[Debate] Election 2020 Side Discussions

a place to have in-depth discussions of topics related to the 2020 U.S. Elections, so the main thread doesn't derail

Stengah wrote:

They were, which is why the the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced they would completely blacklist anyone that works on a campaign that tries to primary an incumbent Democrat.

Somebody should tell Nancy...

Stengah wrote:
Badferret wrote:

Really interesting look at progressive success vs Democratic incumbents and in open seats running against party establishment candidates.

In short, Progressive groups are getting more selective with some evidence that it's being more effective, while also shying away from races where a progressive candidate might help the Republicans.

Still a long way to go, but it seems like the left of the party has a plan and are getting better at executing it.

They were, which is why the the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced they would completely blacklist anyone that works on a campaign that tries to primary an incumbent Democrat.

Except when it's a Kennedy...

Stele wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Badferret wrote:

Really interesting look at progressive success vs Democratic incumbents and in open seats running against party establishment candidates.

In short, Progressive groups are getting more selective with some evidence that it's being more effective, while also shying away from races where a progressive candidate might help the Republicans.

Still a long way to go, but it seems like the left of the party has a plan and are getting better at executing it.

They were, which is why the the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced they would completely blacklist anyone that works on a campaign that tries to primary an incumbent Democrat.

Except when it's a Kennedy...

In fairness there he is a current House member, Schumer endorsed Markey.

As someone who has volunteered for more then one Primary challenger I'm not happy about the blacklisting. I'm also not exactly shocked that an organization that represents sitting House members is trying to make it harder to challenge... sitting House members.

Zona wrote:

I'm also not exactly shocked that an organization that represents sitting House members is trying to make it harder to challenge... sitting House members.

Yeah, it's funny how a group with finite resources would rather spend them on backing a Democratic candidate attacking a vulnerable Republican representative or defending Democratic seat from a well-funded Republican challenger than fighting off a primary challenger from their own party.

It's not a grand conspiracy. It just the cold, hard reality of politics.

OG_slinger wrote:
Zona wrote:

I'm also not exactly shocked that an organization that represents sitting House members is trying to make it harder to challenge... sitting House members.

Yeah, it's funny how a group with finite resources would rather spend them on backing a Democratic candidate attacking a vulnerable Republican representative or defending Democratic seat from a well-funded Republican challenger than fighting off a primary challenger from their own party.

It's not a grand conspiracy. It just the cold, hard reality of politics.

Is there an exception in the policy for primary'ing a Democratic incumbent in a safe seat?

edit: poked around a bit, and nope as of April 2019:

DCCC Shoots Down Proposed Compromise Over Blacklisting Vendors

A Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesman poured cold water on a possible compromise that Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) floated earlier on Monday that the campaign committee could limit its new rule blackballing vendors who work for primary opponents of their members to only swing districts as a possible compromise.
.
“We’re not going to put in place a policy that treats some members of our caucus differently than other members of our caucus,” the DCCC spokesman told TPM.
.
That staffer argued it would unfairly treat different incumbents differently, and claimed the new rule would do as much to help someone facing a challenge from the right as from the left.

Talking about morality in American politics feels like waitin' for a train that don't come.

People aren't saying make it a state to give Democrats two Senate votes. They're saying make D.C. a state because its 700,000 residents deserve actual representation and local control like every other American enjoys.

There's a lot more posts in the thread that I haven't read yet (I'm replying on Page 1), but I think that's wrong. If the real goal is to get people represented, why not just put them back into a neighboring state? (or maybe split it between two of them, along the original boundaries, perhaps.)

If the actual goal is representation, that's easy, there's no need for an entire new state. If the actual goal is stacking the Senate, then of course that solution doesn't work.

You need agreement from a state to modify its borders. Which neighboring state is willing to admit enough voters to essentially take control of state level politics? Creating a new state is the easy solution.

Malor wrote:

If the real goal is to get people represented, why not just put them back into a neighboring state? (or maybe split it between two of them, along the original boundaries, perhaps.)

If the actual goal is representation, that's easy, there's no need for an entire new state. If the actual goal is stacking the Senate, then of course that solution doesn't work.

D.C.'s been a coherent territory since 1790. Why would it be easier and make more sense to ignore those 230 years and have Maryland and Virginia fight over carving it up and reabsorbing the pieces?

The far easier solution is to simply acknowledge that D.C.'s been D.C. for centuries and its citizens deserve as much representation states with equal or smaller populations.

We won't know until someone asks.

Virginia has 8.5 million people, Maryland has 6 million. Splitting DC between the two shouldn't change either's character overmuch, and would substantially increase their tax base, as DC is fairly prosperous.

No particular need to fight, they just return to their pre-DC borders.

Plus, there's the notable advantage that Republicans might vote for it.

Malor wrote:

We won't know until someone asks.

Virginia has 8.5 million people, Maryland has 6 million. Splitting DC between the two shouldn't change either's character overmuch, and would substantially increase their tax base, as DC is fairly prosperous.

No particular need to fight, they just return to their pre-DC borders.

Plus, there's the notable advantage that Republicans might vote for it.

1) Not if a Dem puts forward the plan.

2) Who cares? We are literally getting nothing done if we have to rely on a single Rep vote. Which is why people are pushing to abolish the filibuster. They. Are. Not. Interested. In. Governing. The best we can hope for is that if they lose enough they might redevelop a taste for it.

Malor wrote:

Plus, there's the notable advantage that Republicans might vote for it.

Republicans wouldn't have to worry about DC or PR gaining statehood if their party didn't openly hate black and brown people.

It wouldn't just increase the tax base, it would increase the number of people who want a say in how that tax is spent. DC would become the largest city in either Maryland or Virginia. The expansion of the DC Metro area has already affected the character of Virginia. If Virginian Republicans had their way, I'm sure they would be happy to return part of Virginia back to DC and kick Northam out of office.

Malor wrote:

We won't know until someone asks.

Virginia has 8.5 million people, Maryland has 6 million. Splitting DC between the two shouldn't change either's character overmuch, and would substantially increase their tax base, as DC is fairly prosperous.

It seems like splitting a city in half between two states would create other issues, though. Two different sets of state laws depending on what block you're in? Two different police forces, fire departments, mayors, city councils? There's no good natural dividing line, and it would make a bunch of headaches since the whole area was designed to be its own city and not two different ones. It almost makes more sense to give it all to Maryland, since DC's almost entirely on their side of the river anyway.

You would t split the city between the two states. It all goes to Maryland.

DC was originally a square. Part of the city has already been retroceeded to Virginia (Arlington and parts of Alexandria)

DC is currently about as dense as it will be as there are height restrictions on the city

Sliding from the other thread:

ruhk wrote:
gewy wrote:

What stronger options do Democratic leaders have at their disposal?

Lol that’s the problem. There are people going “don’t worry the system will protect us” after four years of the current administration showing us that our entire government is basically held together by the honor system and traditions that only one side is interested in following.

If Trump decides to contest the results the only way it will end is with mass protests in the streets that will likely result in a lot of deaths.

Again, nothing appears to be tracking in a healthy direction.

Mr. Caputo delivered his broadside against scientists, the media and Democrats after a spate of news reports over the weekend that detailed his team’s systematic interference in the C.D.C.’s official reports on the pandemic and other disease outbreaks. Former and current C.D.C. officials described to Politico first, then The New York Times and other outlets how Mr. Caputo and a top aide routinely demanded the agency revise, delay and even scuttle the C.D.C.’s core public health updates, called Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, that they believed undercut Mr. Trump’s message that the pandemic is under control.

Those reports, deemed “the holiest of the holy” by one former top health official for their international respect and importance, have traditionally been so shielded from political interference that political appointees see them only just before they are published.

Mr. Caputo on Sunday complained on Facebook that he was under siege by the media and said that his physical health was in question and his “mental health has definitely failed.”
Editors’ Picks
Why Are We in the West So Weird? A Theory
What We Learned From Week 1 of the N.F.L. Season
The Secret History of America’s Only WWII Refugee Camp

“I don’t like being alone in Washington,” he said, describing “shadows on the ceiling in my apartment, there alone, shadows are so long.” He then ran through a series of conspiracy theories, culminating in a prediction that Mr. Trump will win re-election but his Democratic opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr., will refuse to concede.

“And when Donald Trump refuses to stand down at the inauguration, the shooting will begin,” he said. “The drills that you’ve seen are nothing.” He added: “If you carry guns, buy ammunition, ladies and gentlemen, because it’s going to be hard to get.”

Mr. Caputo’s installation at the agency was a White House move to assert greater control over Alex M. Azar II, who has been Mr. Trump’s secretary of health and human services since 2018. His job is to coordinate the messaging of an 80,000-person department that functions as the center of the American public health bureaucracy and includes the Food and Drug Administration, the C.D.C. and the National Institutes of Health, which lead the government’s pandemic response.

Mr. Caputo boasted in his Facebook talk that the president had personally put him in charge of a $250 million public service advertising campaign intended to help America to get back to normal.

Despite the criticism of his team’s interference with C.D.C., Mr. Caputo said he expected to remain in his post because Mr. Trump supported him. “I’m not going anywhere,” he said. “I swear to God, as God is my witness, I am not stopping.”

The closed loop of right-wing social media is literally jam-packed with this stuff right now.

They're getting ready for a civil war. I suggest taking them seriously.

Apparently Hispanic whatsapp users in FL are getting flooded with Biden conspiracy posts and ads.

Speaking of Timothy Snyder in the Coronavirus thread, I made this:

https://twitter.com/BotTyranny

A bot that tweets lessons and quotes from his book 'On Tyranny.'