Payer. If those were possible that what the ACA would have been shaped like.
Except this ignores the fact that Democrats have tried for years to pass better Heath care and not gotten far, because the system is not that simple to pass good bills in. Politics is compromise, and voting - don't have either of those you're left with nothing. Politics is not a profession which works right now, it's a slow, grinding, boring process which involves a lot of people and organisations to work together and you expect them to get this right within their limited window? That's when Dems have congress, of course, this get dicier without that and then Obama dealt with record level obstruction. I agree the Dems should have started from a higher position, too often Obama was too giving and that backfired on him. They can't be strong 24/7 as that interferes with their own internal negotiations and they need to flexible since making bills is a fluid process, not a static one.
Those voters are why we don't have good things. They're voting for Trump then end up losing their house because they couldn't get over a woman being president. Most of them don't even know what changes they want, they just change for the sake of change because they have no idea what they're talking about.
It is possible to count votes, not every Speaker is a doofus like Paul Ryan who takes bills to be voted on but didn't bother finding out who was going to vote for it. Pelosi knows her shit.
And there is already an existing coalition - all the people currently alive on the planet - and it's the one we have to go with on this issue.
I mentioned that quote from Schiff last night because it represents a congressional leader just off the cuff showing his enthusiasm for the aggressiveness of the proposal, which is important for building the momentum towards passage. It's the momentum which will be very important here, and you can see how important momentum is when you have Feinstein clips that were cut and arranged to slow the momentum. Even AOC knows that just pinging people with clips and quips via twitter isn't the whole story, you see her keep showing up in multiple places.
People forget one of the reasons the Clintons got the right so riled up was because Bill put his Wife in charge of Health care and she was building a robust Multipayer system with a government regulated option also. And People in the 90's snickered and laughed at her because they didn't think she was smart enough and who gave the first lady authority to help build that bill. But Bill knew his wife was smarter than most of the people in his own staff and in Congress so he let her run and build it.
I mean its one of the many reasons Hillary became their main target because she wanted that change all the way back then, Her and her husband had a very public conference about climate change and tried to build some public momentum behind it but they were cut off at the knee's by the republicans.
I see the DiFi hit job achieved its intended purpose.
Fuck Waleed Shahid 5eva. However supposedly well intentioned his motives are, I hope he has a very bad 2019 and 2020.
Fuck Waleed Shahid 5eva. However supposedly well intentioned his motives are, I hope he has a very bad 2019 and 2020.
- Status