[Discussion] Election 2020

Seems like the board is set. Let’s see how this goes.

Shadout wrote:

Is there any even theoretical paths forward for such a thing to happen?

DC and PR statehood? Assuming they ditch the filibuster 51 votes, or 50+VP. With DC you would have to do something about the Twenty-third Amendment, the Federal District has to exist and get's three electors pre the constitution and amendment. One idea I saw floated was that since congress get's to decided how those electors are assigned you can just pass a law saying they go to the popular vote winner. The new State of DC will get their own electors as normal for a state.

With PR you'd probably get a new referendum on it first, simple "Become a State Yes/No" with it known ahead of time that the outcome would be implemented by congress. So far as I know literally nothing stops congress from just making them a state now, but I don't really see even a Dem trifecta doing that.

OG_slinger wrote:
Shadout wrote:

Is there any even theoretical paths forward for such a thing to happen?

It's covered by Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution: new states can be created by an act of Congress (called an Admission Act).

Historically the process has been for the population of a territory to express desire to become a state, typically expressed by a voter referendum. Congress then directs the government of that territory to whip up a state constitution, which is then approved of by the soon-to-be state residents and then Congress. Once that happens Congress adopts a joint resolution of statehood and the President issues a proclamation announcing the new state.

DC residents had a referendum back in 2016. Almost 86% of residents supported the idea of pursuing statehood.

DC residents largely favor statehood because it will give them local control over many things that are now controlled by Congress, such as their budget and revenue generation.

Puerto Rico residents have had several referendums. In 2012 residents were asked two questions: first, if they wanted to continue PR's territorial status, and 2) if they wanted PR's new political status to be statehood, independence, or a sovereign nation in free association with the US. 54% of voters said they didn't want to continue being a US territory and, of the people who answered the second question, 61% chose statehood. The referendum had problems as a sizable number of ballots were blank (500,000 out of 1.8 million) thanks to a push from the Popular Democratic Party (PPD), a major and long standing political party, which advocates for PR continuing as a Commonwealth of the US with self-government.

There was another referendum in 2017 where statehood got 97% of votes. Again, the referendum had problems as about 500,000 pro-statehood votes were cast out of 2.2 million ballots, with large numbers of people not voting on the issue because of the PPD.

There's another referendum slated for November.

PR's much less inclined to statehood largely because of history and culture. Unfortunately, the future PPD wants--an autonomous PR that maintains a voluntary relationship with the US-- is exceptionally unlikely to happen and their best bet for more local control and representation likely lies with statehood. And the getting would be very good if Democrats won the White House and retook the Senate in November. But self-identity is a powerful thing.

Congress has rejected earlier PR statehood referendums citing the low voter response to the question. A Democratic Congress who wanted to play some political hardball could simply overlook the issue of low voter response, bless the results, and have the PR government draft a state constitution, which they would then approve. Who knows how that would play out locally.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. And yes, Shadout, the process is a lot more straightforward than it seems. It is just not one that has been done since the admission of AK and HI because there has been a gentleman's understanding that they wouldn't do so to disturb the balance of the Senate. Considering, as I have remarked above, that McConnell has obliterated all political norms and shat all over previous gentleman's agreements, there is absolutely no obligation to hew to the traditions once holding this in place.

At this point, it is a patriotic duty to stomp on those f*ckers' faces and to do so unrelentingly until they are nothing but a rump party, forgotten, and spoken about only with derision and indignation.

I’m not a big fan of Hassan Piker but he did point out one unexpected upside of Harris running as VP- we get to witness the inevitable clashing of two incredibly single-minded and hostile internet fandoms, The K-Hive vs QAnon.

Will the nomination increase Biden's prospects of defeating Trump in November?

Asking for an ally of Uncle Sam who wants less instability in the world.

Bfgp wrote:

Will the nomination increase Biden's prospects of defeating Trump in November?

Asking for an ally of Uncle Sam who wants less instability in the world.

VP picks usually don't make a big difference unless they're egregiously bad, or shore up a huge weakness in the Presidential candidate (Pence shored up Trump with evangelicals - Palin took the wind out of McCain's campaign)

And Kaine got the "Who?" in 2016. She probably didn't need him to win Virginia, but sure as hell could have used some help in Michigan, Ohio, or Wisconsin. Ugh.

I really like the Portland Mercury's take on Harris:
https://www.portlandmercury.com/blog...

Anyone think Harris can or should try to go with "Yes, I am a cop, but as a black, Asian woman cop I know what is wrong with the legal system and here is my plan to fix it..."
Could that work?

Tanglebones wrote:
Bfgp wrote:

Will the nomination increase Biden's prospects of defeating Trump in November?

Asking for an ally of Uncle Sam who wants less instability in the world.

VP picks usually don't make a big difference unless they're egregiously bad, or shore up a huge weakness in the Presidential candidate (Pence shored up Trump with evangelicals - Palin took the wind out of McCain's campaign)

The big exception to this was the George W Bush presidency where it was clear that Cheney was the real president.

Mixolyde wrote:

Anyone think Harris can or should try to go with "Yes, I am a cop, but as a black, Asian woman cop I know what is wrong with the legal system and here is my plan to fix it..."
Could that work?

With her carceral record being especially harsh on POC, that may not go over as well as one would hope.

Amoebic wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

Anyone think Harris can or should try to go with "Yes, I am a cop, but as a black, Asian woman cop I know what is wrong with the legal system and here is my plan to fix it..."
Could that work?

With her carceral record being especially harsh on POC, that may not go over as well as one would hope.

Out of curiosity, is there a state for the last century that hasn't had an incarceration record which was especially harsh on POCs? To phrase another way, is there evidence that Harris specifically pursued actions with the knowledge that they would disproportionately impact POCs? I'm not trying to be clever or snide, I genuinely don't know.

Any attorney general is going to have a not-so-great record in large part because the laws they swore to uphold and enforce are especially harsh on POC.

I'm reasonably happy with Harris as the VP pick. I was a Warren fan from the beginning but didn't think she was the best pick as VP. IMO Harris can do the VP's three main jobs pretty well:

* Be ready to take over and/or run again- this goes double in a Biden presidency because there are reasonable odds of him only running for one term, and actuarial tables show about a 5% chance each year for a man his age to die (less because he's in good shape with good care, more because presidenting is hard). She's got this as a senator with national profile who's won in some tough races.

* Not screw things up. As far as I know she doesn't have anything in her background that's going to leap out and cause a problem, and she doesn't have a rep for being a loose cannon who says random crap.

* Go on the attack. She can do this. I'm really looking forward to the VP debate, mostly because I want to see if she's going to blast Pence with fire or just meticulously flay him.

I don’t really expect there to be debates. Trump definitely won’t as he has nothing to gain from it. Pence would but if Trump doesn’t debate I think he’ll likely discourage Pence from debating, too. He doesn’t like other people getting the spotlight.

Oh god that’s going to be a trainwreck for everyone involved.

I guess I’m a little behind on national news, been mostly focusing local for the last couple months.

trichy wrote:
Amoebic wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

Anyone think Harris can or should try to go with "Yes, I am a cop, but as a black, Asian woman cop I know what is wrong with the legal system and here is my plan to fix it..."
Could that work?

With her carceral record being especially harsh on POC, that may not go over as well as one would hope.

Out of curiosity, is there a state for the last century that hasn't had an incarceration record which was especially harsh on POCs? To phrase another way, is there evidence that Harris specifically pursued actions with the knowledge that they would disproportionately impact POCs? I'm not trying to be clever or snide, I genuinely don't know.

Considering that the design purpose of the incarceration system itself in America was and is to stomp down on POC... I think it's safe to say no there isn't.

Trump did kinda screw up by setting the debate bar so low for Biden. All he has to do is show up, speak in complete sentences, and not call everyone "comrade" to refute Trump's "he's a senile fool brainwashed by Communists" rhetoric. And Trump has been setting the stage to weasel out of debates by making ridiculous demands about the moderators. I suspect he's going to try to arrange or invent something he can use to hammer Biden on just before a debate, like having DOJ or some Senator leak something about investigating Hunter Biden, and skip it if he can't.

I doubt Trump would let Pence debate but not debate himself; that makes him look weak.

qaraq wrote:

Trump did kinda screw up by setting the debate bar so low for Biden. All he has to do is show up, speak in complete sentences, and not call everyone "comrade" to refute Trump's "he's a senile fool brainwashed by Communists" rhetoric. And Trump has been setting the stage to weasel out of debates by making ridiculous demands about the moderators. I suspect he's going to try to arrange or invent something he can use to hammer Biden on just before a debate, like having DOJ or some Senator leak something about investigating Hunter Biden, and skip it if he can't.

I doubt Trump would let Pence debate but not debate himself; that makes him look weak.

lol. Yup.

For all Trump's sh*t talk, I hope Biden goes into the debate and Khabib Nurmagomedov's him.

IMAGE(https://image-cdn.essentiallysports.com/wp-content/uploads/20200421063543/co-4.jpg)

qaraq wrote:

* Go on the attack. She can do this. I'm really looking forward to the VP debate, mostly because I want to see if she's going to blast Pence with fire or just meticulously flay him.

No one cares about Pence. Whether you're a MAGA hat-wearing Trump supporter or a diehard progressive, you don't care about Pence. She's not going to waste her time attacking him because that won't help Biden win. She's going to attack Trump and force Pence to make a futile effort to defend his boss' actions. It'll still be fun to watch Pence squirm trying to defend Trump's insane actions -- especially since he'll agree with most of her attacks -- but don't expect Pence himself to be the target.

ruhk wrote:

I don’t really expect there to be debates. Trump definitely won’t as he has nothing to gain from it. Pence would but if Trump doesn’t debate I think he’ll likely discourage Pence from debating, too. He doesn’t like other people getting the spotlight.

Trump is losing. He needs something to shake up the election and a debate has the opportunity for that. Of course he will debate Biden as often as he can to try to score that knock out hit even if he's more likely to end up on the floor.

@Mixolyde - not only is she a black woman and (I don't know why they refer to is as south asian) of mixed race, but she is from Oakland and went to Howard. I think both of those give her an edge on sidelining the history as a cop.

The other thing is that Rachel Maddow talked about something that we all forgot. In her first year as AG, she went after big mortgage lenders and won much bigger (3-5x) settlements for the states after the housing crisis.

She has also had some really stand out moments questioning the ne'er-do-wells of this administration over the last 4 years.

fangblackbone wrote:

@Mixolyde - not only is she a black woman and (I don't know why they refer to is as south asian) of mixed race,

Her Dad's Jamaican, Her Mom's Indian.

India is in South Asia.

Djinn wrote:
qaraq wrote:

* Go on the attack. She can do this. I'm really looking forward to the VP debate, mostly because I want to see if she's going to blast Pence with fire or just meticulously flay him.

No one cares about Pence. Whether you're a MAGA hat-wearing Trump supporter or a diehard progressive, you don't care about Pence. She's not going to waste her time attacking him because that won't help Biden win. She's going to attack Trump and force Pence to make a futile effort to defend his boss' actions. It'll still be fun to watch Pence squirm trying to defend Trump's insane actions -- especially since he'll agree with most of her attacks -- but don't expect Pence himself to be the target.

ruhk wrote:

I don’t really expect there to be debates. Trump definitely won’t as he has nothing to gain from it. Pence would but if Trump doesn’t debate I think he’ll likely discourage Pence from debating, too. He doesn’t like other people getting the spotlight.

Trump is losing. He needs something to shake up the election and a debate has the opportunity for that. Of course he will debate Biden as often as he can to try to score that knock out hit even if he's more likely to end up on the floor.

I keep expecting him to publically crucify Pence and announce a new running mate after blaming everything on Pence.

Sarah Palin's dance card is wide open.

I hear everybody with their concerns about her background, etc. etc.

For me, this is a binary choice: 4 more years of what we've gotten over the last 3.5 or "something different". I will take the latter, thank you very much. Please expedite the order...I have theater tickets.

Djinn wrote:

Trump is losing. He needs something to shake up the election and a debate has the opportunity for that. Of course he will debate Biden as often as he can to try to score that knock out hit even if he's more likely to end up on the floor.

The problem with this is that in his mind Trump never loses. The polls are wrong, the media is lying, and the coronavirus is an overblown flu that will be gone any day now. Everything Trump does is about Trump - he doesn't need to shake up the election because in his mind the election is already over and he has already won.

He will debate Biden as often as he can, however, because (like everything else) he doesn't see any possibility of him actually losing the debates, and he adores being in the spotlight. The bonus is it gives him more chances to say nasty things about "Sleepy Joe" and "Phony Kamala".

IMAGE(http://u.cubeupload.com/MilkmanDanimal/Voting.jpg)

thrawn82 wrote:
trichy wrote:
Amoebic wrote:
Mixolyde wrote:

Anyone think Harris can or should try to go with "Yes, I am a cop, but as a black, Asian woman cop I know what is wrong with the legal system and here is my plan to fix it..."
Could that work?

With her carceral record being especially harsh on POC, that may not go over as well as one would hope.

Out of curiosity, is there a state for the last century that hasn't had an incarceration record which was especially harsh on POCs? To phrase another way, is there evidence that Harris specifically pursued actions with the knowledge that they would disproportionately impact POCs? I'm not trying to be clever or snide, I genuinely don't know.

Considering that the design purpose of the incarceration system itself in America was and is to stomp down on POC... I think it's safe to say no there isn't.

uh okay yes, so we've established you can't be a prosecutor without breaking a few eggs and having blood on your hands?

Kind of forest for the trees here, folks. It would be pretty gross for her to state her race as an avenue of systemic repair when she's had, as a female prosecutor of color, cop harder and firmer in order to be taken seriously within the system that makes her different, which has had her hailed as a race traitor and worse. Also like, a cop's cop. that's discomforting and not reassuring for those of us interested in abolishing the police.

However, no one would be surprised if she tried. This is politics, after all.

Also, I don't think anyone disputing voting for the lesser of two evil's here? I think it's fair and good to disagree or dispute fundamental differences in opinion and estimation of politicians while still voting for them. Power corrupts all, so there will never be a perfect candidate. It touches all of them. Get comfortable with the idea of people having deep, fundamental disagreements with those they vote into office these days. The vileness of the person doesn't negate one's ability to access them as a resourceful tool of democracy when necessary.

More to the point, what is giving up on the bus and calling an Uber in this analogy?