• 1 Post
  • 29 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 1st, 2023

help-circle





  • Not that CNN has ever had the best political reporting, but this article is hot garbage. Almost entirely focusing on the tone and kayfabe of Trump’s rhetoric without really touching upon the ways in which he has openly plotted to warp our system into something quite unrecognizable.

    That said, this middle section really stands alone:

    Trump’s authoritarianism may make the 2024 election a profound choice

    may

    The former president’s increasing demagoguery also puts the spotlight on key unknowns of the 2024 election:

    – Does the GOP risk nominating a candidate whose untamed behavior will alienate voters in many suburban swing districts who turned against him in the 2020 election, especially given the possibility that he could be a convicted felon by the time voters make their choice?

    – And if Trump wins the nomination, will his liabilities and the prospect of four more years of chaos and recriminations mitigate concerns about Biden’s physical and mental competence and concerns about the economy, as revealed in a CNN poll last week that captured a broadly negative view of his presidency?

    There are plenty of polls that already address this issue. They show that the answers to both of these look to be a resounding yes. This isn’t one of those questions that can never be answered, like the square root of a million or something.

    The numbers of people who affirmatively believe that Biden was involved in Hunter’s business dealings is dispiriting, though. That, mixed with the constant media drumbeat over Biden’s age, is most likely what’s keeping things so close at this point.




  • Do you really see a large number of gun-control-centered liberals talking about getting guns out of the “inner city” or away from “urban youth,” though? Because what I’ve observed is most of the people who are concerned about gun control are trying to get guns out of the hands of largely young white men who shoot up schools, churches, grocery stores etc. I can’t recall the last time I heard someone who identified as left of center complain about “violence in Chicago” — that beat is exclusively on the right.









  • I hate that we’re at this point, but I feel like reproductive rights is the wedge issue that has the best potential to break open state and federal legislatures for Democrats. The other issues you cited poll well, but haven’t historically translated into reliable votes. Reproductive rights are much more salient. It makes me hopeful for the next few cycles but I worry that if and when a Democratic Congress is able to safeguard abortion rights once again people will fall back into old patterns. Eternal vigilance is the price to pay for a truly civilized society.


  • the discussion should be about getting more folks covered

    The discussion first needs to be substantially increasing Democratic numbers in both houses of Congress.

    Obviously nothing will change for the better without a Democratic majority in the House. A nominal majority requires at least 4 more Democratic seats. There are far fewer Blue Dogs and conservative Dems than there were 15 years ago, but I would imagine a maximal ACA successor would require at least 30 new members to make sure assholes like Gottheimer don’t gum up the works.

    The filibuster rules in the Senate basically mandate at least 60 senators to pass anything of consequence. Yes, it’s a Senatorial rule; yes, it can be removed with a straight majority. As it stands right now, two senators are on record as opposing filibuster repeal, and there are probably a few others who are still attached to the rules of the Senate as currently constituted. A fight over the filibuster now would fail, and time spent in the next Congress fighting to abolish the filibuster is time lost for legislating. So assume a minimum of 60 Democratic senators to be able to operate free of Republican obstruction. Again, if you want a maximal bill, you need more than 60 senators, to get around problem children like Manchin and Sinema* and other conservative Dems.

    We’re obviously in the realm of LBJ after the 1964 landslide here, which helps to explain why progressive victories are so hard-fought and far between. People forget that a big reason LBJ was able to enact the Great Society is because he was backed by 288 Democrats in the House and 66 Democrats in the Senate. By comparison, Obama had 60 Democrats in the Senate for about six to nine months, which is how the ACA was able to pass but was also why the ACA wasn’t better than it was.

    If we want better outcomes, we need more (and better) Democrats.

    *It’s very possible that neither of them will be in the new Senate. It’s also possible that on some issues they are stalking horses for other senators who prefer to let them draw the heat.