[Discussion] Election 2020


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

Biden has announced his VP pick: Kamala Harris.

Let it begin.

I say let it end. It's too long and exhausting.

I mean, it had to be her.

And I know that her prior job is a disqualifer for some, but she is actually right up there with Bernie and Warren at least in terms of a progressive vote record.

Source: This tracker. Another tracker.

I’m just happy it’s a younger woman. This reduces a lot of concerns I had around, “what then?”

Badferret wrote:

I mean, it had to be her.

For taking the Senate, yes. Warren would have put a seat at risk.

Playing it safe. Not that it probably matters. Just end this*!

(*both the Election and 2020)

I'm disappointed it's not Warren, but I probably would have chosen Harris if I were Biden too. It's a good choice both for winning the election and governing the country after the dust settles.

An obvious choice and a solid choice; while there's a lot I like about Stacy Abrams, she's a largely unknown quantity at this point, and I worried it might fall into the whole "who the hell is Tim Kaine" thing from 2016. There's a lot of tape of Kamala Harris eating people for lunch, and this will really play into Biden's strategy of being the Sane and Nice Guy bringing normalcy back to this country, while she can be the one throwing all the punches. While there will undoubtedly be some valid shots at her background as a prosecutor and attempts to demonize that, I still think he chose somebody smart and competent here, and, when the primaries started, her and Elizabeth Warren were the two people I was most intrigued by.

Be a shame she won't be AG though. Kamala Harris would be a really, really fun AG.

I'm starting popping the corn now for the VP debate.


Personally, I couldn't be happier.

More Maya Rudolph is just what SNL needs this fall

I can see her saying "Let's go Joe!" trending.
I think she has the opportunity to inject a lot of energy and movement into the campaign.
I think there is some relief in that knowing in these uncertain times is infinitely better than uncertainty.

I think a strong argument for her is (and addresses some qualms with her background): I have worked with a lot of cops. I know how justice worked then. That is not the way things are going to be done tomorrow.

For what it is worth, that dig on Biden in the debate was a manufactured setup but she executed on it and well. That shows that she can create a message and follow through on it.

She was my choice for president but she was not my choice for VP. I have been clear that despite not being considered, Katie Porter was far and above my top pick for VP. Harris even falls behind Warren, Abrams, Lance-Bottoms, and probably falls in with the Bass's, Whitmer's and Rice's. But, I cannot deny that I am excited. Plus I can bring out my Harris for the People t-shirt again

I wonder if the Russian keyboard warriors are getting time and a half for having to work at midnight.

The other thing too is that ever since she dropped from the race, Harris's campaign has been fundraising for many candidates across the country.

Jonman wrote:

I'm starting popping the corn now for the VP debate.

debate is probably not the right word for whatever it will be.

Since she is a woman, will Pence be able to go on stage with her alone or will his wife have to join him?

SallyNasty wrote:

Since she is a woman, will Pence be able to go on stage with her alone or will his wife have to join him?

Mother will have to be beside him at the table/lectern.

OG_slinger wrote:

I wonder if the Russian keyboard warriors are getting time and a half for having to work at midnight.

I'm pretty sure there'll be enough home-grown hits that they can get a full night's sleep.

Speaking of which,
I wonder if I’m still going to be illegally assaulted by cops several times a week by the time Nov rolls around and I’m forced to vote for one.

She was my original first choice for the presidential nomination, so I'm happy with this. Now is Pence allowed to debate her without his wife present?

Edit: SallyNasty-hausered

Yeah, I'm glad Biden didn't put a Senate seat at risk.

The choice of Harris also deflates Trump’s “Law and Order” candidate junk as well.

JC wrote:

The choice of Harris also deflates Trump’s “Law and Order” candidate junk as well.

Something tells me that the kind of people that "law and order" really resonates with aren't going to be too keen on a candidate who is both Black and South Asian.

I would love to see Trump's "law and order" shtick get countered with a discussion about the "rule of law," however.


There is rumbling that the Dems, pissed off at the shady ass sh*t that McConnell and company pulled to pack the federal bench, are looking to push for DC and PR statehood. Considering how Wyoming is basically the American equivalent of a rotten borough, I honestly think adding 4 Senate seats between DC and PR is well called for.

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

Either that or merge the Dakotas. SD should never have existed.

UpToIsomorphism wrote:


Yeah, let's not. Prefer we focus on the conversation instead of snarky drive-bys in politics threads. As long as folks can keep from going at eachother's necks, these are some of my favorite conversations to lurk on. Except when people do the thing. This is an important conversation and exchange that should happen right now, so no patience for the samel ol' catfights. Be civil to one another or you won't be here?

Since we all seem so giddy to get a cop in the white house, I'm feeling empowered to play the tone-police and ask you all to play nice.

So let's start by doing her the honor of getting used to using her last name with the frequency we refer to him as Biden instead of Joe. Usually folks seem to often use his first name pejoratively, so please consider that distinction. Everyone in this particular thread so far has been great about this, thank you.

So, have strong reservations about Harris, and you could say I'm begrudgingly waiting to see her show her stripes. I will of course be voting unequivocally for the Biden/Harris ticket, because obviously f*ck Trump. Perhaps I've been a bit too radicalized to see this as anything other than a safe move that leans towards the center. She has made noise about needing police reform and all that lately, but her long history with law enforcement makes those gestures hollow if she doesn't do anything with that once getting into the white house as VP. I think/hope a lot of people expect her to walk the walk if her and Biden get the vote.

The mantle she's taking on is heavier than Biden's, I think. She's got so much stacked against her.
I want to be hopeful for her growth. I want to see something radicalized within her like so many of us have in the last five months, and I want to see her leverage that to do the things she's been vocal about on twitter.

Also god yes more Maya Rudolph, please.

I smell a comeback:
"Nevertheless She Persisted!"
Oh how I love how wretched that must taste being shoved down McConnell's and Trump's throats in the next few months.

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.