President Joseph Biden

[GwynnInTheHall]

Typical American arrogance. You guys seem to be doing a fantastic job with the Covid, I'll just shut the fuck up and let you keep handling it like Champs....

My implication about the government assistance was that I've experienced what a system providing proper support is like, and you're experiencing a government abandoning its people. I can comment on what a country's response to the pandemic SHOULD look like, while you're stuck in an anti-science shithole country doing a 9/11 death toll daily... no offense, but I think you could use some outsider advice...

You say this shit about "Bernie Sanders is your hero"... fuck off. Bernie FAILED you, and me, and everyone. He is a profound fucking miserable failure in his unwillingness and inability to expose Biden and the Democrats for what they are. But he's still a valuable advocate for progressive policies and attempting to hold Biden to his campaign promises. I'm simply advocating for the same things Bernie is. Bernie isn't out there saying "stop criticizing this bill", you are! If you claim to be the biggest Sanders supporter here, why does it make you so angry that I echo his sentiments?



What does this even mean? You blame my past posting for your current neverending rage posting and I should just expect hostility in response to anything I post? Thats ridiculous, you're just being an asshole and literally seeking to shut down discussion.

There's no excuse for unprovoked personal attacks. Grow up.



You complaining about my civility towards Chancellor is the dumbest crybaby shit I can imagine. I'm also disappointed that chancellor is the only one who's been willing to engage honestly about politics the last few weeks (I guess SM has been busy). I'm a nice guy to people who are nice to me, I respond thoughtfully to those who do so to me. Its not about agreement, as I said, he hasn't always agreed with my take. Sorry the simplicity continues to befuddle you.

For the record, I dont give a shit who agrees with me or not among this forum. I just expect mutual respect and civility if thats whats on offer. I'm not looking to fight so if you show up slinging mud with nothing to say, as you consistently do, then you're just revealing yourself.

Clearly, as you've just justified, you don't feel I'm worthy of respect. You'll get what you give. The choice is yours.

"Don't complain when you get bitchslapped"...

I'm not "bitch-slapping", I'm not attacking. Is that what talking politics is about to you, "bitch-slapping"? That's so juvenile.

[Teenwolf]

You finally learned that when you have nothing to say you should keep your mouth shut. Thanks.

[chancellor]

I do worry that some of the sound bites being created by AOC and other progressives as they advocate and fight for their positions are being used in the Georgia run-off to further the absurd narrative they are trying to create that Biden is a progressive puppet and that a vote for the dems to control the senate is an instant move for this country to be full-blown socialist. Of course, they are doing that either way, but it is interesting how quickly recent comments get picked up to push that false narrative further.

While I'll concur Biden is no progressive puppet, the Senate going blue would entail the risk of the US moving to the far-left. That's no right-wing fever vision, that's objective reality. The move to full-blown socialism would certainly not be instant - that's clearly in error - but the odds of that happening in the medium term become highly realistic. I'll use references from posters here on the left who I respect though often disagree with to outline why losing the Senate would probably, though not certainly, result in a far-left move in the medium term.

Both GITH and DMT have done an excellent job noting key goals they would like to see Congress and President Biden pursue should the Senate go blue. I'll note their analysis, if only slightly cleaned up by a good editor, has been far more cogent than many I've read from supposedly quality publications like The Daily Beast, Newsweek, and The Guardian, among others. These include:

- Statehood for Washington DC
- Statehood for Puerto Rico
- Full elimination of the Senate filibuster
- "Packing" the Supreme Court
- Numerous social initiatives, like Medicare for All/socialized health care.

However, I'll focus on the first four, which are political levers, rather than social initiatives. With a 50/50 Senate, the only people standing between DC Statehood are Joe Manchin and a partial handful of more liberal GOP Senators (Romney, Murkowski, Collins). I suspect Manchin will stand firm on opposition since DC as a state will dilute his leverage as a Senator, and also create a state very close to his geographically that will have a ton of leverage in the Senate. But I wouldn't rule out a Romney offsetting Manchin's vote, either. DC Statehood doesn't necessarily lock down the Senate, but it certainly provides a much greater margin for error for Democrats to hold the Senate. And it's another near-mortal lock for one or two more Dems in the House and three or four more Democratic electoral votes.

Puerto Rico is trickier since the politics are not as cut and dried as DC. As I noted in an earlier post, traditionally, the "liberal" party in Puerto Rico opposes statehood, while the "conservative" party favors it. I also believe the "liberal" party is in power now, but only by a small margin. I'm doubtful the combination of convincing the party in power in Puerto Rico will line up with the party in power to make statehood happen.

Full elimination of the Senate filibuster will be even more difficult. I'm pretty sure the 50 GOP Senators will stand firm on this one - Romney, for example, is on record opposing the changes already made - and more than just Manchin have opposed these changes from the Democratic side in the past. But while difficult, it's certainly possible. Let's, for the sake of discussion, assumes this happens.

"Packing" the Supreme Court is much like DC Statehood, though I do think Romney/Murkowski/Collins will stand firm on this one. Manchin's already stated he's opposed, but under the right circumstances and opportunities, could probably be swung around.

Basically, all of these, other than PR Statehood, hinge on Manchin and one or two less conservative GOP Senators. That looks like a pretty good formula for success on most of them to me.

Now combine that with who is the dynamic force in the Democratic Party right now. While far-left progressives don't control the party, and the DNC has attempted to keep them in check, given the age of the old guard and the dynamism of those on the far-left, I have little doubt who will hold the levers of power in Congress in 4-8 years, and that's the far-left. Add in better assurance of keeping the Senate with DC statehood, control of the Supreme Court, and an almost locked-down House, all that's left is the presidency in 2024 or 2028. And I have no doubt AOC, barring some sort of political or personal catastrophe, will make that move and have a good chance of success.

None of these are guaranteed, but none are some sort of crazed, conspiracy theory fantasy, either. The political levers the left, and especially the far-left, want to pull are clearly outlined here and in any number of national publications. Nor are they shy about why they want to pull those political levers - it's to drive a socialist/neo-socialist agenda.

So, yeah, control of the Senate this time around is a big deal.

[Teenwolf]

On this issue of atacking Biden right now, I can empathize with GITH's position that at this moment, while Trump is still trying to overturn the legitimate results of the election, and there are so many pressing short term issues to be dealt with, now may not be the best time for in-fighting on the left. However, I also understand the sentiment that now is the time, when cabinet appointments are being made and positions are being formulated, to put pressure on the incoming administration. If it doesn't happen now, it may never happen. And if it wasn't for the Georgia run off, I'd be all on board for any and all criticism. I do worry that some of the sound bites being created by AOC and other progressives as they advocate and fight for their positions are being used in the Georgia run-off to further the absurd narrative they are trying to create that Biden is a progressive puppet and that a vote for the dems to control the senate is an instant move for this country to be full-blown socialist. Of course, they are doing that either way, but it is interesting how quickly recent comments get picked up to push that false narrative further.

My canary in the coal mind, a Cuban league mate and friend who is a Republican and thought Bernie Sanders was the devil incarnate and Castro 2.0, must have his feed giving him these lines, because he is aware of them and uses it as evidence for why the Senate must stay red. Again, I understand that narrative would be pushed regardless, and I'm not saying progressives don't need to pressure Biden now, but I think would be ideal if more would happen behind closed doors and that public commentary was more measured. Strategically, I think it would be better to play up Biden as a centrist and moderate that will govern as such for the Georgia run offs. But TW, I know you and I disagree about just how progressive the US is. You believe most folks here want what AOC and Bernie wants. I do not, particularly in Georgia.

I'm fighting for better policies, I'm not fighting for red or blue team. Saying that Biden is President, so everything will be fine, which is what Pelosi recently said when asked about stimulus, is disgusting. If you think that's a winning message, or that it will turn OUT more centrist R's to flip for Biden than it would turn OFF progressive D's, well, thats just wrong. You need to at least pretend to represent people, preferably the people who voted for you, you know, your base.

As far as equal measures of praise for positives and critiques for his negatives, I'm confused what your problem is. Several Biden cabinet picks have received praise from progressives, and loudly at that. Ron Klein was loudly praised (which i mentioned here to zero response), and the latest selection of Deb Haaland for Interior Secretary is receiving widespread praise from the progressive left. These are only 2 immediate examples that come to mind. The outrage is selective, and it is measured against praise for the good things he does. AOC's messaging close to what I've been saying, so let's see if you agree or disagree with her stance.

I don’t know if any Republicans follow me, but if you’re a Republican voter that wants to see another survival payment and unemployment insurance (or doesn’t want to see another Wall St giveaway attached), you should really get on the phone and call your GOP members of Congress."

She also mentions some Dems need to step up and support cash payments (larger ones too). Seems like she's threading the needle. Do you think its a poor message to tell Republicans that their leaders are running obstruction?

“You can either get stimulus money or unemployment but not both,” say Republicans demanding corporate immunity for worker abuse AND tax cuts for the very rich AND subsidies for friends AND total lack of oversight or accountability for their connected pals scamming PPP AND..."

Isn't that what I've been saying, like point for point? She posted that half an hour ago. You can still fight for better terms while the Republicans are pressured to make a deal.

Another point, I do think Biden has listened to the progressives on some things, and some of his appointments deserve praise, and while he deserves continued critique and pressure on some things, positive reinforcement by giving credit for the good appointments and positions would be good to hear from progressive advocates as well. It would show that the criticism in based on the issues, which is rhetorically more effective than just continuing to say Biden is a total POS with no redeeming qualities, like people like Dore say. It isn't productive.

I think I've shown the measured praise and critiques from the left at this point. Praise Biden when he makes a good deal, sure. Critique him when he fucks his own voters over? Well, if nobody here is willing to, and nobody is hearing what AOC or Bernie are saying (even their biggest supporters, LOL) then I feel obligated to give voice to that perspective.

Thanks for the real talk.

[Teenwolf]

Chancellor lays it out and I'm psyched for the progressive takeover, but I have a few questions.

First, how does it all play out? Biden gets destroyed in the midterms, obviously, or dies or whatever... then when the party is at its weakest heading into 2024 you think AOC primaries Kamala Harris? I think she would only make her move when assured a good chance of success and '24 seems too soon.

Also, my priorities are canceling student debt, $15/hr min wage, and Green New Deal. I think most progressives care more about these issues than DC or PR, but I see why you're more focused on those agenda items.

[GwynnInTheHall]

You finally learned that when you have nothing to say you should keep your mouth shut. Thanks.

Backatya bitch

[chancellor]

First, how does it all play out?

I'm not sure. However, from my years of observing politics, when there's a large gap in passion/enthusiasm from one wing of a party to the other, the party will change to reflect that group with the greater energy/enthusiasm. It can be due to a charismatic, dynamic leader or platform or both, but I've seen it happen multiple times in my lifetime. And that gap right now is huge in the Democratic party.

As for the when, the best I can come up with is a quote from the outstanding Canadian author, Guy Gavriel Kay: "When such things begin they happen very fast". One needs look at the GOP from 2014 - 2018 to realize it's true - in 2014, you'd have been laughed at if you said Donald Trump would win the presidency as a Republican (raises hand, as I was one of those laughing); by 2016 it was a reality, and by 2018, the party dynamics were entirely populist. In 2020, as either you or DMT noted (maybe both), a well-funded cadre of disenchanted Republicans created the best ad spots in the election and made exactly zero inroads into influencing GOP votes.

Also, my priorities are canceling student debt, $15/hr min wage, and Green New Deal. I think most progressives care more about these issues than DC or PR, but I see why you're more focused on those agenda items.

Many on the board share your passion for these outcomes. And your point on the potential of the midterms going very badly for the Dems is a real possibility - I mean, it's been a pretty traditional outcome that the midterms go badly for the party in power to start with, and I'll concur that Joe Biden isn't savvy enough or charismatic enough to likely reverse that tradition. It then becomes a process of how you want to spend your political capital. Given the recent popularity of The Queen's Gambit, I'll use a chess analogy - you can go for the short-term positional wins and hope to grind your opponent down, though that's more likely to lead to a draw rather than a win; or you can sacrifice the Bishop, and break open the position for greater certainty of the dynamic win, but the risk of a catastrophic miscalculation and loss. DC statehood and packing the Supreme Court are the bishop sacrifice - yes, you will expend a lot of political capital to make those happen, potentially eliminating those programs you listed from happening by 2022, but you'd literally have such a vast positional advantage going into 2024 that you'd win the game for the next 6-10 years. Alas, in politics, unlike chess, victories are always temporary; it's just how temporary those victories are.

Per AOC, if Biden/Harris do poorly in the next four years, I think she'll absolutely challenge them in 2024. If they do a reasonably competent job, but Biden doesn't run in 2024, then it'll get interesting. If AOC steps aside for Harris, assume a worst case political outcome for AOC - Harris gets eight years. While AOC will still be in her 40s if that happens - very young for a president - the risk remains that her star may be eclipsed in 12 years (a near eternity in our politics) and never get the chance again.

[Sour Masher]

Also, my priorities are canceling student debt, $15/hr min wage, and Green New Deal. I think most progressives care more about these issues than DC or PR, but I see why you're more focused on those agenda items.

We agree about what we care more about here. As for the DC and PR and court packing stuff, I don't see any of it happening--getting to 50-50 in the senate won't be near enough to get it done. I think maybe both you and Chance are overestimating the unity of the left to get those things done, and more generally, the power and pull of Bernie and the Squad, and underestimating the power of the status quo, centrists/blue dogs still wields. Maybe one day, but not today. The fact that Biden, who is past his prime and as establishment as you can get, got the nomination over more progressive candidates, I think says it all. You guys are overestimating the Dems ability to be a unified force behind Biden, and overestimating how progressive, as a whole, the Democratic party is. And you are assuming that Biden will govern like Trump, steering all the way into his base. He won't. He will steer to the middle, especially on things like statehood and court packing. But I do hold out hope for $15 min wage and green initiatives and some level of student loan relief. TW nailed it for the things I think Biden will actually focus on and act progressively on. One more thing I think Biden will get done is at least modest improvements on the ACA. The undermining of it will stop and it will grow to cover more Americans. It won't be M4All, but it will help millions and do good.

Chance, I hope I have now convinced you and other right-leaning folks here, to tell any friends you have in Georgia that no radical changes will come of them staying at home and not voting for the Republican candidate for Senate . There will be no court packing and new states and socialism amuck. Just raises and probably a little debt relief (10K is my guess, when it is all said and done based on how much Dems are giving on the stimulus package) for the poorest Americans making little and dealing with student loans. And the final line item, Biden's Green initiatives (which are not the Green New Deal, but still a damn site better than where we are now)--caring about nature and the economy are NOT mutually exclusive. It is idiotic that our country has made this a partisan issue while other countries take the lead in tech and green energy, being more efficient, less polluting, and gaining economic advantage all at once. It is really something we should all agree on. Conservatives are also conservationists, often, and care about clean air and water, and should care about global warming. We need to get on the same page on the ASAP.

I forget, Chance, if you are in the 1jay camp that believes climate change isn't real and if it is, it isn't man made and isn't a big deal. That stance would not be in keeping with your general reliance of credible sources, but if it is, again, there is strong evidence that supports that going green can and has been good for economies as well as life on our planet more generally.

[Teenwolf]

We agree about what we care more about here. As for the DC and PR and court packing stuff, I don't see any of it happening--getting to 50-50 in the senate won't be near enough to get it done. I think maybe both you and Chance are overestimating the unity of the left to get those things done, and more generally, the power and pull of Bernie and the Squad, and underestimating the power of the status quo, centrists/blue dogs still wields. Maybe one day, but not today. The fact that Biden, who is past his prime and as establishment as you can get, got the nomination over more progressive candidates, I think says it all. You guys are overestimating the Dems ability to be a unified force behind Biden, and overestimating how progressive, as a whole, the Democratic party is. And you are assuming that Biden will govern like Trump, steering all the way into his base. He won't. He will steer to the middle, especially on things like statehood and court packing. But I do hold out hope for $15 min wage and green initiatives and some level of student loan relief. TW nailed it for the things I think Biden will actually focus on and act progressively on. One more thing I think Biden will get done is at least modest improvements on the ACA. The undermining of it will stop and it will grow to cover more Americans. It won't be M4All, but it will help millions and do good.

Chance, I hope I have now convinced you and other right-leaning folks here, to tell any friends you have in Georgia that no radical changes will come of them staying at home and not voting for the Republican candidate for Senate . There will be no court packing and new states and socialism amuck. Just raises and probably a little debt relief (10K is my guess, when it is all said and done based on how much Dems are giving on the stimulus package) for the poorest Americans making little and dealing with student loans. And the final line item, Biden's Green initiatives (which are not the Green New Deal, but still a damn site better than where we are now)--caring about nature and the economy are NOT mutually exclusive. It is idiotic that our country has made this a partisan issue while other countries take the lead in tech and green energy, being more efficient, less polluting, and gaining economic advantage all at once. It is really something we should all agree on. Conservatives are also conservationists, often, and care about clean air and water, and should care about global warming. We need to get on the same page on the ASAP.

I forget, Chance, if you are in the 1jay camp that believes climate change isn't real and if it is, it isn't man made and isn't a big deal. That stance would not be in keeping with your general reliance of credible sources, but if it is, again, there is strong evidence that supports that going green can and has been good for economies as well as life on our planet more generally.

I agree with some parts of your take and some of chancellors. I'll start off where I agree with you.

I think that the Georgia senate seats are somewhat symbolic. If Dems win both seats, they'll still have POS like Manchin blocking anything progressive for 4 years and Biden is a committed status quo manager. No way they're able to pass court packing or DC statehood, I don't believe.

I believe that Biden will do very moderate changes, kill the Trump exec orders, re-establish the Obama exec orders, then largely sit on his hands. Student loans are a corporate handout issue, so it won't get done properly. Biden wants to pay off private equity loans instead of canceling government ones, so that's a disaster if he follows through, and 10K with means testing won't be nearly enough. Green New Deal i have zero faith in anything getting done that wasn't already insufficient for the Obama era, now woefully insufficient. It will be just like this covid relief package, filled with pork and corporate giveaways, very little concern for the issue at hand. Everything has become transactional, including the environment. Thats why Biden refuses to ban fracking, he installed the people who invented the neo liberal bullshit climate credit stuff. Some in the admin could allow mildly progressive environmental policy, but why would they pursue anything more than re-establishing the CAFE standards and re-joining the Paris Climate Accord? Thats all they'll do, sadly. Oh, and charging stations... or something (jerkoff emoji)

So I also agree with you that progressives right now wield very little actual power. Although there's more staunch progressives every single term, and they now hold bloc power to do things like deny Pelosi as House speaker, they're still largely in the position of playing along to get along. They cannot move the entire party, they're still in the minority.

Here's where I agree with chance. The balance of power among the Dems is indeed precarious. Bernie almost overtook the party in the primaries, it was only the combined weight of the establishment pushing Warren to knife Bernie, Obama coordinating with Buttigieg to stay in the race to splinter off Sanders voters, Warren staying in through super Tuesday with only the goal of tanking Bernie, I could go on... it was all hands on deck to stop Bernie, especially in the media. But the balance is shifting every day, the kids entering the voting booth in 2024 will have learned about socialism watching AOC on twitch, Twitter, and instagram. Its an aura of celebrity that elevates beyond politics that she is leveraging. I have high hopes for her, and agree with chance that she's absolutely the Democratic party standard bearer of the future, only a question of when.

Where I'm optimistic is that I see Biden getting absolutely demolished in the mid-terms due to insufficient response to the financial crisis (and because that's what normally happens to incoming admin, combined with all the Biden voters being off at brunch, yeah, prepare to be slaughtered), and only a total and undeniable failure by the Biden/Harris administration would open the door enough for AOC to make a run in 2024. If Biden/Harris are competent, chance is right, its Kamala for 1 or 2 terms. But I see the level of civil unrest combined with financial desperation escalating to make this status quo presidency a laughing stock pretty fucking fast.

I see Nina Turner as the next progressive candidate for POTUS but there's a lot to play out before then. Still the most likely path to AOC presidency is a Dem loss in 2024 and a clean run, not primarying an incumbent, that is, in 2028.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I'm not sure. However, from my years of observing politics, when there's a large gap in passion/enthusiasm from one wing of a party to the other, the party will change to reflect that group with the greater energy/enthusiasm. It can be due to a charismatic, dynamic leader or platform or both, but I've seen it happen multiple times in my lifetime. And that gap right now is huge in the Democratic party.

As for the when, the best I can come up with is a quote from the outstanding Canadian author, Guy Gavriel Kay: "When such things begin they happen very fast". One needs look at the GOP from 2014 - 2018 to realize it's true - in 2014, you'd have been laughed at if you said Donald Trump would win the presidency as a Republican (raises hand, as I was one of those laughing); by 2016 it was a reality, and by 2018, the party dynamics were entirely populist. In 2020, as either you or DMT noted (maybe both), a well-funded cadre of disenchanted Republicans created the best ad spots in the election and made exactly zero inroads into influencing GOP votes.



Many on the board share your passion for these outcomes. And your point on the potential of the midterms going very badly for the Dems is a real possibility - I mean, it's been a pretty traditional outcome that the midterms go badly for the party in power to start with, and I'll concur that Joe Biden isn't savvy enough or charismatic enough to likely reverse that tradition. It then becomes a process of how you want to spend your political capital. Given the recent popularity of The Queen's Gambit, I'll use a chess analogy - you can go for the short-term positional wins and hope to grind your opponent down, though that's more likely to lead to a draw rather than a win; or you can sacrifice the Bishop, and break open the position for greater certainty of the dynamic win, but the risk of a catastrophic miscalculation and loss. DC statehood and packing the Supreme Court are the bishop sacrifice - yes, you will expend a lot of political capital to make those happen, potentially eliminating those programs you listed from happening by 2022, but you'd literally have such a vast positional advantage going into 2024 that you'd win the game for the next 6-10 years. Alas, in politics, unlike chess, victories are always temporary; it's just how temporary those victories are.

Per AOC, if Biden/Harris do poorly in the next four years, I think she'll absolutely challenge them in 2024. If they do a reasonably competent job, but Biden doesn't run in 2024, then it'll get interesting. If AOC steps aside for Harris, assume a worst case political outcome for AOC - Harris gets eight years. While AOC will still be in her 40s if that happens - very young for a president - the risk remains that her star may be eclipsed in 12 years (a near eternity in our politics) and never get the chance again.

Tell ya what hitch your cart to whichever horse you want.


Biden will spend his first 2 years undoing Trumps Exec orders, his appointments, though imperfect will rectify having ignorance in charge, he won't pack the courts thought Harris will if she should succeed him before his term is over. Should Ga go dem, it's over for the right. Not just because the Left will have the advantage but because Trump will split the right. Bro, you know I have been right 90+% of the time in this forum. I may not know politics, but I know people. The New Left of AOC is the future of the Dem party they don't want to go there, but they will. In 10 years there will be 3 parties. processive, far leaning Leftists. Trumpers (far right and centrist, dem honks and GOP castaways. They won't pack the courts under Biden, but the will under Harris. DC might get annexed, but PR won't. They won't abolish the filibuster.

Some might disagree but hey I've been right far more than they have been in here so, until their handicap is better than mine'll tumble for ya.

[nullnor]

I played chess a lot. still find it a boring game. sacrificing a bishop is about taking out a horse and causing a pawn to be out of position. I never liked horses. they are too unpredictable. bishops are best used for defense. horses are a nightmare when playing against someone better than you. best to take them out with a bishop first chance you get.

[nullnor]

there's no way to win this game. it's come down to the elites vs the elites. the non-elites aren't even on the board anymore. a progressive movement will never make up any ground. the time for that to start in modern politics was 30 years ago and is far too late. but you know, there is always to dollar store to shop at for goods.

there's no public service. there's no civic service. every politician and citizen is only out for themselves. there is no community anymore. politicians either get elected to enrich themselves, or brand their version of civilization on the citizens that can keep up in order to strengthen or justify their own views.

our species is long overdue for an extinction event. it's greed. one of the original sins. it's unstoppable.

[nullnor]

from the perspective of federal politicians, congress, senate and president, it's ok to bankrupt the country as long as you have enough money and resources to survive yourself. they don't care about anything except their own bank accounts.

and why wouldn't they. it's a good strategy. it's survival.

from a spiritual point of view, I've started to question whether we deserve to exist as a species anymore. even this late in the game the chances of something better taking our place is still highly probable. but if you look out in the universe, and intelligent life is out there, but not so much that it's the purpose of existence. if you compare how much different life there is, technological intelligence is a major underdog. I can see God sitting around saying, yeah, humans were a major mistake.

[revo]

Congress finally reaches a stimulus deal.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Congress finally reaches a stimulus deal.

9 months of bullshit. But at least bills can be paid and programs extended until April.