Split California into 3
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Someone Has To Do It: US Elections 2020
Collapse
X
-
Oh, for sure. But Mike was on the cheap seats even then, though he made more than them all.
It isn't terrible that how sexually objectified and manipulative Wall Street was (is?) comes out in the wash here. It is definitely better, but I am still convinced my sister in law firmly believes her success was based on her intellect.
Comment
-
I mean - seriously. You troll at people who live in the US for not expecting to achieve your ideals based on - er, well - a level of education from living in this political structure. And then - given a gentle challenge - you come up with nonsensical shit.
It is fine to contribute. Just make a slight effort not to be a dick in a situation that impacts other people's lives (Not yours). Even if you have an opinion, maybe consider where you are like others did on Brexit. And that by living here we care a lot more that you do.
Comment
-
In case anyone is wondering, the process for admitting new states from territory already under control of the US (as is California) requires a majority in a popular referendum in the territory itself, as well as a majority in each house of Congress.
More than 97 percent of Puerto Ricans voted in favour of statehood in the latest referendum, yet the measure was DOA in Congress because of the absolute opposition of McConnell and the Senate GOP, who will not allow it to even be debated.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Nefertiti2 View PostBy “split California into three” i mean that if the right had behaved as you are now there would be a liberal majority on the Supreme Court.
Comment
-
66% of Nevada delegates. Not bad. How many of the Super Tuesday states are caucuses?
I have mixed feelings about the caucuses. On the outside they appear to be like a school popularity contest. On the other hand, if somebody shows up to vote in a primary and inform their decision solely based on TV ads, then maybe a caucus is better because it helps them discuss issues with like-minded voters. Although the various campaigns will of course flood the caucuses with their agents.
Comment
-
I agree with SB on Bernie. He's an "in a more perfect world" candidate with at least a shot at winning, but maybe only if there's more of a groundswell than we see evidence of at present, or a strong economic downturn, which is not something to actively hope for and feel great about. Sanders seems to do okay in head-to-head polls but their predictive power at this stage appears not to be stellar. I would expect a close and of course extremely dirty race and I feel very queasy about Sanders' ability to hold together a Democratic coalition given how aloof he holds himself (and rightly so, on the merits) from the party.Last edited by Bruno; 25-02-2020, 10:19.
Comment
-
Originally posted by San Bernardhinault View PostI don't see any conceivable way that the Democrats have a filibuster proof senate majority.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ursus arctos View PostNef, it won't even have the support of all Democratic senators on inauguration day. Recall that Lieberman was key to killing any progress under Clinton.
Bernie Sanders knows that as well, though, doesn't he? That things will take a while. I think he is trying to start the process of draging the Overton Window back in the other direction in a way the Republicans have been so successful in redefining the centre from Gingrich onwards (and too successful in the end, many of them would probably privately admit, considering the fascists in control now).
The risk is of course that Sanders can't instantly deliver and a new generation of disillusioned voters is created.
edit: But couldn't Sanders just pull a Mitch McConnell and ram through universal healthcare 51-49? Obama was all about getting his 60-40 bipartisan reform.Last edited by anton pulisov; 25-02-2020, 10:24.
Comment
-
Understanding the filibuster requires learning about "cloture." It's confusing stuff. My assumption is that a 51-49 healthcare law would be exposed to a later 51-49 reversal or undermining of said law. That's before you get to the out-sized power of the executive to fuck things up in disregard of Congress.
I don't expect universal healthcare to happen in my lifetime. The rich don't want it and will do their best to break whatever gets passed. Europeans preaching about the possibility of it is well and good, but their systems were set up in a very different world from the one we live in over here.
Comment
-
Yeah, I think if FDR or LBJ had managed to do it then the US would still have it today. It's the type of thing that would be so popular that it would be untouchable.
Maybe Sanders is thinking he can ram it through 51-49, let the people experience it for a few years, and no Republican government would be subsequently stupid enough to get rid of it. Similar to how right wing parties in Europe would love to dissolve universal healthcare, but know it would be guaranteed electoral suicide.
Comment
-
I want to know how Sanders thinks he can get rid of the private insurance industry as a part of the ramming-through gambit. It's what needs to happen of course, but it's child's play to make that politically unpopular among people with good private insurance, which is a lot of people.
Comment
-
I dunno, it depends. The average person gets statistically more right-wing as they get older, and boomer demographics mean that we currently have a glut of older people in the voting population enabling the steady erosion of what they enjoyed when they were younger. Meanwhile most people under 40 are keeping their heads just above water as far as housing costs and student debt go. It will be interesting to see how politics swing in 15-20 years from now. The boomers will be much reduced, and the people in the 50-65 age bracket in 2040 will likely be more left than today's, probably due to having no desire to protect their property investments of zero.Last edited by anton pulisov; 25-02-2020, 12:34.
Comment
Comment