Octopus Overlords

El Guapo wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:40 am Seems generally like Biden is generally too touchy-feely in a way that's inappropriate, and that he hasn't realized how that is on the receiving end for women, especially given that he's a powerful man. Not totally sure what to do with that, although it seems like a major problem in a very competitive primary field.

Also, if Biden gets elected President now, Al Franken is going to lose his goddamn mind.

I like Biden but he's not my pick for 2020.

That said, these attempts to paint him as a Me-Too perv are terrible. Biden once kissed a woman on the back of the head and rubbed noses with one, both in public and in ways they concede were not a big deal. To take these two incidents and say that Biden is "inappropriate" (with all the sexual connotations that word carries in this context) or to put him on the level of an Al Franken, is absurd. There are probably a million and one reasons why Biden is not right for 2020. The notion that he is vulnerable or should be disqualified because of these two incidents is ridiculous.

And, to be clear, there are probably a ton of other women (and probably men) who could (and may) come forward with similar stories about Uncle Joe. How can anyone be surprised? This is how Biden - and tons of other people - behaved publicly and without shame before we all became so scared of one another that crap like this is now national news.

Until I see someone credibly report something serious, this shit about Biden is a hatchet job, plain and simple.

+1.

Separately, he's too old. Move aside and lend your voice to someone else, Joe.

Kurth wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:19 am

El Guapo wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:40 am Seems generally like Biden is generally too touchy-feely in a way that's inappropriate, and that he hasn't realized how that is on the receiving end for women, especially given that he's a powerful man. Not totally sure what to do with that, although it seems like a major problem in a very competitive primary field.

Also, if Biden gets elected President now, Al Franken is going to lose his goddamn mind.

I like Biden but he's not my pick for 2020.

That said, these attempts to paint him as a Me-Too perv are terrible. Biden once kissed a woman on the back of the head and rubbed noses with one, both in public and in ways they concede were not a big deal. To take these two incidents and say that Biden is "inappropriate" (with all the sexual connotations that word carries in this context) or to put him on the level of an Al Franken, is absurd. There are probably a million and one reasons why Biden is not right for 2020. The notion that he is vulnerable or should be disqualified because of these two incidents is ridiculous.

And, to be clear, there are probably a ton of other women (and probably men) who could (and may) come forward with similar stories about Uncle Joe. How can anyone be surprised? This is how Biden - and tons of other people - behaved publicly and without shame before we all became so scared of one another that crap like this is now national news.

Until I see someone credibly report something serious, this shit about Biden is a hatchet job, plain and simple.

Yeah, I am inclined to agree with this. It's also an area where nuanced media coverage (the rarest of beasts) is important. I saw a headline that was "Second Biden Accuser Comes Forward", which seems wildly misleading in the Me Too era. Though one caveat I would put on all this is that as a man I'm not sure I have a great sense of just how out of bounds this stuff was, or how it came across to women.

We'll see how it plays out, I suppose.

El Guapo wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:29 pm
Yeah, I am inclined to agree with this. It's also an area where nuanced media coverage (the rarest of beasts) is important. I saw a headline that was "Second Biden Accuser Comes Forward", which seems wildly misleading in the Me Too era. Though one caveat I would put on all this is that as a man I'm not sure I have a great sense of just how out of bounds this stuff was, or how it came across to women.

We'll see how it plays out, I suppose.

I saw that same headline this morning, which is what set me off. I find myself torn: I hate Trump with a passion and think his attacks on the free press rank right up there with his worst bullshit. Yet, our free press sucks.

Defiant wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:34 pm Some first quarter numbers

So I couldn't find any other released numbers, except reports that Warren is struggling and it's being blamed on her eschewing large donors and fundraising.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' campaign Tuesday announced that it raised $18.2 million from more than 500,000 donors since he got in the 2020 presidential campaign in February.

link

Defiant wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:44 pm

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' campaign Tuesday announced that it raised $18.2 million from more than 500,000 donors since he got in the 2020 presidential campaign in February.

link

Increasingly Cocky Bernie Sanders Announces He Won’t Take Donations Over 27 Cents.

Warren stumbled in her response to getting tagged as Pocahontas. It's bullshit but Trump does it because it works to feed his base. With the other options, I'm not surprised that her early status doesn't translate into dollars.

At this point the fundraising dollars is just a horse race proxy. Democrats need someone who can go toe-to-toe with nasty Trump. With winning and ego on the line, Trump is going to do everything in his power to surpass Nixon in the dirty tricks department.

Defiant wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2019 2:44 pm

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' campaign Tuesday announced that it raised $18.2 million from more than 500,000 donors since he got in the 2020 presidential campaign in February.

link

Bernie's numbers tell a second story, though. On day one they confidently predicted a full million donors in the first quarter, and this 500,000 number falls way short.

I also saw somewhere that only about 20 percent of his donors are new--the majority have been on his lists since the 2016 campaign. It's a lot of money, but it's not actually a sign that he's expanding his appeal. (And of course his favorability has been falling. Other candidates' have risen.)

The fact that we're talking about Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders in 2019 as possible contenders - after all the shit we've collectively been through since 2016 - suggests to me we're in for a deep donging when 2020 rolls around.

Jaymann wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:04 am With a name like Buttigieg he has to be good.

I know I'm a little late to the party but I am totally obsessed with him. Don't know if he really has any chance at all but I'm all in until he's done.

I like Buttigieg for his obvious intelligence and sincerity, but his strategy seems to be to try to appeal to Midwestern Trump voters by dumping on traditional Democratic positions and rejecting progressive goals. Last week he was complaining about Hillary Clinton and suggesting that Trump had won because he understood something about the economy that Democrats don't.

Dude, they're just not into you, and they never will be.

Holman wrote:I like Buttigieg for his obvious intelligence and sincerity, but his strategy seems to be to try to appeal to Midwestern Trump voters by dumping on traditional Democratic positions and rejecting progressive goals.

Which traditions and progressive goals are you referring to? Everything I’ve read and heard makes him see pretty progressive.

Reserving judgment until I can internalize BOOT-edge-edge. Because every time I see his name my brain still says BUTTY-geeg, even though it's supposed to know better.

Yeah, I would consider Buttigieg to be progressive/liberal/leftwing based on stances he's taken, if not as far left as Sanders (and probably not quite as far as Warren). It's hard to know exactly, because he has a limited track record, and he doesn't have a part of his website devoted to where he stands on the issues (to be fair, I think Warren might be the only one that does) but he certainly doesn't strike me as center or center-left.

Here's a long article on Buttigeig that highlights his evasiveness in proposing *any* policies, really, as well as a few incidents where he tries to play up his midwestern roots not only in contrast but in opposition to ivory-tower elites and wonks (even though his whole life has been lived in elite schools and institutions). At the same time, he seems remote from the issues currently animating the progressive movement (such an income inequality).

The piece is definitely a takedown, and I don't like the writer's style at a lot of points, but it does the job of pointing out that Buttigeig is getting a huge amount of attention as a Golden Boy but has actually staked out very few real positions, and his self-presentation (as in his candidate autobiography) involves a certain amount of conscious myth-making.

I still like him, but I'm wary of the whole Innocent Genius aura that seems to be springing up around him. So far he's a privileged kid who has benefited from the system at every turn and now sincerely wants to do his part for Good Government. It's 2019 and we need more substance than that.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren is out there with serious, detailed, necessary policy proposals every day of the week, but no one is even paying attention because the horse-race narrative has decided she has stumbled.

Personally that he's only been the mayor of a small town, and to a lesser degree his age, are pretty much disqualifying for me. Experience matters, and I'm just not comfortable with someone going from mayor of South Bend to the Presidency. At least, not while I have the choice of others who have a ton more experience.

In terms of policies, he did mention, in one of the podcasts that interviewed him, that he thinks candidates should start by focusing on explaining their values first, rather than rushing in to talk policy. And if he still hasn't presented his stances on the issues by the end of the year or they're vague, then I would find that troubling, but given his answers to questions in town halls and interviews, he has shown to me that he's willing to state his positions to issues asked about fairly clearly.

In terms of experience, yes, I would rather he have some more experience under his belt - and if he were to become president, I think that it will mean it will take time for him to become effective as President - but I also think that's also true of Beto and Harris (and was also true of Obama in '08).

I suppose the counter-argument would be that executive experience of any kind (mayor, governor) is more directly relatable to the role of president than congressional experience.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:07 pm I suppose the counter-argument would be that executive experience of any kind (mayor, governor) is more directly relatable to the role of president than congressional experience.

So let him run for governor next. Or, with congressional experience still being relevant (the President does have to get legislation through Congress), he can take his executive experience, run for Congress, and have some of both. Or spend some time in the private sector, which is also relevant to having a nuanced understanding of governance and policy.

Having 8 years (or whatever it is) as mayor of South Bend plus some ideas is not enough.

Not to mention the relationships that could be developed as a member of congress. There's a reason some are seen as allies and some as foes, and all that that entails in governing.

Urm, he does have several years experience in the private sector (also, experience in military service).

I will say I'm somewhat disappointed that we've seen fewer governors as potential candidates in recent elections.

GreenGoo wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:21 pm +1.

Separately, he's too old. Move aside and lend your voice to someone else, Joe.

Not IMHO. What we're going to need is an experienced hand to clean up the mess Trump and the GOP are making.

Foreign relations will be a mess
The economy and the budget will be a mess
Immigration will be a mess
Health Care will be a mess
The Courts will be a mess
the voting Rights act will be a mess
EPA/Education/Interior/IRS/Energy/Cybersecurity, etc. will be messes.
etc.

Pyperkub wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:18 pm
Not IMHO. What we're going to need is an experienced hand to clean up the mess Trump and the GOP are making.

Foreign relations will be a mess
The economy and the budget will be a mess
Immigration will be a mess
Health Care will be a mess
The Courts will be a mess
the voting Rights act will be a mess
EPA/Education/Interior/IRS/Energy/Cybersecurity, etc. will be messes.
etc.

Sure, but if he becomes infirm and/or dies in office, what then? I like him. He's too old for the job.

Defiant wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:17 pm Urm, he does have several years experience in the private sector (also, experience in military service).

I will say I'm somewhat disappointed that we've seen fewer governors as potential candidates in recent elections.

Yeah, I forgot that he had a few years of private sector experience. But again, not much. And it's not so much that he's a bad candidate, it's just that with such a large field I can't fathom choosing him over someone who has a couple decades more experience.

As long as Mayor Pete has good ideas, his age and lack of experience aren't a huge negative for me. He certainly has more public sector experience that our current president and more executive/legislative experience than a number of other past presidents. And I actually think of his age as a good thing: a president who will likely live much of their adult life dealing with the consequences of climate change may have a different perspective than someone nearing the last third (or less) of their life.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:17 pm As long as Mayor Pete has good ideas, his age and lack of experience aren't a huge negative for me. He certainly has more public sector experience that our current president and more executive/legislative experience than a number of other past presidents. And I actually think of his age as a good thing: a president who will likely live much of their adult life dealing with the consequences of climate change may have a different perspective than someone nearing the last third (or less) of their life.

How are his ideas materially different from other primary opponents?

It's hard to be unique in a field of two hundred candidates, but I think the one policy difference that was unique to him was on how to address the increased politicization of the judiciary (raising the limit to 15, but having five of those justices be chosen by unanimous decision of the other ten justices).

But for me, what impressed me most was his level of understanding on a variety of different issues that he showed when he answered questions at town halls without missing a beat, which I haven't seen in the other candidates. In addition, he also expressed empathy as well (consider how he was both highly critical and empathetic about Pence in the same breath, to an audience with no sympathy for Pence at all).

(That's not to say I'm sold on him. There's about 4-5 candidates I'm leaning towards, and I'm happy with most of the others).

Like Beto, I think this election might be more about getting name recognition. I'd like him to improve his resume with a higher office (just not the highest office) first; it would give me more confidence that he will develop connections with qualified people to fill cabinet positions.

GreenGoo wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:00 pm

Pyperkub wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:18 pm
Not IMHO. What we're going to need is an experienced hand to clean up the mess Trump and the GOP are making.

Foreign relations will be a mess
The economy and the budget will be a mess
Immigration will be a mess
Health Care will be a mess
The Courts will be a mess
the voting Rights act will be a mess
EPA/Education/Interior/IRS/Energy/Cybersecurity, etc. will be messes.
etc.

Sure, but if he becomes infirm and/or dies in office, what then? I like him. He's too old for the job.

That's what getting a good VP is all about. If a Dem wins in 2020, it's possible that the Senate flips again as well, and moving *fast* will be key, as anyone who watched the Obama administration kind of flounder with the supermajorities. Having someone who went through how that opportunity was squandered and hopefully learned the lessons will be key.

Look at the House "revolt" against electing Pelosi as Speaker again. I don't think any of those who thought she was the wrong pick (outside the hard-core GOP Pelosi haters) still feel that way, and she's old too. Biden + one of the young guns is probably the best combination for what we will need moving forward.

Defiant wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:44 pm It's hard to be unique in a field of two hundred candidates, but I think the one policy difference that was unique to him was on how to address the increased politicization of the judiciary (raising the limit to 15, but having five of those justices be chosen by unanimous decision of the other ten justices).

But for me, what impressed me most was his level of understanding on a variety of different issues that he showed when he answered questions at town halls without missing a beat, which I haven't seen in the other candidates. In addition, he also expressed empathy as well (consider how he was both highly critical and empathetic about Pence in the same breath, to an audience with no sympathy for Pence at all).

(That's not to say I'm sold on him. There's about 4-5 candidates I'm leaning towards, and I'm happy with most of the others).

He's not the only one on the SCOTUS beat. Warren seems to be keen on the idea of basically just using Courts of Appeal judges as rotating SCOTUS justices - essentially pick them at random to compose the SCOTUS panel for a few months at a time.

Also I hate the idea of the five getting picked by unanimous consent of the 10 justices. Supermajority and unanimity provisions always sound good, but wind up enabling the craziest among us. Do we really want to give Clarence Thomas unilateral authority over the composition of a third of the Supreme Court?

That 10-5 method is weird to me. You'd have two classes of Supreme Court Justices. The Executive SC and the Judicial SC. Those five twice removed from elected position seats just feels odd and feel like they give even more power to an executive branch, who now chooses people for life who choose people for life. And I am convinced with no evidence whatsover that McConnell would find a way pull puppet strings, completely ignore or rewrite the law, and suffer no repercussions.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:12 pm

He's not the only one on the SCOTUS beat. Warren seems to be keen on the idea of basically just using Courts of Appeal judges as rotating SCOTUS justices - essentially pick them at random to compose the SCOTUS panel for a few months at a time.

Well, that specific proposal.

Also I hate the idea of the five getting picked by unanimous consent of the 10 justices. Supermajority and unanimity provisions always sound good, but wind up enabling the craziest among us. Do we really want to give Clarence Thomas unilateral authority over the composition of a third of the Supreme Court?

But it wouldn't be unilateral, it would be... err.. ten-lateral. RBG would have just as much say as Thomas, with just as much veto power.

(I dunno, maybe it would work better if just 8 out of 10 are needed to pass it - enough to ensure that no one person can veto it, but also make sure they're acceptable to both sides)

Defiant wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:30 pm

El Guapo wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:12 pm

He's not the only one on the SCOTUS beat. Warren seems to be keen on the idea of basically just using Courts of Appeal judges as rotating SCOTUS justices - essentially pick them at random to compose the SCOTUS panel for a few months at a time.

Well, that specific proposal.

Also I hate the idea of the five getting picked by unanimous consent of the 10 justices. Supermajority and unanimity provisions always sound good, but wind up enabling the craziest among us. Do we really want to give Clarence Thomas unilateral authority over the composition of a third of the Supreme Court?

But it wouldn't be unilateral, it would be... err.. ten-lateral. RBG would have just as much say as Thomas, with just as much veto power.

(I dunno, maybe it would work better if just 8 out of 10 are needed to pass it - enough to ensure that no one person can veto it, but also make sure they're acceptable to both sides)

Sort of like how the filibuster has worked to ensure bipartisan legislation?

But yeah, RBG (and each other justice) would have as much power as Thomas. But the point is that the crazy person in the group gets the most leverage from that sort of thing because they're the ones who can most credibly threaten "do what I want or the Court gets it". Like in the Obama debt ceiling negotiations when everyone agreed that the debt ceiling needed to be raised but the GOP got some leverage by threatening to blow it up anyway.

At the very least you have to account what happens when the SCOTUS inevitably deadlocks on the appointment of the additional justices.

Another Biden statement on inappropriate touching.

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1113515882960052224

Seems sincere and good, but he's still going to get scorched for not actually and directly apologizing.

Holman wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2019 9:09 pm Um... I think OO is pretty much required to support him now.

https://twitter.com/Chas10Buttigieg/sta ... 9788464128

https://twitter.com/louisvirtel/status/ ... 1857590272

https://twitter.com/Chas10Buttigieg/sta ... 8357234690

And so so so exactly what America needs.

Defiant wrote: Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:05 pm In terms of policies, he did mention, in one of the podcasts that interviewed him, that he thinks candidates should start by focusing on explaining their values first, rather than rushing in to talk policy. And if he still hasn't presented his stances on the issues by the end of the year or they're vague, then I would find that troubling, but given his answers to questions in town halls and interviews, he has shown to me that he's willing to state his positions to issues asked about fairly clearly.

The problem here is that you could have a forum with 14 candidates explaining their values and get 14 versions of the same anodyne speech.

Values are easy. Policy is hard.