Meanwhile, a colleague has called Biden's (current) vote share - 50.7% - 'stunning'.
Very slightly more than half is "stunning"? Obama's two victories gave him 53% and 51% of the popular vote. George W won with 48% and 51%. Bill Clinton got 43% and 49%. Bush Sr got 53%. Reagan 51% and 59%.
Biden's vote share looks fairly middle-of-the-road and boring.
The Left is amazingly skilled at letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. In politics that is always a losing formula.
The history of the leftist and centre left parties in Western Europe and the US over the last 4 decades has been series of rightwards compromises (and outside FPTP eventual Pasokification). I am not sure that actual events fit the stereotype you lay out above.
Well, that could have two causes: a.) the far-left* grit their teeth and accept a centrist compromise for the sake of electability; or b.) the far-left refuse to support a centrist agenda and abandon the party altogether, leaving the field clear for the centrists.
Excluding NI, it's notable in the UK that there are rather more left-wing (or ostensibly left-wing) parties with a reasonable chance of getting a seat in Parliament than right-wing parties (Labour, SNP, Lib-Dem, Plaid, Green, and the far-left groupuscule du jour versus the Conservatives and whatever Mr Farage's mob are calling themselves today).
* Far-left with relation to the prevailing Overton window, that is.
But did that swing it for Biden? Because what seems to have done for Trump is simple demography. That young people who are much less likely to vote (but are much more likely to vote for 'progressive' policies) finally found their way to the polls.
I've said this before, but I'm not convinced one can argue that if voting members of demographic X tend to vote for Y, then non-voting members of demographic X would also vote for Y if they could be persuaded to vote.
It might not be unreasonable but it's unproven. It kind of assumes that non-voters in any given demographic are exactly the same as voters, except that they don't vote.
The Left is amazingly skilled at letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. In politics that is always a losing formula.
The history of the leftist and centre left parties in Western Europe and the US over the last 4 decades has been series of rightwards compromises (and outside FPTP eventual Pasokification). I am not sure that actual events fit the stereotype you lay out above.
Well, that could have two causes: a.) the far-left* grit their teeth and accept a centrist compromise for the sake of electability; or b.) the far-left refuse to support a centrist agenda and abandon the party altogether, leaving the field clear for the centrists.
I think a brief survey of the history of the US and the UK since 1980 would tell you which of those courses has prevailed over that period.
Of course, if you have one side that constantly compromises rightwards, and the other side that is constantly led ever rightwards by encouragement of various kinds from its ginger groups, where do you think we end up ?
I don't know about my fellow shipmates, but I find that the best time to crap on about something is before the facts are fully known. Just by the way, I really hated it when people began to fact check me in real time on their phones...
If candidates don't want the label of "socialist" to distract from what they think would otherwise be broadly popular policies, maybe they shouldn't be so eager to call themselves "socialists."
My point is they'll be so labelled anyway.
Yes. Political people in the US who propose universal health care via gov't are often called "socialists" here. *Generally*, Republicans calling Democrats.
People who call themselves "socialists", "socialist democrats", etc. are a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.
Here is a Frontline interview of Robert Reich talking about his time as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton Administration. I thought it gave an interesting insight into what life might be like in the Biden White House. A big issue for Clinton was misrepresentation by the Bush Administration about the size of the budget deficit. This meant that Clinton's agenda could not be implemented, because the deficit had to be confronted. Surely Biden and Harris will face this problem on steroids.
Turns out some people are thinking Bernie may be tapped to be the Department of Labor head. Bernie has said he is working with the Biden team and will do whatever he can to help them.
Myself, speaking as a veteran, one thing I have appreciated about Bernie is even though he was against the Vietnam War and would have likely refused to go if he had been drafted, he is the senior member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and has long sought to support us. He once said since the US sent young men and women to war the least we can do is support them when they come back.
On the other hand, the power of the Senate is still up in the air. We need the two Georgia seats to flip so that we have a fighting chance. Consequently, it might be better for Bernie and Elizabeth (Warren) to stay in the Senate.
I think replacements are appointed by Governors. What's the situation in Mass and Vermont? I understood the governor was a Republican in Mass.
He is -- but he's a Massachusetts Republican. We have a history of electing the only sensible Republican in the country to be our governor. OTOH, when Romney left the Commonwealth and ran for POTUS, he seems to have drank (drunk?) the Kool-Aid, so it's always a risk to depend on a Republican remaining reality-based.
I think replacements are appointed by Governors. What's the situation in Mass and Vermont? I understood the governor was a Republican in Mass.
He is -- but he's a Massachusetts Republican. We have a history of electing the only sensible Republican in the country to be our governor. OTOH, when Romney left the Commonwealth and ran for POTUS, he seems to have drank (drunk?) the Kool-Aid, so it's always a risk to depend on a Republican remaining reality-based.
Whatever kind of Republican he is, he’d name a Republican to replace Warren in the Senate, not a Democrat.
I think replacements are appointed by Governors. What's the situation in Mass and Vermont? I understood the governor was a Republican in Mass.
He is -- but he's a Massachusetts Republican. We have a history of electing the only sensible Republican in the country to be our governor. OTOH, when Romney left the Commonwealth and ran for POTUS, he seems to have drank (drunk?) the Kool-Aid, so it's always a risk to depend on a Republican remaining reality-based.
Whatever kind of Republican he is, he’d name a Republican to replace Warren in the Senate, not a Democrat.
There was some suggestion that he was willing to appoint a Dem, but people seem to be back-pedaling on that. I don't know whether that's to avoid unnecessary blow-back or because the governor was not actually on-board with the idea.
I think replacements are appointed by Governors. What's the situation in Mass and Vermont? I understood the governor was a Republican in Mass.
He is -- but he's a Massachusetts Republican. We have a history of electing the only sensible Republican in the country to be our governor. OTOH, when Romney left the Commonwealth and ran for POTUS, he seems to have drank (drunk?) the Kool-Aid, so it's always a risk to depend on a Republican remaining reality-based.
Whatever kind of Republican he is, he’d name a Republican to replace Warren in the Senate, not a Democrat.
There was some suggestion that he was willing to appoint a Dem, but people seem to be back-pedaling on that. I don't know whether that's to avoid unnecessary blow-back or because the governor was not actually on-board with the idea.
As this Boston Globe article notes, the state legislature isn't above changing the law back and forth to prevent Republican governors from naming interim senators:
Amid swirling speculation about the potential of Senator Elizabeth Warren landing a Cabinet post in president-elect Joe Biden’s administration, Governor Charlie Baker said that he would veto any legislative attempt to change the law that gives him the authority to name a senator in the case of a vacancy.
[...]
In previous years, the Democratic-controlled Legislature has twice changed the law, sapping then-governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, of the appointment power in 2004 and then restoring it for Deval Patrick in 2009 so he could temporarily fill the late Ted Kennedy’s seat.
The procedure for filling Senate vacancies is another thing that can vary from state to state. I assume from the Boston Globe article that this may not be the case in Massachusetts, but in my state, if the Senate vacancy is left by someone who was elected as the nominee of a party, that party gets to nominate 3 people and the governor must chose from those nominees—even if he or she is of a different party.
I'm pretty sure that in Arizona it has to be someone from the same party. When McCain died, a former Republican Senator was appointed by the Governor (also a Republican, but I don't think that mattered). He resigned after getting Kavanaugh approved, and the Governor appointed another Republican -- who had just lost the election for our other Senate seat. This November, we had to elect (for a two-year term), another replacement. Because it was an election now, party didn't matter, and we elected a Democrat, former Astronaut Mark Kelly. Since this was a special election, he can be sworn in around the end of November, rather than waiting until January. But his term is only for two years, rather than six, so he'll have to run again in 2022. BUT ARIZONA NOW HAS TWO DEMOCRATIC SENATORS, AND A MAJORITY VOTED FOR JOE BIDEN!!!
The US position continues the emphasis on the State, much as does the election of members of the Electoral College. Each State chooses its own preferred method of filling Senate vacancies. By contrast, our Constitution places its emphasis on the federation of the States - so the constitution provides that while a casual vacancy is to filled by the State parliament, if the seat now vacant had been filled by a member of a political party, the replacement must come from that party. From memory, there is provision for an interim appointment to be made by the State Governor (in effect the Premier) until the State parliament next meets.
Myself, speaking as a veteran, one thing I have appreciated about Bernie is even though he was against the Vietnam War and would have likely refused to go if he had been drafted, he is the senior member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and has long sought to support us. He once said since the US sent young men and women to war the least we can do is support them when they come back.
Sounds like a man of principle. It's good to be reminded such people still exist.
There was some suggestion that he was willing to appoint a Dem, but people seem to be back-pedaling on that. I don't know whether that's to avoid unnecessary blow-back or because the governor was not actually on-board with the idea.
Even if that were the case, which is dubious, replacing two of the Democrat's heavy hitters in the Senate with whatever sub-replacement-level Democrats Phil Scott and Charlie Baker think will be easiest to defeat with a Republican challenger in a special election seems like a bad deal. Given the closely-divided nature of the upcoming U.S. Senate if I were running the Biden transition I'd set an informal rule that no sitting Democratic Senators should be appointed to the cabinet. That would go double for any Democratic Senator from a state with a Republican governor.
On the other hand, Doug Jones seems like he'll be needing a new job in 2021 and has a history that suggests he'd make a fine Attorney General.
There was some suggestion that he was willing to appoint a Dem, but people seem to be back-pedaling on that. I don't know whether that's to avoid unnecessary blow-back or because the governor was not actually on-board with the idea.
Even if that were the case, which is dubious, replacing two of the Democrat's heavy hitters in the Senate with whatever sub-replacement-level Democrats Phil Scott and Charlie Baker think will be easiest to defeat with a Republican challenger in a special election seems like a bad deal. Given the closely-divided nature of the upcoming U.S. Senate if I were running the Biden transition I'd set an informal rule that no sitting Democratic Senators should be appointed to the cabinet. That would go double for any Democratic Senator from a state with a Republican governor.
On the other hand, Doug Jones seems like he'll be needing a new job in 2021 and has a history that suggests he'd make a fine Attorney General.
I like loophole abuse more in theory than practice, but it does seem like there must be some 'fun' stuff to play with there.
I'm not sure if there's a "Republic agenda", that can be safe under supervision. Given the democrats practically are the ones that favour policies that reduce abortions, it seems like there ought to be a "republicans keep the senate, but come out as hypocrites (again) and having had their chance can't object at the more liberal and left wing but effective methods" v "Dems gain the senate, still lower the abortion need, but have to put up with Romneyrubbers having essays on the importance of commitment on the crates."
[I think anything like that would fail on so may levels]
And what could the good people of Micronesia have possibly done to be cursedgifted with runaway senators?
It's the price you pay for having over 600 islands and barely 100k people. There must be a deserted attol somewhere they can designate as the US embassy. I'm sure a suitable package of economic aid could be arranged.
If they're Republican senators they'll know anthropogenic climate change isn't happening so they needn't worry if the island they're on is a little low in the water.
If they're Republican senators they'll know anthropogenic climate change isn't happening so they needn't worry if the island they're on is a little low in the water.
It'll be a variant on the 'every US aircraft has to have at least one non-Christian pilot on board in case of Rapture' urban legend.
I have thought, ever since the nomination, that he would refrain from running in 2024, with the idea that Kamala would run for POTUS. He has more experience than his opponents for the nomination, and is working quickly to get Washington back to normal. After that, I love the idea of Kamala taking over.
Oh certainly, I think it's quite likely that Biden won't run in 2024. But I'm sure he's intending to fulfil at least this term - that's what people voted for, isn't it?
Most prognosticators say Biden will likely retire in 2024. That is one reason why Trump thinks he has a chance in 24. However, I think Kamala will eat Trump alive if given the chance.
I don't wish Joe any harm. But *if* he should need to resign/retire for health reasons, I'd be thrilled for Kamala to accede to the US throne.
I would also be worried for her, because many people would not be thrilled. Colin Powell didn't run for president, back in the day, because his family was terrified he'd be assassinated for being African American. Per Barack Obama, Michelle never wanted *him* to run, though I'm not sure where his safety was in her list of reasons. She was angry with him all the way through his presidency, and still is. That flares up periodically, (This has come up in interviews with him about his new memoir.) BTW, he indicated that he won't be in the Biden administration--and that Michelle would not be happy if he were.
And then there'd be extra danger and hate because she's a woman.
Joe Biden delivers a Thanksgiving Address. This is a livestream and has not started yet as of this posting.
Thank you for this!!! I just watched it. Very good speech, delivered well, producing a heartening, calming, hopeful effect. Responsible grownup is in the house.
:votive:
Also very impressed that it has *both* closed captioning *and* American Sign Language interpretation.
Well, over half the population is female. And whites are fast becoming a minority population.
Then too, Harris was a prosecuting attorney for LA County and then the Attorney General for the state of California before becoming a US Senator.
She will eat Trump alive.
She will rapidly be labelled "shrill" and/or "mannish" and/or "emotional" and/or "divisive" and the NYT will write serious think pieces about whether she is temperamentally suited to the presidency even if her opponent is the screaming orange toddler.
Well, over half the population is female. And whites are fast becoming a minority population.
Then too, Harris was a prosecuting attorney for LA County and then the Attorney General for the state of California before becoming a US Senator.
She will eat Trump alive.
She will rapidly be labelled "shrill" and/or "mannish" and/or "emotional" and/or "divisive" and the NYT will write serious think pieces about whether she is temperamentally suited to the presidency even if her opponent is the screaming orange toddler.
The mechanisms for dismissing women with power are firmly planted in our culture, on the left as well as on the right.
Well, she has survived in a male-dominated enterprise (government) so far. And she has put a few more cracks in that glass ceiling when she was voted in as vice president.
Remember when she crucified Joe in the first Democratic primary debate? And she was being kind in that debate due to her respect for Biden's son, Beau (they were both state Attorney Generals at the time). There is no respect for Trump or his family by Kamala. The gloves will be coming off.
Well, she has survived in a male-dominated enterprise (government) so far. And she has put a few more cracks in that glass ceiling when she was voted in as vice president.
Remember when she crucified Joe in the first Democratic primary debate? And she was being kind in that debate due to her respect for Biden's son, Beau (they were both state Attorney Generals at the time). There is no respect for Trump or his family by Kamala. The gloves will be coming off.
Comments
Very slightly more than half is "stunning"? Obama's two victories gave him 53% and 51% of the popular vote. George W won with 48% and 51%. Bill Clinton got 43% and 49%. Bush Sr got 53%. Reagan 51% and 59%.
Biden's vote share looks fairly middle-of-the-road and boring.
Not ruling out all sorts of shitty Republican shenanigans before and after then to upset the normal orderly transfer of power, though.
Well, that could have two causes: a.) the far-left* grit their teeth and accept a centrist compromise for the sake of electability; or b.) the far-left refuse to support a centrist agenda and abandon the party altogether, leaving the field clear for the centrists.
Excluding NI, it's notable in the UK that there are rather more left-wing (or ostensibly left-wing) parties with a reasonable chance of getting a seat in Parliament than right-wing parties (Labour, SNP, Lib-Dem, Plaid, Green, and the far-left groupuscule du jour versus the Conservatives and whatever Mr Farage's mob are calling themselves today).
* Far-left with relation to the prevailing Overton window, that is.
I've said this before, but I'm not convinced one can argue that if voting members of demographic X tend to vote for Y, then non-voting members of demographic X would also vote for Y if they could be persuaded to vote.
It might not be unreasonable but it's unproven. It kind of assumes that non-voters in any given demographic are exactly the same as voters, except that they don't vote.
I think a brief survey of the history of the US and the UK since 1980 would tell you which of those courses has prevailed over that period.
Of course, if you have one side that constantly compromises rightwards, and the other side that is constantly led ever rightwards by encouragement of various kinds from its ginger groups, where do you think we end up ?
No, we couldn't. Tallies for the Presidential race are due December 13.
Thank the Lord for that.
Me: Do you know about X, by the way?
You: Not really...
Me: Great. Do you have your phone with you?
You: sorry, no.
Me: Excellent.
Yes. Political people in the US who propose universal health care via gov't are often called "socialists" here. *Generally*, Republicans calling Democrats.
People who call themselves "socialists", "socialist democrats", etc. are a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.
Then, IIRC, Bush 43's administration supposedly misspent/wasted the surplus.
Myself, speaking as a veteran, one thing I have appreciated about Bernie is even though he was against the Vietnam War and would have likely refused to go if he had been drafted, he is the senior member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and has long sought to support us. He once said since the US sent young men and women to war the least we can do is support them when they come back.
On the other hand, the power of the Senate is still up in the air. We need the two Georgia seats to flip so that we have a fighting chance. Consequently, it might be better for Bernie and Elizabeth (Warren) to stay in the Senate.
He is -- but he's a Massachusetts Republican. We have a history of electing the only sensible Republican in the country to be our governor. OTOH, when Romney left the Commonwealth and ran for POTUS, he seems to have drank (drunk?) the Kool-Aid, so it's always a risk to depend on a Republican remaining reality-based.
There was some suggestion that he was willing to appoint a Dem, but people seem to be back-pedaling on that. I don't know whether that's to avoid unnecessary blow-back or because the governor was not actually on-board with the idea.
FWIW.
Sounds like a man of principle. It's good to be reminded such people still exist.
Even if that were the case, which is dubious, replacing two of the Democrat's heavy hitters in the Senate with whatever sub-replacement-level Democrats Phil Scott and Charlie Baker think will be easiest to defeat with a Republican challenger in a special election seems like a bad deal. Given the closely-divided nature of the upcoming U.S. Senate if I were running the Biden transition I'd set an informal rule that no sitting Democratic Senators should be appointed to the cabinet. That would go double for any Democratic Senator from a state with a Republican governor.
On the other hand, Doug Jones seems like he'll be needing a new job in 2021 and has a history that suggests he'd make a fine Attorney General.
Over on Twitter Dana Houle suggests going in a different direction:
For those who don't recognize the names, those are all Republican Senators from states with Democratic governors.
I'm sure there are some ambassadorships where they can do minimal harm... ;-)
That's certainly true, but no one is going to leave a Senate seat to be ambassador to Luxembourg (for example).
I believe the Federated States of Micronesia are lovely this- well really any time of year.
I'm not sure if there's a "Republic agenda", that can be safe under supervision. Given the democrats practically are the ones that favour policies that reduce abortions, it seems like there ought to be a "republicans keep the senate, but come out as hypocrites (again) and having had their chance can't object at the more liberal and left wing but effective methods" v "Dems gain the senate, still lower the abortion need, but have to put up with Romneyrubbers having essays on the importance of commitment on the crates."
[I think anything like that would fail on so may levels]
My thoughts exactly.
But no, it seems unlikely that a Senator would accept such a post.
AFZ
I was thinking it sounded like a euphemism for masturbation. I'm gonna go choke the chicken, you know, rub the Romney.
It's the price you pay for having over 600 islands and barely 100k people. There must be a deserted attol somewhere they can designate as the US embassy. I'm sure a suitable package of economic aid could be arranged.
It'll be a variant on the 'every US aircraft has to have at least one non-Christian pilot on board in case of Rapture' urban legend.
The distate wasn't (quite*) intentional.
*It was equal parts riffing on romney-care as being vaguely similar.
And partially antipating slang.
In practice I think the republican narratives over family planning are sufficiently entrenched. That they can just crash straight through the dilemma.
Then too, Harris was a prosecuting attorney for LA County and then the Attorney General for the state of California before becoming a US Senator.
She will eat Trump alive.
I would also be worried for her, because many people would not be thrilled. Colin Powell didn't run for president, back in the day, because his family was terrified he'd be assassinated for being African American. Per Barack Obama, Michelle never wanted *him* to run, though I'm not sure where his safety was in her list of reasons. She was angry with him all the way through his presidency, and still is. That flares up periodically, (This has come up in interviews with him about his new memoir.) BTW, he indicated that he won't be in the Biden administration--and that Michelle would not be happy if he were.
And then there'd be extra danger and hate because she's a woman.
So...danger *squared*.
Thank you for this!!!
:votive:
Also very impressed that it has *both* closed captioning *and* American Sign Language interpretation.
She will rapidly be labelled "shrill" and/or "mannish" and/or "emotional" and/or "divisive" and the NYT will write serious think pieces about whether she is temperamentally suited to the presidency even if her opponent is the screaming orange toddler.
The mechanisms for dismissing women with power are firmly planted in our culture, on the left as well as on the right.
Remember when she crucified Joe in the first Democratic primary debate? And she was being kind in that debate due to her respect for Biden's son, Beau (they were both state Attorney Generals at the time). There is no respect for Trump or his family by Kamala. The gloves will be coming off.
Then she will be called shrill and bitchy.