Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118170123#Comment_118170123

Applies to both parties as best they can control it. As the article is behind a paywall, I can't determine if the NYT article focuses purely on Republican territories or has a more encompassing view. For example, the recent announcement by Suozzi to run for governor instead of re-election has put a bit of a kink in the plans of NY Democrats, his is a seat in a more purple part of the State neighboring two constituencies which narrowly went Republican.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/29/politics/suozzi-retirement-2022-house/index.html

Worth noting: Democrats control the redistricting process in New York. And the line-drawers had designs on pinching Republicans -- most notably in Lee Zeldin's 1st District and Andrew Garbarino's 2nd -- on Long Island. An open seat in Suozzi's 3rd District could well complicate that plan.

or

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2021/11/30/tom-suozzi-governor-ny-run-2022-midterm-no-impact-decision-he-says

But with redistricting, the district map could end up looking different.

Without an incumbent in the race, Hofstra University Prof. Lawrence Levy said the Democrats who control redistricting in New York might attempt to make the seat more securely blue than they would if Suozzi were up for reelection.

“Now that it's an open seat, they're likely to pack it with more Democrats,” he said.

However, doing so could have a domino effect: placing more Democratic voters in Suozzi’s district might make it more difficult for Democrats to gerrymander a Republican-leaning district on Long Island to take it away from the GOP.

As long as any party controls the redistricting in their state, they'll do their damnedest to give their own side an advantage. There's a reason why California Democrats fought the independent redistricting process tooth and nail (and lost anyway). They should all go independent, both R and D States.

AbusesToilets

You're not going to find any arguments from me there, I despise gerrymandering. It's nakedly undemocratic. It's part of why I'm so sick of Manchin and Sinema's carryon, not to mention the Republicans themselves. It's actively damaging American democracy, and people's faith in the government. The Soviets would have given their left arm to have executed such a successful IO campaign.

You can't ignore however, that the Republicans have been far more aggressive than the Democrats in their efforts towards disenfranchisement. On a level playing field, the Democrats have the advantage, so they don't need such efforts to win. The Republicans decided over a decade ago to stop competing with ideas, and focused on cheating the system to win.

Brussels Sprout

Gerrymandering is so toxic and plain undemocratic. Pretty much every state uses First Past the post which lends itself to a 2-party system and uncompetitive races. This is amplified by gerrymandering with the net result that 90% of congressional districts are not competitive. That has a number of negative effects:

• Makes it almost impossible to remove incompetent politicians - who can easily serve for decades
• Pushes candidates to a more polar position (since the primary is likely to be their only threat of losing their seat)
• Undermines faith in democracy ("What's the point - that candidate is going to win anyway")

Arnold Schwarzenegger recognised this, fought against it and ultimately changed the way that California drew it's state legislative maps. With the best of intentions several states have moved to independent commissions but really the only way to rid the country of the scourge of gerrymandering is to legislate for it at the federal level. No political parties should have any power over drawing the maps that their politicians compete in. That is not going to happen anytime soon as one of the two parties seems intent on opposing any legislation that would remove the ability to gerrymander. That stance, along with the Senate filibuster and the supreme court's unwillingness to weigh in mean that gerrymandering is going to be around for a long time to come.

Manic Moran

• Makes it almost impossible to remove incompetent politicians - who can easily serve for decades
• Pushes candidates to a more polar position (since the primary is likely to be their only threat of losing their seat)

There are a few systems, such as California's recent "Open Primary" which have actually started to address this. The party which controls the seat may still be rigged, but that doesn't mean that the incumbent is necessarily going to stay. The system tends to aid moderates more than the polar position, as the 'polar' can only expect the votes from the wing of his/her party, the 'moderate' will get some of his/her party, and most of the independent and the other party's votes.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118267318#Comment_118267318

Is there actually any evidence of that being the outcome though? I know that that was the thinking and why they brought it in but I think I recall that in many cases it just ended up with 2 democrats winning the spots for the general election and then the Republicans didn't bother voting in that.

I'd have more hope in ranked choice voting being a moderating force. It has been brought in by Maine and Alaska for their federal elections (and notable New York city for it's municipal elections). The only thing is that for people to really see the benefits of it they need real alternative, centrist parties (or independents) to take part in those elections. That alone won't solve gerrymandering but it will make it much harder to execute effective gerrymanders if the population isn't binary (as it currently is).

salmocab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118272896#Comment_118272896

There’s no room for a centrist party, the two party’s are too close for there to be a party between and if, as I assume you mean centrist between left and right, there was a real centrist party they’d be written off as commies by a bunch of morons that wouldn’t know communism if it snuck up and took their cows off them.

America has dug itself into a disastrous position in politics and it’s hard to see a way out that doesn’t involve things going to ****.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118273778#Comment_118273778

I disagree that there is no room for a centrist party. Currently there are 2 parties for a country the size of a continent. That necessitates each party becoming a broad coalition. Each of them has their own spectrum of members. A centrist party could basically cleave off more moderate members of each party - the likes of Joe Manchin, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Jon Tester in the Senate for example. In General elections then, under ranked choice voting, they could attract transfers from both parties whereas Democratic voters would be unlikely to transfer to Republicans, and vice-versa. Lisa Murkowski herself is a great example of this. It is very likely that she will be elected again next year from Alaska, even though the Alaskan Republican Party is itself trying to unseat her due to the fact that she voted to impeach Trump.

There's also an argument that you could have more extreme parties (e.g. an America First party or a Green New Deal Party). Those probably would not work though as they would fail to attract the necessary transfers that would be needed to get elected in a ranked-choice voting system.

pixelburp

The problem with a third party coming to be (and I 100% support a proper multi party democracy in that country), is that those founding it would have to be aware and ok with its creation potentially giving more power to one of the existing two parties, for a very long time. Nobody wants to rock the boat such that (say) an exodus of DINOs ensures Republican control for 10+ years. And if not that, then this new centrist party would simply become kingmakers again, courted by the largest party to get a majority - so hello Joe Manchin again.

It's the same problem with things like the filibuster or term limits in many ways: there might be a broad recognition it causes a problem, but remains under the "better to have it and not need it... " principle.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118284664#Comment_118284664

That will certainly be the place if First Past The Post is used in most states. I would go far as to say there is no point in even trying to set up a new party while that is still the voting mechanism used - A classic example of that is The Green Party in the UK. Like most western European countries there is a ready-made demographic there for them but they have been unable to get off the ground. A huge part of that is the voting system. If you live in a close constituency between Tories/Labour and you prefer the Green manifesto but your number 1 priority is to keep the Tories out you'll likely vote for Labour rather than the Greens in order to have the best chance of your vote actually counting toward your objective. FPTP is an adversarial system that absolutely crushes smaller parties - unless they are regional, in which case it can be help them (e.g. the SNP)

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118123481#Comment_118123481

I was just thinking that about the spending. Its ok as long as it is on things like the military budget which for next year will be about 250 times the size annualized that the 3.5t original build back better plan would have been which would make it about 500 times annualized more spending if the scaled back build back better plan is passed which is not likely. My guess is it will end up even smaller if it ever gets passed.

This too much spending mantra is disingenuous given what they are willing to spend on their war machine. How about maybe they spend some money on their own people and their well being for a change.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118272896#Comment_118272896

Yes.

It won't change the party who controls the seat. For example if the Republicans can't put forward a candidate who can get second place even on a split Democrat vote, they don't deserve the seat under any condition, no matter how much they complained about not having a Republican on the ballot in November. The choice the voters will be presented with would then be between two democrats, one normally more centrist than the other. You can imagine which of the two is more likely to garner the independent and republican voters.

https://news.usc.edu/170366/top-two-open-primary-elections-less-extreme-lawmakers-usc-study/

New USC research shows that lawmakers elected in states with top-two primaries are less likely to cast extreme ideological votes on legislation.

“Advocates for reform argue that top-two primary creates incentives for legislators to be less extreme than those elected in closed primary systems, as they must appeal to same-party, different-party, and independent voters,” said Christian Grose, academic director of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy and the study author. “This study is the first to demonstrate this outcome by analyzing the voting behavior of members of Congress.”

Also, transferrable votes are starting to garner some headway. They're being used in a number of local elections, which is the normal route used to go to national-level effect. For example, after initially trying (and failing) to move California to open primary and independent redistricting for federal positions, they tried again at the local level the next cycle. When that passed, they then attacked it at the congressional level, which passed. This was also partially due to the much bigger budgets of the congressional leaders (who didn't want to rock their own boat) being contributed to a combined 'no' campaign the first time, the second time it was divide and conquer.

---------

This too much spending mantra is disingenuous given what they are willing to spend on their war machine. How about maybe they spend some money on their own people and their well being for a change.

We already spend more on things like healthcare and education than on defense. The problem isn't the amount of money we're spending, it's the administration and what we get for that money, which utterly sucks.

AbusesToilets

Without meaningful electoral reforms, it wouldn't matter what system is used. When there is so much undemocratic corporate influence and disenfranchisement, there's little hope for making headway. The system needs reform before you can get better politicians in office.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118286066#Comment_118286066

Going on 2020 figures the US spent $778B on their war machine $45B on education. The US spent more on their war machine then the next 9 biggest military spenders combined. Fact remains the current military spending for the next year if annualized over the next 10 years and assuming it stays roughly the same is 250 times bigger then what was the original build back better plan and is over 500 times the watered down version and given when and if something actually passes it is likely to be even smaller then the military spending will likely be a good bit more then 500 times what is spent on the US war machine on an annualized basis. The too much spending mantra been used with the build back better bill is disingenuous at best given what they are willing to spend on their war machine.

Now on healthcare no question the US wastes a ton of money but that is what you get when what passes for healthcare in the US is in fact a for profit industry run amuck.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118286143#Comment_118286143

I totally agree. The American political system is dysfunctional and corrupt to the core. The claim that the US is an actual democracy is risible. This is in line with the Democracy index which has seen the US democracy rating on the slide especially since the early 2000's and now ranks the US as a flawed democracy. Personally, I would describe the US as an oligarchy at best with a strong whiff of plutocracy.

Rjd2

An amusing story the other day which symbolises a serious issue the Dems have.

Basically a study was done with Hispanic's and the term Latinx is insanely unpopular and is actually counterproductive.

Obviously in the grand scheme of things its easy to say "who cares" but it symbolises a serious issue the party have,,,a lot of the messaging is coming from very online young liberals who are simply out of touch with a vast majority of the US voting public and are actually quite annoying for some.

I recall a very interesting article a while ago discussing why those in charge of the Dem party prefer non white people running for positions is because they actually talk more "normal" than some of the very young online progressive white liberals.

It also touches an another fascinating element of US politics, for so long the Dems believed "Demographics were destiny" while the GOP dismissed anyone that wasn't an old white person , but it seems the Hispanic vote is very much up for grabs.

Obviously their is so many different inner groups and a huge difference between the core Arizona hispanic population who got Biden over the line in 2020 and the Cuban Hispanics who are swooning over RDS in Florida.

[quote]“Why are we using a word that is preferred by only 2 percent, but offends as many as 40 percent of those voters we want to win?” said one pollster[/quote]

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/06/hispanic-voters-latinx-term-523776

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118286412#Comment_118286412

You're just looking at federal spending, the US system is decentralised.

The last year for which full figures are compiled is 2019.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118288329#Comment_118288329

I am well aware of that. Much of the educational spending comes from local property taxes as opposed to coming out of the federal kitty. But when it comes to this topic I am talking about federal spending on the war machine in contrast to what the Americans are willing to spend on their own people out of the federal kitty.

The point remains that the mantra that the build back better plan is too costly is at best disingenuous as the military budget will (given the build back better plan is already watered down by about 50% ) be at least 500 times greater on an annualized basis. Given that if the build back better bill ever gets passed it will likely be even more watered down thus making the military budget likely to be more then 500 times its size on an annualized basis. It really is very telling about who American is and what they consider important. Clearly their war machine matters more then the well being of the vast majority of their own people.

Manic Moran

It's a boost to, not a replacement for, the state and local spending, there is nothing in the federal charter which talks about education spending, any Federal dollars spent is a bonus. Defense, however, is specifically in the Federal Constitution. It doesn't matter to the wallets of us taxpayers overly much if I have to hand a dollar over to the Feds or the county for education, although arguably at least that dollar is more likely to go to my local school district to meet local needs if it's the latter, but for defense, there's no choice in the matter. The lion's share must go to the Feds, and if they're going to maintain their commitments, the Federal defense expenditure hasn't much room to shrink. (Indeed, there is very good argument that the defense budget is too small, given the money spent on Mid-East operations has come to the detriment of other capabilities, particularly the Navy which of course is the point force for the China problem and has a ridiculous maintenance and manning shortfall).

Is it telling that America is willing to stand up for itself and its allies against multiple peer threats? I think that's a good thing, no? Of course, the US could dramatically cut back its fleet and tell Taiwan to stand up to the PRC on its own, and maybe the Europeans would like to shoulder more of the expense and burden for facing Russia. Not that they could handle even intervention in Libya without running out of ammo and asking the Americans (and their budget) for a resupply.

The only reasonable way to reduce the defense budget is to reduce American commitments. Which of them would you like to see shaved off?

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118288371#Comment_118288371

The only reasonable way to reduce the defense budget is to reduce American commitments. Which of them would you like to see shaved off?

The next 'clear and present danger' that will be manufactured to provide some active training for its troops and to convince the next generation of people that they need to keep giving 700B a year or whatever it is to the military. And with the added benefit of attempting to ensure US friendly locals are left in power at the end of it. America let Saudi Arabia kill a US citizen, where was their commitment there?

Look at the money and blood spent since 2001 on the war on terror. That was after 3000 Americans died in a terrorist event. That's happening twice a week from Covid, and yet, the White House laughed at the idea this week of sending Covid test kits to every house in America.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118288221#Comment_118288221

I remember The Economist had a very good article a year or two ago where they discussed this perception of the Democratic party as the party that is always struggling to get out of its own way. The point that they made was that this was a natural bi-product of the diversity within the party. It is a much broader tent than the Republican party, both ethnically and culturally. As such, the balancing act of keeping everyone happy is a lot more difficult.

Elderly rural, black church goers and white, blue-collar union workers are likely to have very different ideas on gender and sexuality than young urban college graduates. At the same time the rural, black church goers and the white, blue-collar union workers are likely to have very different opinions on the Black Lives Matter movement. That's only 3 groupings. Throw in well educated and wealthy tech workers, well educated but relatively poor school teachers, jewish americans, hispanic immigrants, urban socialites, democratic socialists and many other groupings and the complexity goes through the roof. This "latinx" issue is a particularly egregious example where they clearly have gotten the balancing act wrong. They'll likely alter their messaging to account for that but then completely misjudge something elsewhere on a different topic. Plus ça change.

serfboard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118289748#Comment_118289748

While I'd agree that the Democrats are a coalition, my perception of it is that the rich and well educated have been in the ascendant within the party and the only issues that bother them are the cultural ones, and they are pushing this agenda very hard to the detriment of a better overall platform. After all, if a majority of Americans favour policies which would benefit everybody (Medicare for All, taxing the rich more), how come these ideas aren't on the platform of every Democratic politician? In the case of Medicare For All, the reason that it's not espoused by more Democratic politicians, as far as I can tell, is that either a) they don't believe in it and/or b) they receive a lot of donations from Health insurers and other vested interests to ensure that Medicare for All never comes to pass. A clear-cut example of this was in California where the Democrats controlled all three centres of power - the State Assembly and Senate and the Governorship - and they still blocked a motion calling for Medicare For All in the state.

Working class voters have been abandoned by left-leaning parties in a lot of countries and so it's no surprise that they don't vote for those parties in elections.

eire4

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118288371#Comment_118288371

The notion that the US are the good guys on the block which is how I interpret the above is risible. Sure they are better then the Russians or the Chinese I will grant you that but the Americans activities abroad go way beyond protecting allies and justified self interest into the realms of imperialism. Never mind as well that the Americans are more then happy to cosey up with evil regimes such as the Saudi Arabians, Egypt, Quatar etc.

Now for a start the Americans could stop interfering in and or overthrowing South and central American countries governments, close bases etc.

The money is there the Americans just chose to spend at least over 500 times more on their war machine without blinking almost on an annualized basis then they are willing to spend on their own peoples well being and that is indeed very telling. The mantra that the build back better plan is too much spending is at best disingenuous and that is being generous IMHO.

beggars_bush

What happens if Putin sends troops over the border?

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118305828#Comment_118305828

One of two things I reckon.

1: The West grumbles but does nothing, for me this is the best case scenario.

2: The West start moving troops/ships towards Russia, while all this is going on China makes a move on Taiwan and now the West have a possible war on two fronts looming against two heavily nuclear armed powers, North Korea then make a move south because everyone is preoccupied with the Russians and Chinese. The middle east turns into a free for all and ancient feuds/grievances are fought over and the world is fùcked for a decade or two.

Obviously this is me just speaking out loud and none of this will happen, but then who knows 🤷‍♂️

AbusesToilets

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118305828#Comment_118305828

The West crushes Russia with sanctions. An initial successful push by Russia stalls out in the face of grinding urban combat, as the US happily supplies Ukrainian forces with material. Belarus perhaps makes a play against Poland and gets utterly smashed, potentially forcing Russia to make a choice to support an ally or risk the overthrow of one of the few friendly neighbors it has.

Cyber attacks devastate western countries and Russia in turn.

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118305828#Comment_118305828

Nothing happened last time. He already did it and no one did a thing. He took Crimea and and the Russian army has been in and out of Ukrainian like it was home for years. Few more sanctions that do feck all won’t worry him

he has zero intention of launching a ground assault and attempting to annex Ukraine though. It’s all sabre rattling. A full war in Ukrainian would be his Afghanistan

Brussels Sprout

Pretty good analysis of how Democrats are absolutely screwed in the next few cycles of House elections due to the imbalance in gerrymandering in states around the country:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykYOEc7Kcko

TLDR: Many states, for the most part in Democratic control, have brought in independent redistricting commissions to redraw the election boundaries for the House seats. For the most part, Republican controlled states did not. The net result is that considerably more seats will be gerrymandered in Republican favour for the coming decade.

AbusesToilets

Good thing the Dems have used Reconciliation to pass the Voting Rights Act. Oh wait...

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118313597#Comment_118313597

The video is based on the false premise that the Democrats (as a party) did that to themselves as they are either nice guys, or trying to 'set the example' for Republicans. This is false, it's not as if the members of the Democrat California or Nevada governing parties decided to be nice and put the issue out on their own.

For example, the video specifically calls out the Nevada initiative as a possibility, stating that he believed it highly likely that the initiative will pass. Catch is it didn't even achieve enough signatures to make it onto the ballot in 2020 (Granted, COVID hurt the signature-gathering process) and Nevada's being as gerrymandered by Dems as any other state is by their controlling party. It's not being put onto the ballot because the Democratic Party wants it there.

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/the-inevitable-partisan-sham-of-redistricting

https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2021/11/17/thoughts-turn-to-lawsuits-redistricting-reform-after-democrats-unpopular-maps-approved/

There are currently 8 states with independent redistricting commissions.

https://redistricting.lls.edu/national-overview/?colorby=Institution&level=Congress&cycle=2020

Each and every one of those states, yes, including the two Republican ones mentions, MT and ID, is one which has voter initiatives as an option.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/chart-of-the-initiative-states.aspx

Since I was there at the time, I'm familiar with the California background. Note the list of supporters and opponents of independent redistricting.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_11%2C_Creation_of_the_California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission_Initiative_%282008%29

The effect of the video is correct, and he's right that in most balanced states the majority of voters would want independent commissions, but the theory that it was a self-inflicted wound is... questionable.

Manic Moran

The commission on the structure of the Supreme Court has issued its final report.

It makes no recommendations, merely observations. Not sure it's particularly of any use, really.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/SCOTUS-Report-Final-12.8.21-1.pdf