• The GiftBot 2.0 Launch Giveaway Extravaganza has come to a close with an astounding 8073 games given away to the community by 696 members, a huge success thanks to you! The gifting now continues with more official prizes in the new Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Leftover Steam codes are also being given away to the PC Gaming Era community.

US PoliEra 2019 |OT9| I'm really glad I'm not on Twitter nearly enough to understand all the references

Status
Not open for further replies.

Manmademan

Member
Aug 6, 2018
5,920
Don't forget, Biden will also make 2022 a bloodbath. Senate will become R firewall and we will most likely lose House.
I don't disagree.

Momentum from Dems angry with Trump will be tough to maintain post 2020. The only way Democrats avoid tough losses in 2022 and beyond is by passing as much progressive legislation as possible while they have a perceived mandate to do it and political will to burn.

That means dismantling the filibuster and stacking courts, which Biden won't do. Anyone similarly not on board has no business in office.

Biden has always viewed compromise or working with his Senate GOP buddies as the ends instead of the means.
He just wants to be back in the club.

The same club that includes people like Lindsey Graham who cried in that interview saying how Biden is one of The greatest men he’s ever known.
And then now protects a criminal who’s trying to tar Biden’s whole family with corruption.

Biden is constitutionally incapable of seeing the GOP for what they are, Instead of what he wants them to be.
seconded.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,680
I don't disagree.

Momentum from Dems angry with Trump will be tough to maintain post 2020. The only way Democrats avoid tough losses in 2022 and beyond is by passing as much progressive legislation as possible while they have a perceived mandate to do it and political will to burn.

That means dismantling the filibuster and stacking courts, which Biden won't do. Anyone similarly not on board has no business in office.
I largely agree with your conclusions. We should stack the courts and pass as much progressive legislation as possible. As history shows, we might only have two years to ram everything through, and we can't afford to waste time.

However, I disagree with some of your logic. In 2009-10, we had the most productive Congress in a generation - one that passed a Depression-averting stimulus, major reforms to the financial industry, and massive healthcare reform not seen in a generation. Democratic voters who'd been excited two years prior... stayed home. Passing all the progressive legislation probably won't be enough to protect majorities in 2022. Our president has to maintain the heat, keep the electorate engaged, keep castigating Republicans, and maintain enthusiasm for the election. I think Warren would accomplish this goal best.

Unfortunately, though, we should probably bank on only having two years and legislate accordingly.
 

Surfinn

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,262
USA
I like Warren, but this is yet another glaring example of how "they're basically the same candidate, politically" is not true. I've seen a lot of folks argue that on ERA, even people agreeing with "the only true difference is their gender; therefore, it's sexist to support Sanders over Warren".

Their opposing philosophy here is yet another example of why Sanders remains my first choice.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
2,189
I am going to push back on this a little bit. If Biden wins the Presidency that is, in part, a repudiation of the idea that we have to run as far as possible to the left, and only the most "progressive" legislation/policy is acceptable. If voters really want to stack the courts and do all these things....then they would support the candidates who are offering to do that. if you lose the election based on certain policies, then reflection is important. Biden's policies are pretty progressive (which is a word that is losing all meaning....) I think it's good to push politicians into supporting whatever specific policy an individual supports, and getting the best deal blah blah blah. But the idea that if we don't run super hard to the left the public is going to rebel.....I disagree with that fundamentally.
 

Wonderment

Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
10,394
Question about the Sanders campaign: When does it begin to engage head-on the "millionaires and billionaires" it has decried for so long? The Warren campaign seems to have launched off the starting blocks first here. Running against Trump, and debates about the morality of billionaireship don't count because neither mandates addressing raising tax revenue from people who accumulate wealth and generate income off that wealth.
 

PantherLotus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,474
The only world in which Dems pass historic legislation saving humanity from climate change and inequality and holding the Russian GOP accountable — and stacking the courts and killing off the filibuster — while holding power for any length of time immediately following is one in which Republicans no longer exist. Or never happens in the first place.

which does not mean it’s not worth trying.
 

Manmademan

Member
Aug 6, 2018
5,920
I largely agree with your conclusions. We should stack the courts and pass as much progressive legislation as possible. As history shows, we might only have two years to ram everything through, and we can't afford to waste time.

However, I disagree with some of your logic. In 2009-10, we had the most productive Congress in a generation - one that passed a Depression-averting stimulus, major reforms to the financial industry, and massive healthcare reform not seen in a generation. Democratic voters who'd been excited two years prior... stayed home. Passing all the progressive legislation probably won't be enough to protect majorities in 2022. Our president has to maintain the heat, keep the electorate engaged, keep castigating Republicans, and maintain enthusiasm for the election. I think Warren would accomplish this goal best.

Unfortunately, though, we should probably bank on only having two years and legislate accordingly.
While true, you're overlooking that the economy went into freefall 1Q 2008. The stimulus was meant to mitigate that but wasn't anywhere near as effective as it could have been due to...republican obstruction. Democrats unfairly or not took the blame for the economy being in shambles and not recovering by midterms. Republican messaging to hammer that blame was (and remains) flat out better since Democrats don't own a cable network nor vast chunks of AM radio to blast propaganda.

Also worth mentioning is that the Obama administration didn't have 2 years of a productive congress. They had eight months of a supermajority due to Franken not being seated because of the recount challenges of Norm Coleman, Ted Kennedy dying in August of 2009, and Coakley losing to Scott Brown.

The administration likely would have done even worse in the 2010 midterms had they just been completely shut down by republican obstruction *entirely* during that period, but things like the stimulus and the ACA being watered down due to republican refusal to cooperate on almost anything definitely hurt them.

Warren would likely be fine in terms of maintaining enthusiasm, but even she won't do well in 2022 or 2024 if congressional democraats and her adminstration are simply shut down by republican obstruction as Obama was after 2010.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
9,396
Pretty sure Warren does not oppose killing off the filibuster. I don't think Sanders is on board with that, however.
And Biden has been for killing the filibuster in the past when it was convenient. Sanders wants a complicated, more likely to be opposed budget reconciliation parliamentarian over-ride, but likely would back the filibuster nuking in the end cause frankly that's more likely to get support.

All the same with 50 senators (our most likely majority) I don't think we're breaking the filibuster. There's like 11 senators who say they will not under any circumstances nuke the filibuster. Sure, a few of them will flip when it comes down to it, but even if only a third of them are true believers the nuking is DOA.
 

Helio

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,941
Question about the Sanders campaign: When does it begin to engage head-on the "millionaires and billionaires" it has decried for so long? The Warren campaign seems to have launched off the starting blocks first here. Running against Trump, and debates about the morality of billionaireship don't count because neither mandates addressing raising tax revenue from people who accumulate wealth and generate income off that wealth.
I say raising the morality of billionaires does count because it’s more than just policy. It certainly moves the Overton window further left in that regard. Saying that billionaires should not exist is pretty damn good.
 

Double 0

Member
Nov 5, 2017
2,365
I totally think the youth are going to shank it this primary (aka likely Biden or Warren win).

But I very much agree that 2022 is going to suck. Suck less with Warren, suck more with Biden, suck the most with Bernie.
 

Wonderment

Moderator
Oct 27, 2017
10,394
I say raising the morality of billionaires does count because it’s more than just policy. It certainly moves the Overton window further left in that regard. Saying that billionaires should not exist is pretty damn good.
He did shift the window last campaign and made a large impact. That is an indicator to watch for, for sure, but I will also be watching where and when the energy will be converted from potential to kinetic.
 

Manmademan

Member
Aug 6, 2018
5,920
And Biden has been for killing the filibuster in the past when it was convenient. Sanders wants a complicated, more likely to be opposed budget reconciliation parliamentarian over-ride, but likely would back the filibuster nuking in the end cause frankly that's more likely to get support.

All the same with 50 senators (our most likely majority) I don't think we're breaking the filibuster. There's like 11 senators who say they will not under any circumstances nuke the filibuster. Sure, a few of them will flip when it comes down to it, but even if only a third of them are true believers the nuking is DOA.
I'm not so sure on biden. He's come out both for and against rules changes TO it, but has not made any declarative statements on getting rid of it entirely during this campaign.

Biden HAS made several fairly alarming statements that he believes Republican senators will simply "have an epiphany" and work with him once Trump is out of office, which is lunacy. A realistic view of How Things Work would require eliminating the filibuster completely the second he takes office, realizing that Republicans have no desire to govern honestly and working around them, not with them. Biden is not on this train.

and finally, most concerning-


Biden was STILL bragging as of the debates about how he got republicans to raise taxes 600 million as a huge win and proof of his ability to negotiate and bring them to the table. As of 2019 he is completely clueless about how badly he got owned in that "deal" and that we would all be vastly better off not having made it. As another poster said, Biden views the ability to make a "deal" and "compromise" as the end goal. There is no realistic scenario here where he forcefully advocates for elimination of it.

If Democrats don't eliminate the filibuster, then any 2020 administration is doomed to failure. Republicans will simply obstruct everything as they did to Obama for 6 years, because there is no downside to them doing so. They will happily crash the economy and send it careening off a cliff if it means they gain power back. If there aren't 50 senators who realize this, then the administration has to twist arms and step on necks until there are.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
2,189
Also, 2022 is going ot be a blood bath anyway, because if a voter's test on "will I support Democrats" boils down to "Did they pass M4A? Did they pass the Green Dream? Did they do 1% of the things Bernie/Warren are running on?" then we're fucked...because none of those things are happening, evening if we nuke the filibuster. There are not 50 votes for M4A in the Senate. I don't even know if there are enough votes for it in the House.
 

Manmademan

Member
Aug 6, 2018
5,920
Also, 2022 is going ot be a blood bath anyway, because if a voter's test on "will I support Democrats" boils down to "Did they pass M4A? Did they pass the Green Dream? Did they do 1% of the things Bernie/Warren are running on?" then we're fucked...because none of those things are happening, evening if we nuke the filibuster. There are not 50 votes for M4A in the Senate. I don't even know if there are enough votes for it in the House.
There aren't. you're not getting rid of private insurance with this congress, or possibly ever. Everyone who is promoting M4A is well aware of this.
What you WILL get is something close to "medicare for those who want it" or a public option alongside private insurance.

Some candidates are saying this flat out, and this is the honest response. Any attempt to pretend otherwise is simply an attempt to run leftward during the primary that will be walked back.
 

Helio

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,941
Also, 2022 is going ot be a blood bath anyway, because if a voter's test on "will I support Democrats" boils down to "Did they pass M4A? Did they pass the Green Dream? Did they do 1% of the things Bernie/Warren are running on?" then we're fucked...because none of those things are happening, evening if we nuke the filibuster. There are not 50 votes for M4A in the Senate. I don't even know if there are enough votes for it in the House.
Then it sounds like the democrats should move further left
 

Dierce

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,041
Also, 2022 is going ot be a blood bath anyway, because if a voter's test on "will I support Democrats" boils down to "Did they pass M4A? Did they pass the Green Dream? Did they do 1% of the things Bernie/Warren are running on?" then we're fucked...because none of those things are happening, evening if we nuke the filibuster. There are not 50 votes for M4A in the Senate. I don't even know if there are enough votes for it in the House.
Not to mention that M4A which I completely support would lead to a ton of job losses in the private sector. There are just too many middle-men involved in healthcare for it not to be a problem, and it might even lead to a recession until it gets sorted out but by that time repubs will have full control and roll everything back.

If trump wasn't a bigoted, incompetent and evil piece of shit it would be preferable for Democrats to lose, have the economy completely collapse and get the presidency and a congress supermajority in 2024.

It's also really frustrating how no matter how you look at it republicans nearly always have an advantage. It's fucking infuriating how the forces of evil and desctrution have so much power in this world.
 

Steel

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
9,396
I'm not so sure on biden. He's come out both for and against rules changes TO it, but has not made any declarative statements on getting rid of it entirely during this campaign.

Biden HAS made several fairly alarming statements that he believes Republican senators will simply "have an epiphany" and work with him once Trump is out of office, which is lunacy. A realistic view of How Things Work would require eliminating the filibuster completely the second he takes office, realizing that Republicans have no desire to govern honestly and working around them, not with them. Biden is not on this train.

and finally, most concerning-


Biden was STILL bragging as of the debates about how he got republicans to raise taxes 600 million as a huge win and proof of his ability to negotiate and bring them to the table. As of 2019 he is completely clueless about how badly he got owned in that "deal" and that we would all be vastly better off not having made it. As another poster said, Biden views the ability to make a "deal" and "compromise" as the end goal. There is no realistic scenario here where he forcefully advocates for elimination of it.

If Democrats don't eliminate the filibuster, then any 2020 administration is doomed to failure. Republicans will simply obstruct everything as they did to Obama for 6 years, because there is no downside to them doing so. They will happily crash the economy and send it careening off a cliff if it means they gain power back. If there aren't 50 senators who realize this, then the administration has to twist arms and step on necks until there are.
Oh, I'm aware of Biden's fumbling and belief that he can work with Republicans. And I do believe he believes that stupidity to an extent. I don't believe he thinks he'll get a single vote for healthcare and some other things since he was there for that.

Not to mention that M4A which I completely support would lead to a ton of job losses in the private sector. There are just too many middle-men involved in healthcare for it not to be a problem, and it might even lead to a recession until it gets sorted out but by that time repubs will have full control and roll everything back.

If trump wasn't a bigoted, incompetent and evil piece of shit it would be preferable for Democrats to lose, have the economy completely collapse and get the presidency and a congress supermajority in 2024.

It's also really frustrating how no matter how you look at it republicans nearly always have an advantage. It's fucking infuriating how the forces of evil and desctrution have so much power in this world.
Considering a republican would then elect two more supreme court justices... No, that would not be preferable.
 

Dierce

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,041
Oh, I'm aware of Biden's fumbling and belief that he can work with Republicans. And I do believe he believes that stupidity to an extent. I don't believe he thinks he'll get a single vote for healthcare and some other things since he was there for that.


Considering a republican would then elect two more supreme court justices... No, that would not be preferable.
Well the hope would be that the supermajority would be able to pack the courts or impeach some judges.
 

Ogodei

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,168
Coruscant
The only world in which Dems pass historic legislation saving humanity from climate change and inequality and holding the Russian GOP accountable — and stacking the courts and killing off the filibuster — while holding power for any length of time immediately following is one in which Republicans no longer exist. Or never happens in the first place.

which does not mean it’s not worth trying.
Ironically I think Republican intransigence is helping to push Dems further to the left, because if you know anything out of your mouth is going to be rejected out of hand that de-powers the moderate wing of the party, because their selling point is not the ideology of moderation but the feasibility of it. If the Republicans no longer existed you might see a progressive outcome as less likely because the arms of the party who are more corporatist would be much more emboldened.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
2,189
There aren't. you're not getting rid of private insurance with this congress, or possibly ever. Everyone who is promoting M4A is well aware of this.
What you WILL get is something close to "medicare for those who want it" or a public option alongside private insurance.

Some candidates are saying this flat out, and this is the honest response. Any attempt to pretend otherwise is simply an attempt to run leftward during the primary that will be walked back.
There is nothing in Bernie's history to suggest he is going to walk back on M4A, and if he did, he would .... well I doubt the die hards would turn on him, but there is no way you can run on something as definitive as his plan ("I wrote the damn bill!") and then just immediately walk it back in the general.

I agree we'll get a public option, because that's the best option and also the easiest one to pass.
 

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,593
If Democrats don't eliminate the filibuster, then any 2020 administration is doomed to failure. Republicans will simply obstruct everything as they did to Obama for 6 years, because there is no downside to them doing so. They will happily crash the economy and send it careening off a cliff if it means they gain power back. If there aren't 50 senators who realize this, then the administration has to twist arms and step on necks until there are.
The uncomfortable matter of fact is that 1 of the 2 major parties in the country wants to see the world burn. They will use Americans as hostages to get what they want, and thus all "bipartisan" deals are absolutely poisoned from the start when you seek to engage the Repubs as an honest and faithful broker.

That was Obama's main problem. And the main problem of Democrats since the end of the Civil Rights Era and introduction of the Southern Strategy. And it will remain as the main problem for every potential Dem president.
 

VectorPrime

Member
Apr 4, 2018
10,130
I’m seriously concerned that going too far Left, while popular nation wide, is going to fuck us in those shitty backwards states that effectively hold us all hostage. Leftists, in particular Bernie supporters, say how they can win through sheer enthusiasm and turning out the base but how can you ignore the very real warning signs that the Democratic base in these critical states simply isn’t enthused by these things, or at least are outnumbered by Independents outright scared of It? Their answer is usually that these people will all be convinced in the virtue of these Leftist policies once they are effectively advertised to them but that’s putting a lot of faith in the better nature of a demographic notorious for its fickle bullshit.

Unfortunately it’s dangerous to express this fear to people lest you be accused of being a ShitLib who doesn’t think better things are possible.
 

Manmademan

Member
Aug 6, 2018
5,920
Well the hope would be that the supermajority would be able to pack the courts or impeach some judges.
A supermajority is impossible. You can only pack the courts- or pass anything, honestly- by dismantling the filibuster.

There is nothing in Bernie's history to suggest he is going to walk back on M4A, and if he did, he would .... well I doubt the die hards would turn on him, but there is no way you can run on something as definitive as his plan ("I wrote the damn bill!") and then just immediately walk it back in the general.

I agree we'll get a public option, because that's the best option and also the easiest one to pass.
Bernie is AWARE MFA is a non starter and will fail, he's just an ideologue that does not care.
Warren will absolutely, positively walk that back as soon as she's out of the primary.
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,486
*Dismantle or regulate the filibuster (or change rules on Cloiter)
*Get DC/Puerto Rico statehood with Senate majority.
*Pass Warren anti corruption laws.
*Pack da courts.
*Go to town on progressive legislations.
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,680
A supermajority is impossible. You can only pack the courts- or pass anything, honestly- by dismantling the filibuster.
Literally the only path to Democrats getting 55+ Senate seats (let's not even talk about 60) requires Trump winning in 2020.

It would look something like gaining CO, AZ, NC (assume Tillis loses his primary and people ticket split in the general) and ME next year, and then winning WI, PA, IA, and the other NC seat in 2022 during the next Trump midterm, and regaining FL in 2024 with presidential-year turnout. Oh wait, we'll probably lose WV that year, too! So now we only have 54.

Basically, we ain't getting to 60, and even 55 would be a herculean lift.
 

adam387

Member
Nov 27, 2017
2,189
I’m seriously concerned that going too far Left, while popular nation wide, is going to fuck us in those shitty backwards states that effectively hold us all hostage. Leftists, in particular Bernie supporters, say how they can win through sheer enthusiasm and turning out the base but how can you ignore the very real warning signs that the Democratic base in these critical states simply isn’t enthused by these things, or at least are outnumbered by Independents outright scared of It? Their answer is usually that these people will all be convinced in the virtue of these Leftist policies once they are effectively advertised to them but that’s putting a lot of faith in the better nature of a demographic notorious for its fickle bullshit.
The issue is, "left" as defined on Era isn't as popular as people want to pretend it is. The idea that America is really this far left country that just needs the courage to be a socialist utopia is just...it's peek incredibly online bubble. We have polling that shows M4A and getting rid of private insurance is not that popular, even among the Democratic base when compared to things like the public option or M4AWWI. But if we don't do this, according to Twitter and Incredibly Online Folk, we're basically Republican lite and doomed to 10,000 years of darkness. This idea that we just need to keep running further to the left is the most bizarre thing to me. It reads like fan fiction of an electorate that doesn't exist. It fundamentally misreads the actual coalition we have to win elections.
 

Retro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,830
*Dismantle or regulate the filibuster (or change rules on Cloiter)
*Get DC/Puerto Rico statehood with Senate majority.
*Pass Warren anti corruption laws.
*Pack da courts.
*Go to town on progressive legislations.
Can we adopt the Wyoming Rule too, so these little rural states nobody lives in stop having more voting power?
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,486
We aren't getting 55 Senators anytime soon hell even getting 50-51 isn't that certain.

But god damn it if Dems win the Senate then they have to go after Filibuster or else nothing of note will happen in this country. Nuke filibuster and then use statehoods to consolidate power to push more legislations and pack the courts.
 

lmcfigs

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,613
Question about the Sanders campaign: When does it begin to engage head-on the "millionaires and billionaires" it has decried for so long? The Warren campaign seems to have launched off the starting blocks first here. Running against Trump, and debates about the morality of billionaireship don't count because neither mandates addressing raising tax revenue from people who accumulate wealth and generate income off that wealth.
Huh? I’m not sure what you’re looking for.
 

lmcfigs

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
7,613
There is nothing in Bernie's history to suggest he is going to walk back on M4A, and if he did, he would .... well I doubt the die hards would turn on him, but there is no way you can run on something as definitive as his plan ("I wrote the damn bill!") and then just immediately walk it back in the general.

I agree we'll get a public option, because that's the best option and also the easiest one to pass.
Do you really think there’s enough support in the senate for a public option?
 

Autodidact

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,680
The issue is, "left" as defined on Era isn't as popular as people want to pretend it is. The idea that America is really this far left country that just needs the courage to be a socialist utopia is just...it's peek incredibly online bubble. We have polling that shows M4A and getting rid of private insurance is not that popular, even among the Democratic base when compared to things like the public option or M4AWWI. This idea that we just need to keep running further to the left is the most bizzaire thing to me. It reads like fan fiction off an electorate that doesn't exist. It fundamentally misreads the actual coalition we have to win elections.
Don't forget the perennial "We have to start as far left as possible so that we can negotiate our way down. Don't start with a compromise!!!!!" that ignores the way politics actually works. If the votes aren't there, they aren't there. If Kyrsten Sinema won't vote for single-payer, that's it. You can't bully her because you have no leverage over her; she's only accountable to the people in her state, many of whom would actually like her being the ~~~responsible~~~ Democrat and telling the big bad socialists no.

It's ironic that people so opposed to capitalism seem to think that a capitalistic negotiating tactic is the way to go for getting policy passed, though.

If I could be queen for a day and remake the country in my own image - first, it would look a lot better, but second, I'd institute single-payer. However, I acknowledge the votes aren't there, the concept is not popular, and that we'll have to "settle" with a robust public option, lowering the Medicare buy-in age, cost controls, etc. I put the word settle in quotation marks because such a system would be massively to the left of what we have, would achieve universal coverage, and would help hundreds of millions.
 

VectorPrime

Member
Apr 4, 2018
10,130
The issue is, "left" as defined on Era isn't as popular as people want to pretend it is. The idea that America is really this far left country that just needs the courage to be a socialist utopia is just...it's peek incredibly online bubble. We have polling that shows M4A and getting rid of private insurance is not that popular, even among the Democratic base when compared to things like the public option or M4AWWI. But if we don't do this, according to Twitter and Incredibly Online Folk, we're basically Republican lite and doomed to 10,000 years of darkness. This idea that we just need to keep running further to the left is the most bizarre thing to me. It reads like fan fiction of an electorate that doesn't exist. It fundamentally misreads the actual coalition we have to win elections.
What’s M4AWWI?
 

Dahbomb

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,486
Can we adopt the Wyoming Rule too, so these little rural states nobody lives in stop having more voting power?
Well ideally we should be nuking the Electoral College but that requires an amendment. Let's get the other stuff in first.

To be honest, Wyoming having 3 Electoral college votes is less troublesome than Wyoming having 2 Senators. And Washington DC has about as much of a population as Wyoming too so it would be hypocritical to have DC as a state but not Wyoming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.