Octopus Overlords

I can see a scenario where the MSM falls so much in love with a "heroic" third-party challenge to Trump that the coverage becomes a horse race between the Dem and Kasich, splitting their audience between them.

Meanwhile, Fox/Breitbart/etc keep the Republicans in line so that Trump only has to beat a third of the EC instead of half.

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:17 am Trump will win unless the economy tanks. Too many people are too stupid to see the truth.

I agree.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:32 am

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:07 pm I just hope they pick someone based on their ability to keep the caucus together, and less about being charismatic to the voters.

See: Mitch "Yertle" McConnell

I doubt many on the right actually LIKE him, but he was damn effective at doing the devil's work. If your world view is garbage, he was a great choice.

I dunno, for a party in the majority, he's had some embarrassing defeats and times he's had to compromise (see the ACA repeal, the budget compromise, etc), though yes, he's doing the devil's work.

Again, I strongly believe getting the judicial shored up in their favor for decades to come trumps (argh) even those big losses.

Well, yeah, but those weren't achieved through skill, but rather through lack of ethics (and controlling all the branches).

Defiant wrote: ↑Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:39 pm

Defiant wrote: ↑Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:49 am

I posted about this earlier, but IIRC it was 10 of the 37 candidates that ran on that that won (and 5 were tossups). That by itself wouldn't prevent her from being speaker, but some incumbents will probably vote against her. Last time, 63 Democrats voted against her, and my guess would be that number would be less (given the victory during the election), but I suppose it's possible it could be larger

My guess would be that Pelosi would win the vote within the party. At that point, those 10-15 new representatives could just abstain the vote for speaker, thereby saying they didn't support Pelosi for speaker, but Pelosi would still win (assuming most of those 63 agree to vote for her for speaker when the alternative is a Republican). I do think there's a possibility that Pelosi promises to only serve one term, though.

Then again...



I'm still skeptical of it happening, but I guess it's a real possibility.

The way the speaker election works is that a candidate first gets the nomination behind closed doors during the Democratic Caucus meeting. That is the easiest hurdle to clear. A candidate only needs a majority of their party for the speaker nomination, and Pelosi has that part essentially locked up.

The hard part is the floor vote, when a candidate needs a majority of the House: 218 of the 435 members.

But the Democrats who say they are opposed to Pelosi are already swearing they won’t vote present. If Pelosi can’t convince some of those Democrats who oppose her to vote present, she has a real problem.

link

So she has the support of a majority of the party, but a small minority (possibly as little as 17 or so) will try to block her? That seems like a dumb move. What's to stop that same tactic from being used on other alternatives?

Also, for possible alternatives (havent really looked through the list yet):

Members believe ― for good reason ― that there would be a rush of candidates for the speaker job if Pelosi stepped down, potentially including Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Assistant Minority Leader Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).

stessier wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 9:28 am

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 8:17 am Trump will win unless the economy tanks. Too many people are too stupid to see the truth.

I agree.

I don't know about that (even though I made the same assertion last week). In the midterms, we saw Trump drive nearly 100% turnout from his base...but he picked up very little support beyond them. Last time he was on the ballot, he lost the popular vote by a large margin and only won the EC by flipping a few key states by a few tens of thousands of votes, even though the D candidate was especially weak. Three of those states went blue in the midterms. And Dem turnout is always higher in presidential elections. I'm not seeing any indicators pointing to Trump doing better in '20 than he did in '16, and that probably won't be enough to pull out another victory.

Of course, Trump himself wasn't on the ballot in the midterms, and there are a dozen other mitigating unknowns (chief among them the D candidate and the state of the economy) plus two more years of random events. It's probably too soon to start thinking about 2020.

Also don't forget that Stein took votes away from Hillary that could have potentially swung those key states. And all this doesn't even factor in the Russian interference, the Comey bombshell, etc.

Right now I see him as one and done. Many Trump voters were gambling on "something different." He no longer has the advantage of being an unknown.

I can get Nancy Pelosi as many votes as she wants in order for her to be Speaker of the House. She deserves this victory, she has earned it - but there are those in her party who are trying to take it away. She will win! @TomReedCongress

OMG he's trying reverse psychology!

This is ADORABLE.

Joe Biden just adopted a shelter dog. He's definitely running.

Former US vice-president Joe Biden has adopted a dog from a shelter in the state of Delaware.

The Bidens have been fostering Major the German Shepherd and are now giving him a permanent home, the Delaware Humane Association said.

The association posted photos of the adoption on social media.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:28 pm Also don't forget that Stein took votes away from Hillary that could have potentially swung those key states.

I often wonder if third party candidates feel guilt when the party they are furthest from ideologically wins due to their presense on the ballot. I imagine Stein feels a LOT but thats mostly because I read she was the one pushing and funding a recount effort in Michigan after 2016.

Remus West wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:21 am

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:28 pm Also don't forget that Stein took votes away from Hillary that could have potentially swung those key states.

I often wonder if third party candidates feel guilt when the party they are furthest from ideologically wins due to their presense on the ballot. I imagine Stein feels a LOT but thats mostly because I read she was the one pushing and funding a recount effort in Michigan after 2016.

I really don't think so. Most statements I've seen from Green Party folks about this stuff just say the corporatist parties are all the same, etc. If this kind of thing really bothered them they wouldn't be running in the first place.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:45 am

Remus West wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:21 am

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:28 pm Also don't forget that Stein took votes away from Hillary that could have potentially swung those key states.

I often wonder if third party candidates feel guilt when the party they are furthest from ideologically wins due to their presense on the ballot. I imagine Stein feels a LOT but thats mostly because I read she was the one pushing and funding a recount effort in Michigan after 2016.

I really don't think so. Most statements I've seen from Green Party folks about this stuff just say the corporatist parties are all the same, etc. If this kind of thing really bothered them they wouldn't be running in the first place.

Maybe in the past but given the divide between HRC and tRump.......

Remus West wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:30 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:45 am

Remus West wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:21 am

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:28 pm Also don't forget that Stein took votes away from Hillary that could have potentially swung those key states.

I often wonder if third party candidates feel guilt when the party they are furthest from ideologically wins due to their presense on the ballot. I imagine Stein feels a LOT but thats mostly because I read she was the one pushing and funding a recount effort in Michigan after 2016.

I really don't think so. Most statements I've seen from Green Party folks about this stuff just say the corporatist parties are all the same, etc. If this kind of thing really bothered them they wouldn't be running in the first place.

Maybe in the past but given the divide between HRC and tRump.......

You would think so, but this has never really been all that logic-based. It's not like the major parties were the same even in the Bush v. Gore era, so I don't think the divide getting more stark actually matters all that much. If you're a strong left-wing person who nonetheless recognizes that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are not the same, and understands how elections work, then you're probably a Sanders-esque independent / progressive Democrat rather than a Green Party person.

In Arizona, the Green Party candidate (who was only loosely affiliated with the actual state Green Party, essentially) dropped out a few days before the AZ Senate election and said to vote for the Democrat (Sinema). The state Green Party then denounced her withdrawal and said vote Green since the two parties are the same.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:45 am

Remus West wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:21 am

YellowKing wrote: ↑Thu Nov 15, 2018 2:28 pm Also don't forget that Stein took votes away from Hillary that could have potentially swung those key states.

I often wonder if third party candidates feel guilt when the party they are furthest from ideologically wins due to their presense on the ballot. I imagine Stein feels a LOT but thats mostly because I read she was the one pushing and funding a recount effort in Michigan after 2016.

I really don't think so. Most statements I've seen from Green Party folks about this stuff just say the corporatist parties are all the same, etc. If this kind of thing really bothered them they wouldn't be running in the first place.

You can pretty much tell which third party candidates cared about vote splitting, because they're the ones who stepped aside and threw their support to a mainstream counterpart (e.g. Bill Walker withdrew from the Alaska gubernatorial race and endorsed Begich).

Joe Biden note...

My NPR station was covering the U. of Delaware's renaming of their Public Policy School in Biden's honor, and they carried Biden's speech on the occasion.

I love me some Joe, so it pains me to say that he sounds really, really tired. My impression was that, had he somehow become president in 2016, the big story of his administration would be his failing energy. I can't really picture him running an energetic campaign in 2020, let alone handling the world's most demanding job afterwards.

A few days ago I heard that Biden had recorded some ads for important midterm races, but that most decided not to use them because he seemed tired.

Yeah, I love Joe Biden, but he would only be a viable candidate if he were ten years younger. I'm still pulling for someone younger paired with someone with more experience, like Harris/Booker/Beto paired with Warren/Merkley/Whitehouse.

Yeah. Biden at his 2021 inauguration would be older than Reagan when he left office.

I keep seeing him high in various lefty straw polls, but it's just not feasible.

I like Kirsten Gillibrand, not sure if there is a path for her.
Beto (I also like) seems like an obvious go-to, but I agree we need someone seasoned to join the ticket.

Unagi wrote: ↑Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:43 am I like Kirsten Gillibrand, not sure if there is a path for her.
Beto (I also like) seems like an obvious go-to, but I agree we need someone seasoned to join the ticket.

I dunno. I like him well enough, but Beto couldn't win his Senate race against arguably the most despised politician on both sides of the aisle. That's...big IMO.

I know, I know, there were crazy obstacles against his winning (Cruz $$, deep red state, etc), but bottom line is he didn't win. Against Ted Douchebag Cruz.

I guess if he learned the lesson of "lean middle to even have a chance of winning in Texas", and applied that to a 2020 run, I would fully support that. Hopefully he and his team did a post-election breakdown with questions like "how could we have won?", "what could we have done better?" because there were certainly lessons.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:51 pm I know, I know, there were crazy obstacles against his winning (Cruz $$, deep red state, etc), but bottom line is he didn't win. Against Ted Douchebag Cruz.

Sure, but tell me what politician could win? Anyone living or dead from the last, let's say 4 decades will be an acceptable answer. Well, democrat too, obviously.

Who could have beaten Cruz in that race?

I like Beto well enough, but it's hard for me to see how he could be the most qualified candidate on the Democratic side. I mean, if he's the democratic nominee I would have no issue voting for him (also true for 99.99% of people running against Trump), but I can't see picking him over Biden, Warren, Booker, etc. Seems like his main qualification is running a media-friendly losing race.

We don't need the most qualified candidate. We tried that last time.

Beto needs to start establishing his national identity, but as Bill Clinton proved, this can be done when the primaries are underway. Winning Texas was a long shot anyway and I think most potential voters realize that. I think he already had to bend to center just to do as well as he did in Texas; so he could come out of the gate with broad appeal.

Consider though that mounting backlash against Trump (and a crashing economy could certainly bring that) could move the blue sweet spot further left.

If Beto must run this time, he's a natural VP candidate. Harris/O'Rourke sounds good to me.

Beto 2028!

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:03 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:51 pm I know, I know, there were crazy obstacles against his winning (Cruz $$, deep red state, etc), but bottom line is he didn't win. Against Ted Douchebag Cruz.

Sure, but tell me what politician could win? Anyone living or dead from the last, let's say 4 decades will be an acceptable answer. Well, democrat too, obviously.

Who could have beaten Cruz in that race?

Beto could have at least gotten closer to winning had he made some concessions on policy, which he was unwilling to do. Great for him and I applaud the unwavering stance based on his beliefs, but it also lost him the election. So maybe not Beto in that case. Someone purple could have won, I think. Someone not calling for impeachment, not calling for dissolving ICE, and a few other far left positions that I suspect most Texans would not support. Someone with a message that Texas R's could get behind, no matter the party (especially when so many R's despise Cruz).

Maybe some similarities there with many Trump voters, who had to suppress the gag reflex while pushing the button for Trump (pulling the lever, touching the screen, what have you).

So you advocate basing your positions on what would most likely get people to vote for you?

I thought a major criticism of modern politicians was that they had fluid principles that changes based on what is most popular at the time? Governing by poll results?

I get what you're saying, and governing is about compromise on both sides, I'm just not sure how that works on the campaign trail.

Saying what you think the public wants to hear is exactly how you get drumpf.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:42 pm If Beto must run this time, he's a natural VP candidate. Harris/O'Rourke sounds good to me.

Beto 2028!

Veep is not necessarily a stepping stone. Only 3 have made the leap in my lifetime, and only one of those was installed via election (Bush I). The other two were Johnson via assassination and Ford succeeding Dick "I Am Not a Crook" Nixon.

In the same time span, as many former Veeps failed in their attempt: Al Gore, Wally Mondale, and Hubert Humphrey.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 19, 2018 1:23 am So you advocate basing your positions on what would most likely get people to vote for you?

Not at all. "Great for him and I applaud the unwavering stance based on his beliefs"

But in this particular situation, where the red is so deep it's crimson, at THIS time, in Texas, it would have taken someone more moderate to center to win. IMHO.

You could say Beto accomplished almost as much by running the way he did, and losing. Because it was close. Because he didn't flinch from his left (for Texas) ideas. Because he got a hell of a lot of people around the country fired up and excited for him, and indirectly, for the Democrats.

I still wonder how it would have been with Al. He was a big tech guy and environment friendly fellow.

Meh.

"Now" is always special and requires special exemptions to principled platforms.

Note: I'm not disagreeing that leaning towards center wouldn't have helped. Doing what's popular is often popular.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:42 pm If Beto must run this time, he's a natural VP candidate. Harris/O'Rourke sounds good to me.

I don't have a strong preference in the 2020 race yet, but as of December 19, 2018, this sounds right to me.

Jeff V wrote: ↑Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:34 am

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:42 pm If Beto must run this time, he's a natural VP candidate. Harris/O'Rourke sounds good to me.

Beto 2028!

Veep is not necessarily a stepping stone. Only 3 have made the leap in my lifetime, and only one of those was installed via election (Bush I). The other two were Johnson via assassination and Ford succeeding Dick "I Am Not a Crook" Nixon.

In the same time span, as many former Veeps failed in their attempt: Al Gore, Wally Mondale, and Hubert Humphrey.

I believe the only sitting Vice Presidents to be elected to the presidency were Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren and Bush.

In terms of elect-ability, former Veeps are encumbered with baggage other candidates don't have to deal with. First of all, the president they served needs to be popular at the time they run (Biden polls more favorably now because Obama is more popular than he was at the end of his presidency). There has to be no scandal or mandate for change (such as deteriorating economy, etc.) And increasingly important is stage presence. Gore lacked stage presence in 2000 - he's gotten better since, but at the same time, the Clinton presidency is probably less popular than it was.

But let's face it, Veep is, during most administrations, a pretty useless job. While they certainly do things, those things are in the name of their president and not necessarily line items on their own resume. They can't really spend time and money developing their brand until they are a declared candidate, and then it can be difficult to establish themselves as proponents of an agenda that does not follow the current administration.

If Beto has presidential aspirations, he should give it his best shot. Veeps are generally selected to round out any perceived rough edges in the presidential candidate and his availability (or suitability) to serve in that role won't change regardless of if he runs his own campaign.

NBC News wrote:JUST IN: DNC announces it will hold 12 presidential primary debates for 2020 cycle, with 6 debates in 2019 and 6 in 2020. http://nbcnews.to/2Bz6KxJ

Well, here we go.

The first Dem primary debate is less than six months away.

And so it begins.

3 announced in the last day or two. Are we going to have a Democratic clown car? It makes sense to a degree since there isn't a clear heir apparent. However, a bruising primary fight isn't what the nation needs when you look to the right and see Trump there still.

I'm not sure I'm ready for this.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:47 pm Are we going to have a Democratic clown car?

Probably. I just hope that candidates drop out early, as soon as it becomes clear (after the first few primaries) that they have little chance of winning. I don't want a candidate with 20% of the vote winning the primary or seeing a brokered convention.