4660

I suppose I have conflicted views about the whole “machine politics” thing.

Pretty much all forum posters are “deliberative” voters who at least think of themselves as independently sifting through the evidence and voting for their personal choice. Pretty widespread among the well-educated.

But a very high portion of the other voters don’t follow the specifics that closely. So they can vote based on ads or on headline news or group membership (usually looking to leadership for direction). In my view, that last group is our best hope for countering the covert operations of the Republican Party – and Republican operatives agree, which is why they have spent enormously to undermine unions over my lifetime. Thus the term “machine politics.” Creating this image of illegitimate not-even-human opposition.

I’d be the first to admit that sometimes machine politics can go off the rails. Leaders of a group can be quietly bought off for things that do not benefit the group they are leading. But I am unconvinced that this is worse than the ways that other kinds of voters get derailed.

I guess I am too old to be as idealistic as most people here, but I figure that if we are pinning our hopes on representative government based on most voters becoming “deliberative voters” then we have already lost. The pendulum is actually swinging in the opposite direction over the past couple centuries.

With that in mind, the next best thing for us in our struggle with the Republican Party interests will be these large groups who follow some sort of leadership… black churches being a huge example. I definitely want to respect our allies… although, as I posted above, I would like better insight into the reasons and depths of their views regarding Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg – at this point, I feel that a lot is just being assumed.

4661

He didn’t direct that unjust and illegal war, he just sold it using intelligence he doubted so much that he almost refused to repeat it to the UN certainly leaves him in the clear…

4662

Thank you.

4663

I’m no fan of Powell, but in terms of worse candidates … any modern Republican? They’ve all bent the knee to a raving madman, even the ones who like to pretend they haven’t (I’m looking at you, Mitt Romney.)

4664

Powell would clearly be better than anyone calling themselves a Republican, that’s for sure. I know that’s not saying much, but still.

4665

Yeah, Powell’s support for the invasion certainly soured me on him, but he would be a dream compared to the current crop of GOP hopefuls and wannabes.

4666

Serious question, are we supposed to believe that:

  • Joe doesn’t know that we couldn’t get the public option before because of the filibuster in the Senate, or
  • Joe knows that, yet opposes ending the filibuster, and still thinks we can get Republicans to vote for a public option now, or
  • Joe is bullshitting us?

Which is it? Which is the charitable view here?

4667

Door #3.

4668

This crazy socialist seems to think you can add a public option using reconciliation, which is not subject to filibuster.

4669

Senate Dems should get rid of the filibuster (i.e. requiring 60 votes for cloture) if they somehow get control next year. Enough fucking around.

4670

Sorry, that was a reading comprehension fail on my part. I just saw “Powell” was immediately triggered. I was thinking Powell was being proposed as a Democratic candidate. If the Republicans want to run him, sure, whatever, great.

4671

I don’t know that it is fair to hang this solely on Biden. On a variety of topics, most of these candidates speak as if vast improvements on a variety of issues can be grasped, if you will just elect me. In fact, speaking otherwise is taken as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve. (I always think to myself, “So what are you going to do to provide coattails so that you can actually enact half of what you promise?”

I listen to Biden’s schtick, and the main thing I hear is “when you think of me, remember my close connection to Obama” which seems to be his most effective card.

Which really ought to remind his listeners of his age. (Pinning our hopes on him strikes me much the same as pinning your pennant hopes on signing a forty-five-year-old pitcher) But for a lot of listeners, apparently it is the nostalgia of an administration when the world still made sense.

4672

Too bad Biden isn’t Satchel Paige. Hopefully he’s at least Tim Wakefield.

4673

No, this is specifically an issue with Biden as he is opposed to ending the filibuster. We can end the filibuster and pass a public option is squarely in the realm of possibility. We can pass a public option while preserving the filibuster, with Republican votes is in the realm of fantasy.

4674

This. All of the candidates are handwaving the political difficulties of getting anything big done on any issue.

Reconciliation. Maybe.

4675

Obligatory point: Dems will likely not recover a majority in the Senate in 2020. We have a disfavorable map and urban clustering will work against us there in perpetuity.

4676

Yes, that’s true, but recapturing the Senate is in the realm of possibility in a way that gaining 60 votes in the Senate is not.

4677

2020 isn’t everything.

To recapture the Senate by 2022, Democrats need to win the Presidency plus three of the following Senate seats: CO, WI, PA, NC, ME, AZ, and FL. They need four of them if Jones loses in AL. Of note, the GOP incumbents in WI and NC are retiring.

While it’s a challenge, it’s certainly feasible.

4678

I was listening to Al Franken’s book recently, so this was fairly fresh in my mind. Basically when they were working on the ACA, they tried to bend over backwards to get bi-partisan support, meaning at least one Republican Senator. There was even a bi-partisan group formed in the Senate who were looking at the legislation. Meanwhile, Al Franken’s Senate race had been so close that there was recounting going on. So without his vote, they only had 59 in the Senate. About a year or so later, all the procedures were done, and he was able to take his seat, and they figured out that the Senators in that bipartisan group were just using that as an excuse to run out the clock to 2010 when the Democrats would no longer have 60 seats. So with 6 months to go, the Democrats finally caught on to this and realized that they would have to just pass a bill that all the Democrats could live with. And Al Franken said that what this meant was that every single of those 60 democratic party senators effectively had veto power.

So while they would have liked the public option, the public option was the first thing to go, because there was a Senator from a red state that didn’t want it, so fine, it was gone. Then they didn’t want something else, fine, it was gone as well. He explained that by that time they knew that the only thing they could pass was something every one of those 60 agreed on, and time was running out. This was especially the case when there was a special election in one of the States and Brown was elected, and come January he was going to replace one of the Democratic Senators, and then they would only have 59. So they had a very narrow window in which to pass the bill.

So that’s what went down. But it wasn’t the fillibuster that kept the public option out. At that point it was clear that the Republicans were only pretending to cooperate to run out the clock, they weren’t going to give the ACA a single vote no matter what the Democrats put on the table.

4679

If they didn’t have to deal with a fillibuster, they don’t need 60 votes, right? So then they can pass with say 51 votes and 9 Dem senators would be free to vote against it.