When the time comes, we will find out which Dems are made of what.
Right now, being tough on this or that is all show. But the day the Dems take over the Senate, they better be playing to win, after all the crap that has been played on them.
Me?
I care which issue is #1 in their pantheon, where they will expend their limited political capital.
I care whether they have leadership and charisma and media sense.
I care whether they have a track record of successfully communicating with Americans, beyond their core demographic.
I care how egalitarian they are.
When we have a President Harris or President Warren or President Biden, and they have used the bully pulpit to place health care front and center, and Congress is debating policy specifics, I will take the particulars very seriously, and I might even stoop to fighting with other Dems who think differently than I do. But right now, it just sounds like a fighting over whether the Cubs ought to try to steal a base in the third inning of game 5 of the 2019 World Series. So many important things to concern ourselves, so many dice to roll before we get to such questions.
This makes a ton of sense. I’d say keeping on eye what policy is most likely to A. get Trump out of office and B. getting the 51st vote is far more important than the policy differences.
To paraphrase the military dictum, “no policy plan survives first contact with a sub-committee meeting.” .
Umm, what happens IF Dems get the 51st vote in the Senate, tell the GOP to go pound sand, and the Republicans do what the Oregon Republicans just did and high-tail it (to Canada or the Bahamas or something to escape US Marshalls) to deny the Dems a quorum?
Thanks, you know your US Constitution better than I do.
That can’t be all there is to it, otherwise you aren’t considering enough to decide which one to cast your vote for, because they’re all talking about the same issues. Maybe you don’t intend to vote in a primary, or maybe you live somewhere where it doesn’t matter, or maybe you’ll just toss a coin (but that’s a methodology!), but your advice here doesn’t really apply to anyone who does need to decide in order to cast a vote in a primary, or in order to decide who to contribute to.
Yes, but we won’t have all 3, and you’ll have to decide on one before that. Most people who want to participate in the process will, anyway.
I largely agree with @FinnegansFather larger point - it’s going to be the Congress and their staff who craft legislation. I can’t e.g. see Biden vetoing a healthcare bill with a public option. That said, a President does matter with setting the agenda (this ignores foreign policy which is an entirely different kettle of fish.)
But from living in NH my primary vote (and even general election vote since we’re considered a swing state despite having just 4 EC votes) has meaning* and I really torture myself with who to pick because of that. My one vote in and of itself doesn’t matter, but it does matter when added to other votes. That’s largely why I didn’t decide who to vote for in 2016 until I stood in the voting booth ( and later came to regret voting for Sanders even though had I voted for HRC in the primary that obviously would not have made a difference.)
By the time the NH primary rolls around I think the field of candidates is going to be winnowed down to <10: Biden, Harris, Warren, Buttigieg, Sanders, Castro and Booker (just a WAG) simply because there won’t be enough money to keep all these candidates afloat.
Each one of them has ‘issues’ to contend with. On the surface Harris seems like a good contender to bridge the divide between the two wings of the party, but her plan for a middle class tax cut doesn’t jibe with her M4A stance. From a policy perspective, there’s Warren and everyone else, but she has the age issue and the misplaced perspective that she’s some radical leftist. Etc., etc.
I want to vote for Inslee but I don’t think he’ll be around. That leaves Warren and Harris - and if I vote for Harris that’ll be a ‘strategic’ vote since I think she’ll have the best shot at energizing occasional voters while being quite strong vs trump.
Sorry for the rambling post, just kinda thinking out loud.
-
@Rightbug also lives in NH and can attest to the outsized attention we receive.
It’s not rambling at all, it’s exactly what I was getting at. People who vote in primaries have to choose, and I don’t see how they can choose without paying attention to what the candidates say and crediting it at least somewhat.
That’s certainly true, and I’m not arguing that it isn’t. But you’re still left with your decision, and it sounds like what the candidates say they are going to do is at least part of what you’re considering. So their policy positions and proposals matter.
Alstein
4069
Quorum in the Senate is 51.
This will be the first time my primary vote matters at all really. I’m voting strategically against Biden no matter what though, that’s the one thing I’m certain of.
That is exactly my point. In the current format, what we are getting is a lot of tactical “Yes, I think the same thing as all the other serious candidates, with one or two little differences intended to signify that I am more of a thinker or I am angrier or whatever.” These differences strike me as only marginally more helpful than the same sorts of decisions they make regarding wardrobe. I mean, I don’t resent that they need to do this, just that I know how little practical difference there will be, once they are working with the swing votes in Congress to produce legislation.
This compared to which issue they will actually put front and center? THAT will really make a difference, but of course we are hard pressed to figure this out. Health care? Climate change? Systematic reform such as a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United or Rucho vs. Common Cause?
Of course, some of the other things that will make a huge difference are much more easily discerned – charisma and media sense, and track record for communicating successfully with a broader spectrum of America.
It’s frustrating to me that I’ve been out of town for visits by both Buttigieg and Warren (my top two) but, yeah, all of them will visit my town multiple times between now and the primary. I know some people find New Hampshire’s first in the nation primary thing unfair (or silly) but it’s pretty nice when you live here. And probably a logistical nicitity for the candidates.
IMO, anyone who would seriously waste their time on that futile exercise, or on anything else that requires a constitutional amendment, should be scratched from the list.
Also, too: I read your whole response, and I still don’t understand how you’ll choose who to vote for in the primary.
Matt_W
4074
I don’t know about that. Amendments pass sometimes for surprising reasons that have to do with unexpected political realignment. Congress sent the 16th Amendment (income tax) to the states largely because they thought it had no chance of passing. And then a political realignment (e.g. Roosevelt splitting off the Progressives from the Republican party) made it more plausible.
It’s actually interesting to look at the 1912 elections and see many of the same issues we’re facing today reflected there, and that both Roosevelt’s New Nationalism platform (social insurance programs, strong regulation in the economy, pro-labor) and Wilson’s New Freedom platform (anti-trust, banking reform) have kind of been absorbed by today’s Democratic party. And Taft wanted protectionist trade tarriffs and was pro-business and promoted his policies as “progressive conservativism”, kind of like the #NeverTrumpers today.
That election season was wild: Champ Clark had a lock on the Democratic nomination until Bryan, trying to aggrandize himself at the convention, accused him of being backed by Tammany Hall, and support gradually swung to Wilson over 46 convention votes. Roosevelt had a feud with Taft, ran against him, lost the nomination, and formed his own party, ultimately spoiling Taft’s re-election.
The October surprise that year was the attempted assassination on Teddy Roosevelt by a shopkeeper who was told to do it by the ghost of William McKinley (assassinated by an anarchist in 1901, at which point Vice President Roosevelt became President.) He was on his way to give a speech and was shot in the chest by the would-be assassin. The folded up speech in his pocket stopped the bullet from entering his lung and he refused to be taken to the hospital, instead giving the speech with blood streaming down his chest.
Before Trump, TR was a top contender for the biggest loose cannon in the White House. But unlike cry baby Trump, TR was one tough hombre.
It is only a flesh wound.
ShivaX
4076
TBF the Founders just got out of a shit-show Confederacy so they knew if they didn’t put that in a couple states could hold the whole fucking show hostage by just not showing up and they weren’t going to deal with that horseshit.
