Elections 2020 Democratic Primary Thread v5: Primary Season Begins

[PHATV]

Where is @Fawlty? Pete needs a vote.

 

[LuchaBear]

 

[ultramanhyata]

Did you think the Trump voting Independents were lying about how corrupt and corporate the Dem party had become?

Glad to see they went from the frying pan into the fire.

Because nothing says "anti-corporate and anti-corruption" like Donald J. Trump.

 

[ultramanhyata]

LASHES OUT AT 'DOG-FACED' VOTER

Holy hell... Biden is off his fucking rocker. And what is a "pony soldier" anyway??

 

[Joe]

Fantastic poster

 

[Fawlty]

Of course not. They have time to defer ffs. This guy is impatient and is abusing the term "game theory."

 

[Fawlty]

Holy shit, that is ruthless

It was a good ad until the disgusting race baiting.

 

[Fawlty]

Where is @Fawlty? Pete needs a vote.

Pete's dropped to #2 for me (among Sanders, Warren and Biden - Klobuchar would probably be my #2 if she had a chance). I'm on the Sanders train, though I'm about the opposite of the resident Bernie Bros, so it's not obvious.

 

[Jack V Savage]

When looking at candidates, beyond not aligning with their politics, I feel like I'm limited in options simply because of two positions that shouldn't be proposed if the offer is to get someone like Trump out of office while not making radical changes to our system. Those two would be:
Adding additional supreme court justices
Yes- Steyer
Open to it- Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Warren, Yang
No- Bennet, Biden, Bloomberg, Gabbard, Sanders

Removing the senate filibuster
Yes- Buttigieg, Steyer, Warren, Yang
Open to it- Gabbard, Klobuchar, Sanders
No- Bennet, Biden

To me, this limits me down to Bennet who has little to no chance at this point or Biden who seems to be declining a lot with his age. It also makes me more unsure about Klobuchar despite thinking she's well qualified for the spot. Biden and Buttigieg seem to be in the same primary lanes but they have a stark contrast here that's important.

I don't think eliminating the filibuster would be a radical change. The routinization of it that happened very recently is a radical change that I think could be behind a rise in polarization, and eliminating it could help restore things to normal.

 

[Fawlty]

Going into the NH vote (per RCP):

Sanders leads in all but one poll released since Thursday (13 of 14 polls), with an average lead of about 5%. This isn't in the bag for him, but he's the strong favorite and Pete is the strong second-place choice ahead of Warren, who edges Biden.

 

[Lead]

The routinization of it that happened very recently is a radical change that I think could be behind a rise in polarization, and eliminating it could help restore things to normal.

Expand on this more

 

[MikeMcMann]

It was a good ad until the disgusting race baiting.

Do you think that is not relevant at all or just the way it was brought in?

What about Joe's race based policy issues and questions. Fair game to raise??

 

[Fawlty]

Do you think that is not relevant at all or just the way it was brought in?

What about Joe's race based policy issues and questions. Fair game to raise??

The presentation was really gross, pure baiting. The issue itself is fair game, because he navigated his city's racial issues poorly.

 

[Lead]

Fantastic poster

Jack White also did a rally too. He seems to have the garage rock scene locked.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Expand on this more

Short version is that the filibuster (created kind of by mistake in 1806 but not really used until a while later) used to be an occasional tactic used for very significant legislation (or controversial appointments) that the minority opposed, kind of establishing a higher bar for major changes. McConnell turned it to just the standard--nothing passes the Senate without a supermajority, which is not how it was designed. As a result, any changes at all are almost impossible, which raises the stakes for whatever gets through. There's no pressure valve anymore. We can't say, "this is a bad law and it'll be unpopular and reversed," because reversing laws has become so hard. Getting rid of it would put things back closer to where they used to be before 2009 (smaller uptick in use preceded that, actually). I wouldn't mind some kind of rule (and note that it's just a Senate rule) that didn't completely eliminate it but limited its use. You'd have to account for gaming (like a majority continually reintroducing the same bill).

 

[PHATV]

Short version is that the filibuster (created kind of by mistake in 1806 but not really used until a while later) used to be an occasional tactic used for very significant legislation (or controversial appointments) that the minority opposed, kind of establishing a higher bar for major changes. McConnell turned it to just the standard--nothing passes the Senate without a supermajority, which is not how it was designed. As a result, any changes at all are almost impossible, which raises the stakes for whatever gets through. There's no pressure valve anymore. We can't say, "this is a bad law and it'll be unpopular and reversed," because reversing laws has become so hard. Getting rid of it would put things back closer to where they used to be before 2009 (smaller uptick in use preceded that, actually). I wouldn't mind some kind of rule (and note that it's just a Senate rule) that didn't completely eliminate it but limited its use. You'd have to account for gaming (like a majority continually reintroducing the same bill).

I'm trying to look it up. Not necessarily the filibuster, but the senate and how hard it is to pass legislation.
The object was to make it extremely difficult to make any new laws.
Originally, only one senator needed to object. It had to be unanimous or it failed, right?
Or did I dream that?

 

[Lead]

Short version is that the filibuster (created kind of by mistake in 1806 but not really used until a while later) used to be an occasional tactic used for very significant legislation (or controversial appointments) that the minority opposed, kind of establishing a higher bar for major changes. McConnell turned it to just the standard--nothing passes the Senate without a supermajority, which is not how it was designed. As a result, any changes at all are almost impossible, which raises the stakes for whatever gets through. There's no pressure valve anymore. We can't say, "this is a bad law and it'll be unpopular and reversed," because reversing laws has become so hard. Getting rid of it would put things back closer to where they used to be before 2009 (smaller uptick in use preceded that, actually). I wouldn't mind some kind of rule (and note that it's just a Senate rule) that didn't completely eliminate it but limited its use. You'd have to account for gaming (like a majority continually reintroducing the same bill).

The use has changed but my concern is the opposite. These same candiates are proposing a complete change to our healthcare system so the fact this is being a paired position in this election tells me they would push something without an bipartisan support. I was thinking there could be a better regulation of the rule based on how major the legislation is but I don’t see how you could measure that. A repeated pass rule wouldn’t do much imo as I think politicians are way less on the fence and would continue to just force things through the same way you mentioned a party filibustering everything without reservation. I also think more laws would pass and very few would be reversed whether good or bad aside from tax hikes. It could simply accelerate problems I’m already seeing with our system.

 

[Lead]

I'm trying to look it up. Not necessarily the filibuster, but the senate and how hard it is to pass legislation.
The object was to make it extremely difficult to make any new laws.
Originally, only one senator needed to object. It had to be unanimous or it failed, right?
Or did I dream that?

I think there’s two types. You are thinking where a politician talks on the floor to delay a vote. The minority party can also refuse for legislation to pass without 60 votes. It’s been used more and more since the 70s. The first one isn’t really a big deal imo and has just been a way for people to get shameless publicity or strongly express their disagreement with something going through.

 

[PHATV]

I think there’s two types. You are thinking where a politician talks on the floor to delay a vote. The minority party can also refuse for legislation to pass without 60 votes. It’s been used more and more since the 70s. The first one isn’t really a big deal imo and has just been a way for people to get shameless publicity or strongly express their disagreement with something going through.

I get that and I'm going from memory which is dangerous nowadays, but I remember thinking how strange it was that one guy could have that much power way back when---but the history and writings of the day made it clear that the whole structure was set up to keep the house and senate from passing too much legislation. Make it very difficult for any new change that restricts the rights of the people. I guess that part failed, clearly.

 

[Phisher]

Jordan Chariton and his cameraman getting harassed by Pete staffers at a campaign event.