a place to have in-depth discussions of topics related to the 2020 U.S. Elections, so the main thread doesn't derail
On topic: 538 article on how the different Dem blocks are influencing the composition of Biden's team.
So far, based on Biden’s choices, three trends are clear.
1. Both the Black establishment and the Latino establishment within the Democratic Party have real clout, able to essentially force Biden to pick some Black and Latino appointees for key posts and to block some people they don’t want.
2. The progressive wing of the party doesn’t seem to have enough clout to get its people key jobs, but does have enough power to prevent Biden from picking people they strenuously oppose.
3. And other blocs in the Democratic Party, most notably anti-Trump Republicans or former Republicans who backed Biden, don’t have a lot of clout in the appointment process, at least so far. (We should note that this article refers often to stories first broken by The American Prospect and Politico in particular, as both outlets have done stellar reporting on Biden’s transition process.)
On topic: 538 article on how the different Dem blocks are influencing the composition of Biden's team.
article wrote:So far, based on Biden’s choices, three trends are clear.
1. Both the Black establishment and the Latino establishment within the Democratic Party have real clout, able to essentially force Biden to pick some Black and Latino appointees for key posts and to block some people they don’t want.
2. The progressive wing of the party doesn’t seem to have enough clout to get its people key jobs, but does have enough power to prevent Biden from picking people they strenuously oppose.
3. And other blocs in the Democratic Party, most notably anti-Trump Republicans or former Republicans who backed Biden, don’t have a lot of clout in the appointment process, at least so far. (We should note that this article refers often to stories first broken by The American Prospect and Politico in particular, as both outlets have done stellar reporting on Biden’s transition process.)
this should probably be 4 (or 3B):
They don’t seem that organized to fight over Cabinet appointments. And because the Senate is so closely divided and Biden may need Republicans to back some of his picks to get them confirmed, Biden is choosing more moderate figures for his cabinet anyway, so the “Never Trump” bloc is getting what it wants without really asking for it — a not-too-progressive Biden administration.
nm
dejanzie wrote:On topic: 538 article on how the different Dem blocks are influencing the composition of Biden's team.
article wrote:So far, based on Biden’s choices, three trends are clear.
1. Both the Black establishment and the Latino establishment within the Democratic Party have real clout, able to essentially force Biden to pick some Black and Latino appointees for key posts and to block some people they don’t want.
2. The progressive wing of the party doesn’t seem to have enough clout to get its people key jobs, but does have enough power to prevent Biden from picking people they strenuously oppose.
3. And other blocs in the Democratic Party, most notably anti-Trump Republicans or former Republicans who backed Biden, don’t have a lot of clout in the appointment process, at least so far. (We should note that this article refers often to stories first broken by The American Prospect and Politico in particular, as both outlets have done stellar reporting on Biden’s transition process.)this should probably be 4 (or 3B):
They don’t seem that organized to fight over Cabinet appointments. And because the Senate is so closely divided and Biden may need Republicans to back some of his picks to get them confirmed, Biden is choosing more moderate figures for his cabinet anyway, so the “Never Trump” bloc is getting what it wants without really asking for it — a not-too-progressive Biden administration.
This is easily the top crisis in the country, that #NeverTrumpers may be content with Biden Cabinet picks, not Trump's Nero decree in his last months of the presidency.
That's been Biden's strategy to cover all the Dem bases since before the election: go for politically moderate, but very diverse and highly competent picks.
That's been Biden's strategy to cover all the Dem bases since before the election: go for politically moderate, but very diverse and highly competent picks.
right, but it's also a fuller picture of what saying anti-Trump Republicans or former Republicans don't have much clout means: if you're already getting what you want without asking for it, you've got less reason to find out how just much clout you have in the first place.
dejanzie wrote:That's been Biden's strategy to cover all the Dem bases since before the election: go for politically moderate, but very diverse and highly competent picks.
right, but it's also a fuller picture of what saying anti-Trump Republicans or former Republicans don't have much clout means: if you're already getting what you want without asking for it, you've got less reason to find out how just much clout you have in the first place.
Schrödinger's #NeverTrumpers:
simultaneously out of power, but massively influential
a threat to democracy while also fighting the fascist GOP
almost totally excised from government, but don't you dare take your eyes off them
dejanzie wrote:That's been Biden's strategy to cover all the Dem bases since before the election: go for politically moderate, but very diverse and highly competent picks.
right, but it's also a fuller picture of what saying anti-Trump Republicans or former Republicans don't have much clout means: if you're already getting what you want without asking for it, you've got less reason to find out how just much clout you have in the first place.
I agree, but there's still a difference between ideologically compatible people being nominated and having actual never-Trumpers like John Kasich appointed to important positions. A valid criticism of the Lincoln Project is that they created the climate that allowed Trump to grab power (see: allusions to voter fraud dating back decades, Swift boat lies in 2004, etc.) without ever taking responsibility for it. But they are not getting nominated themselves, which is what would arguably happen if they had actual clout.
cheeze_pavilion wrote:dejanzie wrote:That's been Biden's strategy to cover all the Dem bases since before the election: go for politically moderate, but very diverse and highly competent picks.
right, but it's also a fuller picture of what saying anti-Trump Republicans or former Republicans don't have much clout means: if you're already getting what you want without asking for it, you've got less reason to find out how just much clout you have in the first place.
Schrödinger's #NeverTrumpers:
simultaneously out of power, but massively influential
a threat to democracy while also fighting the fascist GOP
almost totally excised from government, but don't you dare take your eyes off them
I'm confused, is this bit about LP or about focusing on remaining trump loyalists to the exclusion of all other potential threats?
cheeze_pavilion wrote:dejanzie wrote:That's been Biden's strategy to cover all the Dem bases since before the election: go for politically moderate, but very diverse and highly competent picks.
right, but it's also a fuller picture of what saying anti-Trump Republicans or former Republicans don't have much clout means: if you're already getting what you want without asking for it, you've got less reason to find out how just much clout you have in the first place.
I agree, but there's still a difference between ideologically compatible people being nominated and having actual never-Trumpers like John Kasich appointed to important positions. A valid criticism of the Lincoln Project is that they created the climate that allowed Trump to grab power (see: allusions to voter fraud dating back decades, Swift boat lies in 2004, etc.) without ever taking responsibility for it. But they are not getting nominated themselves, which is what would arguably happen if they had actual clout.
I'd disagree that it would have to go as far as getting themselves nominated. In fact, if you go back to the article it reads "The progressive wing of the party doesn’t seem to have enough clout to get its people key jobs, but does have enough power to prevent Biden from picking people they strenuously oppose."
So it's not a nominated-or-nothing issue.
Natus wrote:cheeze_pavilion wrote:dejanzie wrote:That's been Biden's strategy to cover all the Dem bases since before the election: go for politically moderate, but very diverse and highly competent picks.
right, but it's also a fuller picture of what saying anti-Trump Republicans or former Republicans don't have much clout means: if you're already getting what you want without asking for it, you've got less reason to find out how just much clout you have in the first place.
Schrödinger's #NeverTrumpers:
simultaneously out of power, but massively influential
a threat to democracy while also fighting the fascist GOP
almost totally excised from government, but don't you dare take your eyes off them
I'm confused, is this bit about LP or about focusing on remaining trump loyalists to the exclusion of all other potential threats?
This is about the current hysteria about LP having any influence whatsoever in Biden's Cabinet which hasn't been formed yet and may not ever be confirmed.
Just so we're clear: the Trump loyalists trying to overthrow the election are in power. The LP nerds aren't.
I agree, but there's still a difference between ideologically compatible people being nominated and having actual never-Trumpers like John Kasich appointed to important positions. A valid criticism of the Lincoln Project is that they created the climate that allowed Trump to grab power (see: allusions to voter fraud dating back decades, Swift boat lies in 2004, etc.) without ever taking responsibility for it. But they are not getting nominated themselves, which is what would arguably happen if they had actual clout.
Except we live in a country where you don't actually need an official seat at the table to have a seat at the table. Special interest lobbyists, PACs, calling in political favors, pay-to-play, etc. This is a problem that's baked into our political system, affects both parties, and is much more difficult to trace than being given an actual position.
dejanzie wrote:On topic: 538 article on how the different Dem blocks are influencing the composition of Biden's team.
article wrote:So far, based on Biden’s choices, three trends are clear.
1. Both the Black establishment and the Latino establishment within the Democratic Party have real clout, able to essentially force Biden to pick some Black and Latino appointees for key posts and to block some people they don’t want.
2. The progressive wing of the party doesn’t seem to have enough clout to get its people key jobs, but does have enough power to prevent Biden from picking people they strenuously oppose.
3. And other blocs in the Democratic Party, most notably anti-Trump Republicans or former Republicans who backed Biden, don’t have a lot of clout in the appointment process, at least so far. (We should note that this article refers often to stories first broken by The American Prospect and Politico in particular, as both outlets have done stellar reporting on Biden’s transition process.)this should probably be 4 (or 3B):
They don’t seem that organized to fight over Cabinet appointments. And because the Senate is so closely divided and Biden may need Republicans to back some of his picks to get them confirmed, Biden is choosing more moderate figures for his cabinet anyway, so the “Never Trump” bloc is getting what it wants without really asking for it — a not-too-progressive Biden administration.
Yeah, that all makes sense. For the progressive wing to have a large say in Biden's administration, the Democrats needed to win the senate by at least 51-52 seats. With the Republicans holding the senate, Biden needs to go moderate to actually, you know, do anything.
The focus for progressives needs to be on making some impressive wins in the 2022 senate races if they want things to change.
That 70% of Republicans and 35% of independents believe there was widespread fraud during the election is one of the more depressing polling results of the year.
But if you do NOT believe the election was stolen, how horrified must you be with what's going on? Let's be really pessimistic and assume of the "unsure" 7% Republicans most + some of those 23% fall for the cognitive dissonance trap. That's still 20% of Republicans who watch their own party shove their tongues ever further up the Orange Fascist's behind, tacitly or openly embracing fascism.
If even half of those follow through and stay home or switch party next time, that's a 6% swing right there, just about enough to flip Georgia and cause some serious damage to the GOP.
*sits back and waits for the tsunami of pessimism to wash over me*
That 70% of Republicans and 35% of independents believe there was widespread fraud during the election is one of the more depressing polling results of the year.
But if you do NOT believe the election was stolen, how horrified must you be with what's going on? Let's be really pessimistic and assume of the "unsure" 7% Republicans most + some of those 23% fall for the cognitive dissonance trap. That's still 20% of Republicans who watch their own party shove their tongues ever further up the Orange Fascist's behind, tacitly or openly embracing fascism.
If even half of those follow through and stay home or switch party next time, that's a 6% swing right there, just about enough to flip Georgia and cause some serious damage to the GOP.
*sits back and waits for the tsunami of pessimism to wash over me*
It must be really hard for pollsters to distinguish what Republicans *actually* believe (because they live in a hermetically sealed, reality-free bubble) versus what they want to believe, because there are no repercussions.
It is depressing, but we as a country got here step by step by step. Maybe we couldn't be invaded militarily, but just radicalize enough racist whites and boom!
I was asked this year to help with the meeting of the electors. My role was a small one, helping to seat the guests in the Senate gallery. I've worked in the Capitol for over 2 decades now, and this was a first. I took a few of my colleagues who are much newer to the Capitol on a tour of the top floor of the building and the inner spaces of the rotunda, that few get to see, including a few places where you can walk out onto the roof. They said it was the Best. Tour. Ever.
For the meeting in the Senate Chamber, it was super quiet, very calm and orderly. Secretary Adams gave an informative speech, he talked about the electoral college, why we have it and why in his opinion we should keep it, but also that we have to be willing and eager to change our voting systems to serve ALL of the people. I'm not of the same political affiliation as Secretary Adams, but I think he's a very intelligent, thoughtful, and sincere person. His mantra is that he wants to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. I truly believe him when he says that.
I ran into Sec. Adams on my way out this afternoon and told him that I thought he did a great job. He thanked me, grinned, and said "Well, I didn't cause a Constitutional crisis, and that was my goal". I shared with him a compliment that my cousin texted as she was watching on CNN, that he's just so very likable, and he laughed and said "Well, not so much with some Republicans ..."
I know he's right when he says that, and obviously it's not his goal to be loved by Democrats, but I have had several occasions since he took office to sincerely compliment him on a job well done. I truly appreciate his humor, his kindness, and his dedication to public service. I kind of wonder if that makes a Republican feel like a failure that a Democrat thinks he's doing a great job? He came under heavy fire from his own party for being so willing to work with our Dem. Governor on this election. The result of their cooperation was that we had a very smooth election with high turnout. It was very successful, even though I may not have liked the result. I hope he can bring his party around to his way of thinking, and put cooperation and compromise back on the menu in politics.
Pages