Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 257: "Donald the Dove"

(+) Yeah! (+)

LordoftheMorons posted...

Eh I'm not so sure. It looks like Mike Lee and Rand Paul will vote for it; you only need two more. I wouldn't say it's likely, but not DOA.

If Republicans were like Democrats, sure. Republicans don't vote in such a way as to hurt the party line*. Even the ones who do vote against their party only do so when they know it won't hurt the party.

*Except for the RINO John McCain. His years of RINO-ing are why Republicans hated him so much!

---

https://twitter.com/SeanLangille/status/1215407904813207558

Steyer SURGE

---

Yeah, it's a privileged vote (much like the national emergency votes that McConnell can't block when the House sends it over to them as required periodically) so the Senate has to vote on it and can't be subject to McConnell blocking it.

Lee and Paul have said they're for it (Lee was undecided until he was so incensed and pissed off at how the Administration handled the briefing and immediately declared his support for the resolution) so that brings you to 49 votes assuming the Democrats stay united. So like LotM said, just need 2 more.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/SeanLangille/status/1215407904813207558

Steyer SURGE

Outlier steyer

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/SeanLangille/status/1215407904813207558

Steyer SURGE

Yeah, your party is doomed. You are so bankrupt on ideas that you are resorting to running billionaires and throwing money at the problem.

---

Ironically he's helping Bernie if he prevents Biden from taking a majority in SC

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/SeanLangille/status/1215407904813207558

Steyer SURGE

Given I have never had any hope for SC, Go Steyer go.

---

Mind you, the Republican argument, to the extent they're making a legal argument at all and not just cheerleading Trump and throwing bullshit at the Democrats, is that this concurrent resolution would not be legally binding so I would anticipate that even if it got passed the Administration would claim the same and ignore it (and/or including a legal challenge to the War Powers Act itself.)

---

Steyer qualifying for the January debate with literally one day left is terrible.

so close to a 5 person debate dammit

---

xp1337 posted...

Mind you, the Republican argument, to the extent they're making a legal argument at all and not just cheerleading Trump and throwing bullshit at the Democrats, is that this concurrent resolution would not be legally binding so I would anticipate that even if it got passed the Administration would claim the same and ignore it (and/or including a legal challenge to the War Powers Act itself.)

Since all Presidents since its enactment have declared it unconstitutional, including Carter, Clinton, and Obama, no doubt Trump will simply continue 40+ years of policy in ignoring the WPA entirely. He does not need to go to court to do that. Congress could go to court, but that would probably just result in the WPA being found unconstitutional, which is presumably why Congress hasn't asked the courts to rule on this in the past.

---

Bernie with another poll leading in California, which is always nice to see.


---

Who on earth is donating to Steyer

---

Kinglicious posted...

Who on earth is donating to Steyer

Trump.

---

Kinglicious posted...

Who on earth is donating to Steyer

Soros and Steyer, maybe?

I still feel like Steyer is the strangest candidate in the race.

His rhetoric on wealth inequality and climate change sounds much like the Warren/Sanders side of the party. But the fact that he's a billionaire who basically bought his way into this puts him at odds with like... most of everything they stand for lol?

Like if I didn't know his policies my no-info reaction would probably be something like, "People who want an old, moderate, white guy like Biden... but are worried about Biden because gaffes, age, etc." but it doesn't square up with his policy!

One of the data guys (might have been Silver, I forget) notes that yeah, he's basically the only one running ads in NV and SC right now but that that's been the case for months now so it doesn't really make sense as an explanation for why it's happening now. I do think Silver threw out a "working theory" that with all the news fatigue over impeachment and Iran that maybe his ad blitz is working better now as an alternative?

donations though i have no idea

Still think Steyer's best move was to declare victory when Pelosi announced the inquiry - since his rise to "prominence" in this cycle was him running those Impeach ads - and drop out declaring mission accomplished. I'm really left with no real other explanation then ego like Bloomberg but it kinda blows my mind that either of them would blow over a hundred million on a doomed vanity/ego campaign.

---

xp1337 posted...

I still feel like Steyer is the strangest candidate in the race.

His rhetoric on wealth inequality and climate change sounds much like the Warren/Sanders side of the party. But the fact that he's a billionaire who basically bought his way into this puts him at odds with like... most of everything they stand for lol?

Like if I didn't know his policies my no-info reaction would probably be something like, "People who want an old, moderate, white guy like Biden... but are worried about Biden because gaffes, age, etc." but it doesn't square up with his policy!

One of the data guys (might have been Silver, I forget) notes that yeah, he's basically the only one running ads in NV and SC right now but that that's been the case for months now so it doesn't really make sense as an explanation for why it's happening now. I do think Silver threw out a "working theory" that with all the news fatigue over impeachment and Iran that maybe his ad blitz is working better now as an alternative?

donations though i have no idea

Still think Steyer's best move was to declare victory when Pelosi announced the inquiry - since his rise to "prominence" in this cycle was him running those Impeach ads - and drop out declaring mission accomplished. I'm really left with no real other explanation then ego like Bloomberg but it kinda blows my mind that either of them would blow over a hundred million on a doomed vanity/ego campaign.

Yeah, cuz you're not a multi-billionaire. If you had that much money, a hundred million wouldn't hurt that much either.

---

I sort of like Steyer since he seems to be fairly legit about environmental stuff (he lobbied hard against the keystone pipeline for instance) and he's overall probably more progressive than anyone aside from Sanders/Warren but the fact that he's buying his way into having a brand in the presidential race pisses me off, I don't want a hedge fund manager to be president, even if he has done some reasonably good philanthropic work and political activism. I don't trust him to know what he's doing with regards to things like foreign policy and I don't trust him to actually be in touch with the poor, even the most modestly-living billionaire leads a different life than we do

I would take him over Bloomberg in a heartbeat, but I prefer Biden's experience

Steyer's does not actively offend me in debates I will say. Yang I guess didn't make it

---

Hard to make it when they only give you a couple* of polls between debates to hit better numbers.

Hell his polling average is still better than Klobuchar but she had a temporary spike 2 months ago when they gave her significantly more than her share of time at a debate. If you were just counting the past month and a half of polls I don't think she would qualify either.

But whatever I'll just turn my ire into more text banking -_-

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Hell his polling average is still better than Klobuchar but she had a temporary spike 2 months ago when they gave her significantly more than her share of time at a debate. If you were just counting the past month and a half of polls I don't think she would qualify either.

Klobuchar

1/9 - New Hampshire - Monmouth
*1/5 - Iowa - CBS/YouGov
1/5 - New Hampshire - CBS/YouGov
12/19 - National - NBC/WSJ <- Klobuchar qualified here
12/15 - National - Fox News
*11/17 - Iowa - CBS/YouGov
11/16 - Iowa - DMR/Selzer

I count 7 polls for her, counting today's NH poll. She did initially qualify with the help of mid-November polls but her last four qualifying polls stretch back to only 12/19.

*These two polls can't both count because they're the same region and same pollster. I included them here both for completeness and because depending on whether you count from the start towards the present or the present to the start to get to the 4 required polls you'd be using one of them... they simply can't both count simultaneously so if her reaching 4 required both of them to count it'd be no good.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

None of them would have been in this situation. Trump created the situation.

He created THIS one but it's just ONE situation. I'm talking about all the overly-escalated quagmires in the middle east in general.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/jdawsey1/status/1215319933711724544?s=21

flying in a rough neighborhood

This is what sephg was talking about

---

Steyer doesn't offend me but his spending does. The man's put down 100 mil on the election. In terms of donations he doesn't need them and he's spending his own money, the only purpose is to get him on the stage.

But he's not memorable in any way, he's just there. He's their Kasich.

---

The imminence uncertainty principle:

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1215484389976690693

---

i was more thrown by steve kerr being the top reply to that tweet

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The imminence uncertainty principle:

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1215484389976690693

I mean if you can form the premeditation it takes to be guilty of premeditated murder in the time it takes to pull the trigger, which at least one US court has said is the law, then I think just about any time can qualify as imminent.

---

"he's coming right for me!"

---

There is an article on cnn saying AOC should leave the democratic party if she is bothered by Biden so much. In the article it says the democratic party is why AOC has power. Did no one give this person the memo she beat the 4th ranking Democrat in the house to get here.

---

https://thehill.com/latino/477596-sanders-hires-protester-biden-told-to-vote-for-trump

King shit

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

There is an article on cnn saying AOC should leave the democratic party if she is bothered by Biden so much. In the article it says the democratic party is why AOC has power. Did no one give this person the memo she beat the 4th ranking Democrat in the house to get here.

People are stupid mad she said that in another country, she and Biden wouldn't be in the same party. But that's just the objective truth. The two party system brings out the dumbest takes.

also that bernie thing is great, you love to see it

---

idk if it's just me but I don't see "AOC successfully primaried the 4th ranked House Dem" and "The Democratic Party is why AOC has the political power and influence she has" as mutually exclusive.

Consider the thought experiment of: "If AOC did not run in the democratic primary for the house seat but instead mounted a third-party run at the seat in the general, would she have won?"

My answer is - highly doubt it. That's not a knock on AOC at all either. She exposed the complacency and arrogance of the incumbent (literally sending a surrogate to the debate lmao) but the framework and institution of the party itself is why she (and almost all) politicians have power at all. They're so entrenched in the politics of this country that there's almost no alternative.

tl;dr: "The Democratic Party" isn't some shadowy room of centrist moderates scheming to spread neoliberal policy. AOC mounted a successful internal challenge for the direction the constituency of that seat... but she did so as a Democrat these are not mutually exclusive!

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

People are stupid mad she said that in another country, she and Biden wouldn't be in the same party. But that's just the objective truth. The two party system brings out the dumbest takes.

I don't think it was a particularly helpful thing to say because it's so easily misconstrued. But also the overreaction to it is like comedy-level bad.

---

I agree with what you're saying, but saying she should leave the party misses the point. The Democrats are a big tent party that has little defining qualities other than being opposed to the Republicans. Bernie and AOC are smart politicians that use this to their benefit. Kicking them out would result in the party becoming that mass of shadowy centrists you're referring to.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I agree with what you're saying, but saying she should leave the party misses the point.

Of course it does! Like I said, the overreactions to her comment are just hilariously bad.

---

xp1337 posted...

idk if it's just me but I don't see "AOC successfully primaried the 4th ranked House Dem" and "The Democratic Party is why AOC has the political power and influence she has" as mutually exclusive.

Consider the thought experiment of: "If AOC did not run in the democratic primary for the house seat but instead mounted a third-party run at the seat in the general, would she have won?"

My answer is - highly doubt it. That's not a knock on AOC at all either. She exposed the complacency and arrogance of the incumbent (literally sending a surrogate to the debate lmao) but the framework and institution of the party itself is why she (and almost all) politicians have power at all. They're so entrenched in the politics of this country that there's almost no alternative.

tl;dr: "The Democratic Party" isn't some shadowy room of centrist moderates scheming to spread neoliberal policy. AOC mounted a successful internal challenge for the direction the constituency of that seat... but she did so as a Democrat these are not mutually exclusive!

Yeah but the DNC acts like they are sometimes! They hate that she won't blanket support incumbents, thinks the dccc sucks etc. Basically she lives in a society that has a two party system. They didn't do anything for her, really. Yes she is in the party so by default she makes use of their organization but that's just how it is. The party leaders dont do anything to help her and that is what I meant. Nor do they need to.

---

xp1337 posted...

idk if it's just me but I don't see "AOC successfully primaried the 4th ranked House Dem" and "The Democratic Party is why AOC has the political power and influence she has" as mutually exclusive.

Consider the thought experiment of: "If AOC did not run in the democratic primary for the house seat but instead mounted a third-party run at the seat in the general, would she have won?"

My answer is - highly doubt it. That's not a knock on AOC at all either. She exposed the complacency and arrogance of the incumbent (literally sending a surrogate to the debate lmao) but the framework and institution of the party itself is why she (and almost all) politicians have power at all. They're so entrenched in the politics of this country that there's almost no alternative.

tl;dr: "The Democratic Party" isn't some shadowy room of centrist moderates scheming to spread neoliberal policy. AOC mounted a successful internal challenge for the direction the constituency of that seat... but she did so as a Democrat these are not mutually exclusive!

Ehh that's being overtly broad with "The Democratic Party" would refer to for no meaningful reason to any point. Using it to say she wouldn't be elected without running as a Democrat is a worthless comment that shouldn't be at all conflated with AOC owing her political position to the party entirely when they've been actively fighting her all the time.

It's like attributing everything you've ever done in your life to your parents even they gave you a shitty upbringing but nonetheless you still wouldn't have come into the world if they didn't conceive you.

Basically, "she did so as a Democrat" is a point I don't find worth pushing since that's not a point anyone's arguing on - even Bernie runs his Dem primaries in Vermont. But even if you're a Democrat the party can and will still do what it can to get in your way and that's more of the actual point. With the context of the article trying to argue AOC should like it or lump it with the DNC, it's a ridiculous handwave argument that ignores the harm it'd be to the Democratic Party.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHq6xauQOcs

Real good questions from Colbert and good answers from Bernie. Worst answer though was the boring skin-deep Trump-exceptionalist answer about why the 2002 AUMF is still being used. The correct answer is that every administration since 2002 has been given that same carte blanche by Congress AND the American people and it needs to stop with Sanders. Trump leaving won't magically stop it at all.

---

AOC might not be in office soon anyway considering her district is on the shortlist for the one that may be cut after the census. If she wants her house seat she should focus back on her community, or she very well won't have one. Which may be for the best considering she's less there representing them and more kind of her own thing and is better elsewhere.

On plane news, Iran is now literally bulldozing the area, with pictures of bulldozers in the area, and them saying they wouldn't do it. Meaning they're doing it as fast as fucking possible.

---

Breaking news!

Williamson is out.

---

Breaking news part 2:

https://mobile.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1214532995006312448

---

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1215644318989418496?s=21

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Breaking news part 2:

https://mobile.twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1214532995006312448

Disavow him Bernie. Disavow. You do not need or want the support of anyone who calls himself a "neoliberal shill."

---

red sox 777 posted...

Disavow him Bernie. Disavow. You do not need or want the support of anyone who calls himself a "neoliberal shill."

He won a tongue-in-cheek twitter tournament for "top neoliberal shill"

But he's also not saying he's down with all of Sanders' agenda... the article basically says that he likes Sanders' foreign policy and thinks he won't be able to do most of the big domestic stuff he's proposing because he'll be constrained by Congress.

---

That is fine! Being anti war is an excellent reason to vote for him. Him being elected would single handedly restore 30 years of damage to the Overton window.

---

Bernie isn't in a position to disavow much. right now he's trying to squeeze that extra 1-2% a month and hope Pete/Warren/Bloomberg/Steyer (apparently)/Klobuchar maintain enough power to keep Biden in striking distance for a few early states. after that he can carry more momentum on his own.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

He won a tongue-in-cheek twitter tournament for "top neoliberal shill"

But he's also not saying he's down with all of Sanders' agenda... the article basically says that he likes Sanders' foreign policy and thinks he won't be able to do most of the big domestic stuff he's proposing because he'll be constrained by Congress.

The problem is the optics. A coalition of socialists and conservatives is being assembled around the core principle that neoliberalism is bad. So we just can't be coopted by them.

---

Over on reddit we love seeing neo liberals come to Bernie. Identity doesn't matter, only the cause for America!

---

Pfft, you're worried about the optics for this guy? Worry more about optics if/when he gets rushed off his own stage and has his podium taken over. that scene made him look weak, ineffective, and awful. this guy, whatever, extra support. he'll take anything he can get if it means 1st or a strong 2nd for Iowa, NH, and Cali.

---

Bernie is strong like a bull. Optics are so 2016

---

I'm thinking about the general. Come the general, neoliberal support will be really toxic. He'll do better if he can get them to attack him en masse the way they did to Trump. Actually, if the mainstream media/policy establishment attack Bernie more than Trump.....then Bernie probably wins. But I guess there's no chance of them stopping their Trump attacks for long enough to breathe, much less focus on someone else.

---