Octopus Overlords

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:06 pm I'd much rather he be vetted now than after he wins the nomination.

All of them (well, the top candidates, at any rate) need to be vetted. Just as long as that vetting doesn't consist of smears or things taken out of context.

I like Buttigieg a lot, although he's not my top choice yet.

Aside from a few Bernie Bros on Twitter (who only matter in the TwitterVerse, which is much smaller than the world), I haven't seen any attacks on him. If anything, the wider media coverage seems pretty fawning.

There was that one article I linked some time back, and I agree that it was hard on his inexperience, but I wouldn't say it sunk to the level of a smear. If he's the nom, he'll face 1000x that.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:53 pm

gbasden wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:46 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:03 am
Yep. People here seem to think that this is just part of the normal primary go-around. Fine. But I thought we all pretty much agreed that we're far removed from "normal" in our politics these days. Yet, I see the way Dems have treated their own aspiring candidates, and I am really concerned the Dem primary is going to become a total shit-show. Buttigieg appears to be a promising candidate. He has inspired people to get behind him, and he's been taking off in the polls. Yet he's being savaged by the left because his "progressive" credentials aren't quite progressive enough.

I feel like we're in for Attack of the Bernie Bros, Part II. Except this time it's going to include Warren's supporters, and maybe other factions. That does not appear to me to be a recipe for success against Trump.

I think I'll drive a spike through my head if the Dems end up giving us 4 more years of Trump because they can't get their shit together.

I don't get it either. There are a bunch of Democratic candidates that I'm not super thrilled with for various reasons. Barring massive head trauma, I will vote for any of them over Trump in a heartbeat whether they are my first choice or 27th.

To be fair, "Laura Seay" seems to be saying that she won't vote for Buttigieg in the primary, not that she wouldn't vote for him over Trump.

For sure, but Kurth's invocation of the Bernie Bros implied to me that he was concerned that people wouldn't vote for the eventual nominee. It think it's entirely fair that people fight in the primaries for the candidate that appeals to them the most, but once the nominee is decided I can't imagine setting that aside and voting for whoever that is. I'd be a lot less black and white if we didn't have the orange monstrosity on the throne, but there is almost nobody I wouldn't vote for over him. Tulsi Gabbard is pushing it, though.

How effective would those attacks (about his inexperience) be during the general election against Trump, though?

They're far more effective now.

Kurth wrote:But it is beyond me that, for some, because a candidate doesn't check the most progressive box on that one issue, they are precluded from further consideration.

This worked for the Republican Party, until it created Trump.

The Democrats HAVE to be the Open Tent Party, or they'll lose. But the Right Wing movement has prompted a major need for a leftward correction.

Buttigieg is running a general election campaign in the primary. I hope it works to set the tone because he's trying for the Open Tent outreach that the Democrats need IMO. He's not on the talking points, he's making new ones.

The important thing is to pick a candidate who still compels even at their worst, not at their best. Because that's what campaigns do to people.

(And, yeah, I know Trump magically transcended this rule in 2016 and will do so again in 2020. That's because Republicans were and are looking for the Hater who hates best. Democrats, for better and for worse, are required to play a different game.)

Defiant wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 5:28 pm How effective would those attacks (about his inexperience) be during the general election against Trump, though?

They're far more effective now.

They're called valid criticisms when they're true. It's up to the listener to decide whether those criticisms hold sway or not. I'm constantly bombarded here in Canada by both left and right wing media about the sainthood/antichrist nature of Trudeau. 90% I dismiss out of hand as pure spin propaganda. As long as the base facts are true, good enough. Even if they are accompanied by outrageous conclusions that don't reasonably follow those facts.

Don't like how elections are covered by the media?

Here's your chance to have an influence on the LA Times coverage:

Some personal news: After six years on the national desk, I’ll be covering the 2020 presidential campaign for @latimes, focusing on features and investigations. And I want to try something a little different! Tell me how you think I should cover the race:

Links to quick survey.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 11:17 am

pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:38 am I swear Democrats will eat their own sometimes if a candidate doesn't check EVERY single box.

It's easy to mistake Twitter and other political social media for the electorate. They ain't.

Someone posting that really indicates nothing at all except for the poster's desire to keep posting.

Well, that tweet is pretty prescient as the whole incarcerated felons voting issue is quickly gaining steam. This tweet links to an AP article about the issue.

Just how many freakin' Americans are in jail that they can impact census numbers enough to change political power?

edit: To be clear, it's not the number of incarcerated Americans that I'm confused by, it's that there is enough in any one particular area to change political power as compared to other areas. I.e. if everyone counts their jailbirds, or no one counts their jailbirds, everything should stay the same, no? Only when one area counts them and another doesn't does it alter the the political math enough to matter, I would think?

GreenGoo wrote:Just how many freakin' Americans are in jail that they can impact census numbers enough to change political power?

Quick Google says 2.2 million.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:59 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Just how many freakin' Americans are in jail that they can impact census numbers enough to change political power?

Quick Google says 2.2 million.

Yeah, but unless they're all in Orange County in California, it shouldn't make any difference, census-wise, no?

GreenGoo wrote:

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:59 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Just how many freakin' Americans are in jail that they can impact census numbers enough to change political power?

Quick Google says 2.2 million.

Yeah, but unless they're all in Orange County in California, it shouldn't make any difference, census-wise, no?

They should be treated like college students and be able to absentee vote at their home location. Imagine the impact on Chicago elections.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:02 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:59 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Just how many freakin' Americans are in jail that they can impact census numbers enough to change political power?

Quick Google says 2.2 million.

Yeah, but unless they're all in Orange County in California, it shouldn't make any difference, census-wise, no?

It's my understanding that a disproportionate number of for-profit prisons are in red states. Their headcount helps those states in various ways (including the census), as long as they can't vote. Do we presume that they would go overwhelmingly blue? Because that would be awkward for those states.

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:57 am

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:02 pm

YellowKing wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:59 pm

GreenGoo wrote:Just how many freakin' Americans are in jail that they can impact census numbers enough to change political power?

Quick Google says 2.2 million.

Yeah, but unless they're all in Orange County in California, it shouldn't make any difference, census-wise, no?

It's my understanding that a disproportionate number of for-profit prisons are in red states. Their headcount helps those states in various ways (including the census), as long as they can't vote. Do we presume that they would go overwhelmingly blue? Because that would be awkward for those states.

This thread a) mentions the headcount in red states thing and b) that they would likely vote Democratic.



Amazing how much this issue has caught fire in just a couple days. Politics in the age of social media is something else.

PS: I haven't searched out any of the tweets on this subject I've put in the thread. A couple of my friends on Twitter who lean pretty hard left have retweeted them all, and they popped up in my feed that way.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 11:15 pm Imagine the impact on Chicago elections.

I imagined and came up with nothing. Or do you think incarcerated gang-bangers would totally go Republican if they could? Would the entire prison population matter at all? It seems like one thing most would have in common is lack of any sort of civic pride that normally inspires people to vote.

Those legally prohibited from voting should not be considered when drawing voting districts. They should, however, be considered in general population counts that determine the number of reps each state has.

Jeff V wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:47 am Those legally prohibited from voting should not be considered when drawing voting districts. They should, however, be considered in general population counts that determine the number of reps each state has.

A fairer arrangement would be for only certain crimes to cost you your franchise, just as different crimes carry different penalties. Likewise, prisoners should not count towards the population of their district but towards the population of their prior residence (although you could let them choose to register their residence as the district of the prison if they wish).

Saying every prisoner must lose their vote regardless of their offense is like saying every prisoner should be in solitary confinement regardless of their offense.

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:59 am Saying every prisoner must lose their vote regardless of their offense is like saying every prisoner should be in solitary confinement regardless of their offense.

Prisoner's earn solitary confinement for being exceptionally violent, or sometimes for their own protection. Generally this has little to do with the offense they have been convicted of.

People get incarcerated for felonies because they have been found guilty of being a criminal. What you are thinking of is misdemeanors, which one does not lose certain citizenship rights yet still can spend some prison time. I have no problem with permanent loss of voting rights being a penalty one risks when they choose to engage in felonious activity. I see no reason to nerf the consequences of such actions.

Former Vice President Biden launches White House bid as Democratic frontrunner

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, a moderate who has made his appeal to working-class voters who deserted the Democrats in 2016 a key part of his political identity, launched a bid for the White House on Thursday as the party’s instant frontrunner.

Holman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:59 am

Jeff V wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:47 am Those legally prohibited from voting should not be considered when drawing voting districts. They should, however, be considered in general population counts that determine the number of reps each state has.

A fairer arrangement would be for only certain crimes to cost you your franchise, just as different crimes carry different penalties. Likewise, prisoners should not count towards the population of their district but towards the population of their prior residence (although you could let them choose to register their residence as the district of the prison if they wish).

Saying every prisoner must lose their vote regardless of their offense is like saying every prisoner should be in solitary confinement regardless of their offense.

The idea of stripping citizenship or rights of citizenship is a pretty scary one in general, so we should be extremely careful with it. I tend to support letting prisoners vote as long as that's logistically feasible for that reason. But in some ways losing voting rights for some type of offenses (beyond a felony / misdemeanor line) but not others is scarier than a blanket loss, because it would seem to make that a punishment specific to that offense (also raising more constitutional issues), further implying that there are specific people who don't deserve to vote, and providing for a process for stripping people of the right to vote based upon specific acts.

AOC's chief of staff weighs in:

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:47 am AOC's chief of staff weighs in:

I'm not totally sure what the logical defense is of letting ex-felons vote but not letting current felons vote, unless it's too logistically cumbersome to let current felons vote (which seems unlikely - wouldn't seem too burdensome to bring a few voting machines into a prison).

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:50 am

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:47 am AOC's chief of staff weighs in:

I'm not totally sure what the logical defense is of letting ex-felons vote but not letting current felons vote, unless it's too logistically cumbersome to let current felons vote (which seems unlikely - wouldn't seem too burdensome to bring a few voting machines into a prison).

Probably the argument about being rehabilitated for having served your time and therefore reentering society vs. currently facing the punishment for one's misdeeds? That's where I would fall on this issue.

How could that possibly go wrong?

Candidate campaigning in penitentiary wrote:"Vote for me you fine miscreants and I will shut this place down and set you all free! Free I say! Down with the unjust laws that put you here - we should all have the freedom to shoot in the face those who don't bend to our will, to rape those wouldn't give it up when asked nicely, to make an honest living selling meth to children! THEY call it financial fraud, I call it "stupid old people who give it away on foolish ideas!" If they are going to be so careless, why not let us have it? Financial fraud my ass! A vote for me is a vote for freedom!

That announcement video by Biden was pretty good.

Jeff V wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:58 am How could that possibly go wrong?

Candidate campaigning in penitentiary wrote:"Vote for me you fine miscreants and I will shut this place down and set you all free! Free I say! Down with the unjust laws that put you here - we should all have the freedom to shoot in the face those who don't bend to our will, to rape those wouldn't give it up when asked nicely, to make an honest living selling meth to children! THEY call it financial fraud, I call it "stupid old people who give it away on foolish ideas!" If they are going to be so careless, why not let us have it? Financial fraud my ass! A vote for me is a vote for freedom!

and exactly zero votes from the non-incarcerated crowd gets them not elected.

The only thing that troubles me about NOT allowing incarcerated people to vote is the fact that they have no say-so in the local/state law positions that could directly impact their sentence. Ultimately, however, it's an issue I don't know enough about to really take a hard stance one way or another.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:47 am AOC's chief of staff weighs in:

That implies that everyone in prison is there because of unjust laws, and I reject that premise. People in prison shouldn 't be allowed to vote - that's part of the cost of their violation of the law. I have no problem with them voting after release.

Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:59 am That announcement video by Biden was pretty good.

I'm in favor of Biden for a couple of reasons:

1) I think he can beat Trump. He can appeal to at least some of Trump's voters, probably the blue collar ones who are starting to be dissatisfied with Trump. I also think he would make Trump look very bad in the debates - though Clinton did that all 3 times and it didn't help in the end. Plus, I think he could also easily deal with Trump's attacks - he's just not going to take Trump's crap. I also think Trump fears Biden more than anyone else in the field, which says something.

2) After Trump, we need someone with experience to try and put things back together again, both domestically and foreign policy wise. Few if any of the Dems running have the all around experience that Biden has. Far too many of them have very little experience at the level that I think is required to be a successful president, especially in the current circumstances.

I really see the next President (assuming it is a Democrat) about repairing all the damage Trump has done to our institutions. I think Biden could even get support from some Republicans (after the election) about the steps needed to do the repair work because of his relationships built in the Senate over the years (maybe I'm being naive here). A steady experienced hand is going to be needed here.

I think Biden's biggest drawback is the question as to whether he could inspire women, minorities, the youth to turn out to support him in numbers, but maybe that is what his VP choice should be about.

I do think his ad was on target in many ways - this election is about beating Trump. What we do about health care, college tuition, immigration - none of that matters if Trump is re-elected. They can't be ignored of course, they are not the most important thing right now. Win the election, then we can talk about what to do about those issues.

Remus West wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:01 pm and exactly zero votes from the non-incarcerated crowd gets them not elected.

You weren't paying attention during the Trump election, did you? People cast votes that were essentially in favor of all sorts of reprehensible things just to hear the tweet of their dog whistle at the same time.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:52 am

El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:50 am

pr0ner wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:47 am AOC's chief of staff weighs in:

I'm not totally sure what the logical defense is of letting ex-felons vote but not letting current felons vote, unless it's too logistically cumbersome to let current felons vote (which seems unlikely - wouldn't seem too burdensome to bring a few voting machines into a prison).

Probably the argument about being rehabilitated for having served your time and therefore reentering society vs. currently facing the punishment for one's misdeeds? That's where I would fall on this issue.

Yeah, that makes some sense. I tend to take the main argument for felon disenfranchisement as being "someone who would commit a felony is not someone we want to be part of our democracy", and on that I tend not to see a huge distinction between current and former inmates (though you are right that the latter have gone through some rehabilitation, at least in theory).

I can see Biden being a one-term President with the goal of repairing our institutions and restoring our country, and I would be happy to vote for him in the general if he were the Democratic nominee, but...

Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:51 pm
I think Biden's biggest drawback is the question as to whether he could inspire women, minorities, the youth to turn out to support him in numbers, but maybe that is what his VP choice should be about.

I think the polls have shown that he does fine with African Americans and Women, but doesn't have as much appeal among the young.

I think his biggest drawback is age. Given his age, there's like a 25-30% chance he'll be dead by the end of his first term. Also, there's a significant risk of Alzheimer's at his age.

Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:35 pm
That implies that everyone in prison is there because of unjust laws, and I reject that premise.

People in prison shouldn 't be allowed to vote - that's part of the cost of their violation of the law.

I agree with the first part. The second part doesn't have to be true, unless it's enshrined in your constitution or something?

The last thing I want is people with identifiable anti-social behaviour having a significant influence on how society functions. I feel like this is deja vu, like I've had the same thought re: criminals and/or drumpf voters.

Unjust laws or more likely, unjust enforcement of just laws, is the problem, not people being in jail. Jail exists for a reason, and it's because of "the man", even if "the man" uses and abuses it.

Personally I think only ex-cons should be allowed to vote.

Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:59 am That announcement video by Biden was pretty good.

Yeah, that was pretty solid. I wouldn't say that Biden is charismatic, exactly, but he really has a tremendous gift for emotionally connecting with people.

Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:19 pm I think his biggest drawback is age. Given his age, there's like a 25-30% chance he'll be dead by the end of his first term. Also, there's a significant risk of Alzheimer's at his age.

According to the Social Security Administration life expectancy calculator, he's got a 50/50 shot of making it to 87. Considering he's in way better than average health (for a 76 year old) now, I'd guess that puts him a lot better than a 25% chance to die in office.

Still, age is his biggest hurdle.

It's worth pointing out that age would also be Drumpf's biggest issue if not for his sexism, racism, authoritarian tendencies, compulsive lying, and rampant criminality.

You would think as President he might get some elevated health care.

Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:19 pm I can see Biden being a one-term President with the goal of repairing our institutions and restoring our country, and I would be happy to vote for him in the general if he were the Democratic nominee, but...

Grifman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:51 pm
I think Biden's biggest drawback is the question as to whether he could inspire women, minorities, the youth to turn out to support him in numbers, but maybe that is what his VP choice should be about.

I think the polls have shown that he does fine with African Americans and Women, but doesn't have as much appeal among the young.

I think his biggest drawback is age. Given his age, there's like a 25-30% chance he'll be dead by the end of his first term. Also, there's a significant risk of Alzheimer's at his age.

I'm up for a Biden-Harris ticket. IMHO, we need some CA blood in the WH.

Defiant wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:19 pm I think the polls have shown that he does fine with African Americans and Women, but doesn't have as much appeal among the young.

I think his biggest drawback is age. Given his age, there's like a 25-30% chance he'll be dead by the end of his first term. Also, there's a significant risk of Alzheimer's at his age.

These are two important points.

1) The Blue Wave of 2018 was driven by higher-than-expected turnout among the young. It's absolutely necessary to keep that going.

My greatest fear is that the 2020 primary becomes mainly a Biden-Sanders feud with Sanders eventually running against the Democratic party itself, suppressing the vote in the general.

Even if Sanders were to disappear, I think Biden represents an older version of the Democratic Party. He'll need to step up his attention to climate, income inequality, and racial issues (including answering for past missteps) if he wants to gain support. The funny Uncle Joe memes are going to lose their charm pretty quickly if not.

2) I keep saying this, but Biden already seems too old.

You can see it and hear it when he speaks. There's a creakiness to him that wasn't there even as recently as HRC's convention.

I suppose the debates will tell, but I really think he's going to suffer on stage with younger candidates. (And I think Sanders will too.)