Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

Tell me how

BonnieSituation wrote: »

He's neither though. He's an independent who Caucauses with the Dems in the senate.

When running for president of he has joined the party for that period to get the nomination.

Brian? wrote: »

He never ran as a Democrat, he ran for the Democratic nomination for presidency. Weird, but there you go. He’s a registered independent

I thought he had pledged his allegiance so to speak.

"I am a member of the Democratic Party," the document signed by Sanders reads. "I will run a Democrat, accept the nomination of my Party, and I will serve as a Democrat if elected."

BonnieSituation

Tell me how wrote: »

I thought he had pledged his allegiance so to speak.

Yes. That's what I said. He failed in his bid and is no longer a Democrat.

He continues to Caucus with them.

pixelburp

I think what Sanders is or isn't is irrelevant to my point - and if anything, merely proves it. In a healthy multi-party democracy, Sanders would likely have been a member of a definitive left-leaning party. No ifs, buts or maybes. Perhaps even Ocasio-Cortez, both allowing for a mature option of socialist policies in American politics - be it at the state or federal level. But instead, because America is a duopoly, the Democrats operate as a now gigantic ideological umbrella that includes both corporate centrists, and open socialists: that's INSANE, and will merely guarantee Republican dominance in waves because all that remains then is that narrower axis of right-wingers, as the overall tone of politics races for the extremes. Actual, fiscal conservatives will be left disenfranchised.

This is the poison of America's traditionalism, of its legislation treated like holy writ. Rigged structures break easier than flexible ones, it's a basic tenet of engineering and it's arguable that Trump was a hairline fracture. Socialism was an easy dodge while the USSR effectively painted it as the Great Enemy, but now that we have the AOC's of the world, born after the Cold War and asking some fairly boilerplate questions we take for granted here, whither to for that growing demographic? They're not going to join the Republicans, so the Democrats will keep bulging at the seams trying to reconcile being this church of many creeds. As a response, Republicans will simply dial up the aggression, because American Politics is a sport, and tribalism will out.

I don't know where the rigged structure snaps, but the break will come. I'm not trying for hyperbole TBH, just don't see how things keep on keeping on here.

AbusesToilets

pixelburp wrote: »

I think what Sanders is or isn't is irrelevant to my point - and if anything, merely proves it. In a healthy multi-party democracy, Sanders would likely have been a member of a definitive left-leaning party. No ifs, buts or maybes. Perhaps even Ocasio-Cortez, both allowing for a mature option of socialist policies in American politics - be it at the state or federal level. But instead, because America is a duopoly, the Democrats operate as a now gigantic ideological umbrella that includes both corporate centrists, and open socialists: that's INSANE, and will merely guarantee Republican dominance in waves because all that remains then is that narrower axis of right-wingers, as the overall tone of politics races for the extremes. Actual, fiscal conservatives will be left disenfranchised.

This is the poison of America's traditionalism, of its legislation treated like holy writ. Rigged structures break easier than flexible ones, it's a basic tenet of engineering and it's arguable that Trump was a hairline fracture. Socialism was an easy dodge while the USSR effectively painted it as the Great Enemy, but now that we have the AOC's of the world, born after the Cold War and asking some fairly boilerplate questions we take for granted here, whither to for that growing demographic? They're not going to join the Republicans, so the Democrats will keep bulging at the seams trying to reconcile being this church of many creeds. As a response, Republicans will simply dial up the aggression, because American Politics is a sport, and tribalism will out.

I don't know where the rigged structure snaps, but the break will come. I'm not trying for hyperbole TBH, just don't see how things keep on keeping on here.

Some of that is a fairly recent development tho. The Democrats used to be more aligned with policies espoused by Sanders et Al, tho not under a socialist branding.

Neo-liberal ideology has infected and destroyed much of what was "good" about the Democratic party, in it's policy aims.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Some of that is a fairly recent development tho. The Democrats used to be more aligned with policies espoused by Sanders et Al, tho not under a socialist branding.

Neo-liberal ideology has infected and destroyed much of what was "good" about the Democratic party, in it's policy aims.

The furthest left the Democrats went was under FDR, and that still wasn’t very left wing. They still had healthy support in the Jim Crow states at the time.

Can you point out when they were aligned with Sanders st al.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

The furthest left the Democrats went was under FDR, and that still wasn’t very left wing. They still had healthy support in the Jim Crow states at the time.

Can you point out when they were aligned with Sanders st al.

The pushes for universal healthcare that carried through from Truman to JFK/ Johnson to Clinton. They were the party of the Unions and the working man, back when that meant something

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The pushes for universal healthcare that carried through from Truman to JFK/ Johnson to Clinton. They were the party of the Unions and the working man, back when that meant something

Ok. That was democratic presidents. The reason they couldn't push it through was because there wasn't the support in congress from enough Democrats.

Even Obamacare only passed because it was a capitalist solution and not socialised.

You're getting caught up in the leadership and not the broader party

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Ok. That was democratic presidents. The reason they couldn't push it through was because there wasn't the support in congress from enough Democrats.

Even Obamacare only passed because it was a capitalist solution and not socialised.

You're getting caught up in the leadership and not the broader party

Who is the party though? These ideas have consistently broad support among the public. There's a disconnect there, between the voters and their representatives.

pixelburp

Polls show support for broadly socialist agendas, but once the label of "socialism" gets thrown out, the term still acts as a useful bulwark against actually pushing said agendas through the legislative bodies. In an incredibly under-educated country, buzzwords and scaremongering remains a very useful tool; when I'm reading about folk not wanting to lose their ACA, but really hate Obamacare, how do you square that circle in a gigantic church like the Democrats?

At least if there was a viable, financially supported Socialist Party in America, the party could simple own those policies without having to play this absurd game where Ocasio-Cortez must horsetrade and play nice with Nancy Pelosi. I appreciate the former's decision - what else could she do? - but she doesn't belong in the Democrats.

Water John

Even at present it only takes one, Joe Manchin, DINO to stop anything.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Who is the party though? These ideas have consistently broad support among the public. There's a disconnect there, between the voters and their representatives.

The party is a broad coalition of slightly like minded people. In a proper functional democracy neither the GOP nor the Dems would exist. Because the US is an enforced Duopoly, thanks to the first past the post system, the electoral college and how the Senate is elected, people band together in coalitions. People don't found new parties because they are frozen out.

Up until the 70s, the Dems had massive support in the south. This evaporated after the Civil rights act. So who votes GOP or Dems shifted in a huge way.

Socialised medicine has broad support in opinion polls. But this support evaporates at national elections. Case in point Bernie repeatedly losing in the primaries to more centrist candidates.

The dems are not left to the GOP right. They are centrist with some fringe left members who have very little power. AOC is almost an outcast to most dems

Quin_Dub

Brian? wrote: »

The party is a broad coalition of slightly like minded people. In a proper functional democracy neither the GOP nor the Dems would exist. Because the US is an enforced Duopoly, thanks to the first past the post system, the electoral college and how the Senate is elected, people band together in coalitions. People don't found new parties because they are frozen out.

Up until the 70s, the Dems had massive support in the south. This evaporated after the Civil rights act. So who votes GOP or Dems shifted in a huge way.

Socialised medicine has broad support in opinion polls. But this support evaporates at national elections. Case in point Bernie repeatedly losing in the primaries to more centrist candidates.

The dems are not left to the GOP right. They are centrist with some fringe left members who have very little power. AOC is almost an outcast to most dems

Absolutely - Anywhere else they would have fragmented into at least 4 separate parties and probably more likely 3 or 4 decent sized parties and a similar number of smaller niche ones.

Their ridiculous voting system forces massively varied opinions into the two parties leading to nothing ever really changing.

Water John

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Absolutely - Anywhere else they would have fragmented into at least 4 separate parties and probably more likely 3 or 4 decent sized parties and a similar number of smaller niche ones.

Their ridiculous voting system forces massively varied opinions into the two parties leading to nothing ever really changing.

Yes, some similar analysis done in the UK showed the LB and Tory vote should be distributed among 4 parties only for FPTP.

StringerBell

Water John wrote: »

Even at present it only takes one, Joe Manchin, DINO to stop anything.

Manchin is a Democrat though, he is a centrist alright but he is a Democrat.

Not a bad shout either for the next democratic nominee if he can manage to keep the fringe of the party from burning him at the stake. Does well in a general I think.

I would expect to see him vote as he always has but maybe with a little more independence shown for political reasons with an eye on a run in 4 years.

He said he wouldn't vote to get rid of the filibuster, but he is supporting the stimulus bill. Certainly not the worst democrat on the senate, I wouldn't share his line of thinking on everything but that's okay like.

Water John

Manchin has the reality of coming from a Republican state to contend with and I accept that. Don't know why it seems to be $15/hr or nothing on the min wage. Increase it anyway as much as they can get through.

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

The party is a broad coalition of slightly like minded people. In a proper functional democracy neither the GOP nor the Dems would exist. Because the US is an enforced Duopoly, thanks to the first past the post system, the electoral college and how the Senate is elected, people band together in coalitions. People don't found new parties because they are frozen out.

Up until the 70s, the Dems had massive support in the south. This evaporated after the Civil rights act. So who votes GOP or Dems shifted in a huge way.

Socialised medicine has broad support in opinion polls. But this support evaporates at national elections. Case in point Bernie repeatedly losing in the primaries to more centrist candidates.

The dems are not left to the GOP right. They are centrist with some fringe left members who have very little power. AOC is almost an outcast to most dems

Excellent post. I would just add that there are not new parties because they are frozen out in the sense of that sounding benign. There is no multiparty system in the US because the duopoly of Republicans and Democrats who control power at both the federal and state level actively work to ensure no new parties can emerge on a serious national level to threaten their monopoly on power.

eire4

StringerBell wrote: »

Manchin is a Democrat though, he is a centrist alright but he is a Democrat.

Not a bad shout either for the next democratic nominee if he can manage to keep the fringe of the party from burning him at the stake. Does well in a general I think.

I would expect to see him vote as he always has but maybe with a little more independence shown for political reasons with an eye on a run in 4 years.

He said he wouldn't vote to get rid of the filibuster, but he is supporting the stimulus bill. Certainly not the worst democrat on the senate, I wouldn't share his line of thinking on everything but that's okay like.

Unless Manchin votes to get rid of the filibuster there is very serious limitations on what the Democrats can actually get done in the next 2 years. For instance there needs to be serious voting rights reforms without the filibuster gone that is not going to happen.

Tell me how

eire4 wrote: »

Excellent post. I would just add that there are not new parties because they are frozen out in the sense of that sounding benign. There is no multiparty system in the US because the duopoly of Republicans and Democrats who control power at both the federal and state level actively work to ensure no new parties can emerge on a serious national level to threaten their monopoly on power.

One massively restricting factor in new parties developing a meaningful platform is, unsurprisingly, money.
800M was reportedly spent on the senate runoff in Georgia last month and AOC's raised nearly 20M for her election campaign last November.

There are already junior parties in the Libertarians and the Green Party but while they occupy 10s of seats in some States, they are insignificant nationally.
It is likely that the next party will develop from the top down rather than from the ground up building on regional support to appear on the national stage eventually.
In 2008, it looked like the Tea Party was going to coalesce in to something, and now it looks more likely that there will be a center/right split in the Republicans if anything is going to happen but I think they recognize how damaging that will be short term.

One thing AOC has in her favour, as Bernie did too in fairness is that she thus far recognizes that in order to get something done, you must be in the room where decisions are being made. We're watching the fracturing of a heretofore socially minded party in Ireland as idealists don't like what it means to be the junior party in power and are pulling out.

Tell me how

eire4 wrote: »

Unless Manchin votes to get rid of the filibuster there is very serious limitations on what the Democrats can actually get done in the next 2 years. For instance there needs to be serious voting rights reforms without the filibuster gone that is not going to happen.

Krysten Sinema is the Democrat the most attention needs to be paid to in relation to the filibuster.

Despite being one of the youngest, and let’s face it, hippest members of the chamber, Sinema holds views that can be as old-school as any of the Senate’s long-timers'. Not only does she want to keep the filibuster, she wants to rebuild it. And the end-around idea of overruling the parliamentarian to jam whatever Democrats want to in a budget reconciliation bill is not going to happen on Sinema’s watch either.

“There is no instance in which I would overrule a parliamentarian’s decision,” Sinema said. “I want to restore the 60-vote threshold for all elements of the Senate's work.”

Rjd2

Manchen rarely is the decisive vote on anything though when it comes to the Dems.

The much discussed Kav vote was only done once he was sure that he had the votes and with re election coming in a state that wanted him confirmed he voted for him. Others in lesser red states opposed Kav and that's fine but ultimately lost. Hawley for example got over the line by cheer leading for Kav.

With Sinema she had an interesting journey, was quite lefty when younger but drifted towards the centre recently. To be fair despite Arizona moving to the Dems with demographics etc, its not exactly California for them.

Its quite possible that the Republicans could win in 2022 and 2024 that state.

Sinema has to throw the so called moderate middle class conservatives some red meat to keep them happy, saying no the fillibuster makes sense.

eire4

Tell me how wrote: »

Krysten Sinema is the Democrat the most attention needs to be paid to in relation to the filibuster.

Yes your right about Sinema being the other major problem for the Democrats in terms of their own party and being able to get anything significant done legislation wise.

Itssoeasy

Seems like the head the balls have been watching the show designated survivor because according to the new chief of the capitol police, this crowd want to blow up the building when Biden makes his first address to congress as president.

AbusesToilets

AbusesToilets wrote: »

We can clearly see the negative effects of exorbitant debt on those who've been to school in the last 20 odd years. It directly impacts social mobility, economic creativity and opportunity. If the Government can argue that the financial sector needs bailing out, to the tune of billions of dollars, then I fail to see how it can argue against a similar effort for the common citizen.

This is an entirely new situation that wasn't present for those going through University before the 90s/ 00s. The longer this goes unaddressed, the worse it's going to weigh down society. The education industry needs to be reworked, and student debts needs to be forgiven. They aren't mutually exclusive actions.

It's something of a mirror to over here. I think it was the 45+ (may have been 50+) cohort saw an increase in income in Ireland after the crash while the younger ones (now 35+) are just now getting all of the stink off and trying to start out. Even the promise of wealth later in life is getting watered down for the younger people. Now we have to pay PRSI and USC on pension contributions and a pitifully low ceiling on what we can put in.

marno21

Rjd2 wrote: »

Manchen rarely is the decisive vote on anything though when it comes to the Dems.

The much discussed Kav vote was only done once he was sure that he had the votes and with re election coming in a state that wanted him confirmed he voted for him. Others in lesser red states opposed Kav and that's fine but ultimately lost. Hawley for example got over the line by cheer leading for Kav.

Indeed. The four Senate Dems up for re-election in red States (Donnelly/Nelson/McCaskill/Heitkamp) in 2018 all lost re-election. Manchin bucked that trend

Whatever about his lack of purity, he’s a much better asset for Senate Dems than a Republican Senator from West Virginia would be.

StringerBell

First military strikes under the administration, in Syria. Response to rocket attacks over the past few weeks apparently. One of those proportional responses, small and targeting small sites, the sooner they find a way back to the table with Iran the better.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Troll post & responses deleted.

TomOnBoard

That CPAC was some awful farce at the weekend. Like many others, I had hoped that Trump's defeat, and the shennanigans post-election
including an attempted insurrection might have shown the 'better angels' of a more sensible GOP that Trumpism was no longer a viable path for the GOP. Incredibly, they doubled down on Trumpism and the incredible rabbit holes of white supremacy, 'stolen elections', Q-Anon and all the old favourite tropes pushed by Trump ever since 2015, were followed deep into the abyss by multiple participants over the weekend.

Its hard to know where to start in any attempt to unpack the lies and BS rhetoric that characterised the annual jamboree that seems to project the lunacy of the GOP more clearly every year. But, overall I'm struck with the simple question: How in God's name can a Biden administration sit down and try to work with these kooks? Trump's 'speech' served yet another appalling serving of outright lies on a Presidency that is just over a month old, and THAT was the 'highlight' of the weekend!!!

I seriously believe that Biden and the Dems need to get their agenda through Congress urgently, and simply refuse to try and work with these insurgents and saboteurs, focusing on voters' rights above all, lest these madmen take over the House again in 2022.

I actually despair for America!

Water John

Who was there Cruz, Hawley and the Trumps?
Still think Biden/Harris should try to have some GOPs with them where possible, but I wouldn't be in any way beholden to them. Biden struck the right balance in Texas and showed Cruz making his second bad choice in a week.

Tell me how

TomOnBoard wrote: »

That CPAC was some awful farce at the weekend. Like many others, I had hoped that Trump's defeat, and the shennanigans post-election
including an attempted insurrection might have shown the 'better angels' of a more sensible GOP that Trumpism was no longer a viable path for the GOP. Incredibly, they doubled down on Trumpism and the incredible rabbit holes of white supremacy, 'stolen elections', Q-Anon and all the old favourite tropes pushed by Trump ever since 2015, were followed deep into the abyss by multiple participants over the weekend.

Its hard to know where to start in any attempt to unpack the lies and BS rhetoric that characterised the annual jamboree that seems to project the lunacy of the GOP more clearly every year. But, overall I'm struck with the simple question: How in God's name can a Biden administration sit down and try to work with these kooks? Trump's 'speech' served yet another appalling serving of outright lies on a Presidency that is just over a month old, and THAT was the 'highlight' of the weekend!!!

I seriously believe that Biden and the Dems need to get their agenda through Congress urgently, and simply refuse to try and work with these insurgents and saboteurs, focusing on voters' rights above all, lest these madmen take over the House again in 2022.

I actually despair for America!

Biden and prominent Democrat aspirations have already been hamstrung by people within their own party. The easiest win, the $15 minimum wage was literally aborted. The only reason people are being given to vote Democrat is that they are not Republican and while that worked in 2020, it likely won't in 2022 leading to it being impossible for Biden and guess what that will lead to in 2024. :mad:

TomOnBoard

Tell me how wrote: »

Biden and prominent Democrat aspirations have already been hamstrung by people within their own party. The easiest win, the $15 minimum wage was literally aborted. The only reason people are being given to vote Democrat is that they are not Republican and while that worked in 2020, it likely won't in 2022 leading to it being impossible for Biden and guess what that will lead to in 2024. :mad:

The $15 minimum wage proposal was included in the latest Covid relief bill, but had to be dropped after the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that it was not in order. It didn't come about because Dems aborted it; it came about because the.interpretation of the rules wouldn't allow it.