- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 72,355
- Reaction score
- 52,252
??? I posted thoughts on the video in 1810, after Anung responded to my points, like I said I would.
Sue me.
??? I posted thoughts on the video in 1810, after Anung responded to my points, like I said I would.
To a certain kind of Democratic Party establishmentarian, Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because she was not “likable” enough — a sentiment that may or may not be thinly veiled code for saying that she’s a woman. Their solution in 2020 is good old Joe Biden.
Biden, on the likability frame, is the opposite of Clinton — a back-slapping pol man who enjoys shooting the breeze with reporters. But the reality is Clinton was plenty likable at key moments in her career. Most notably, one of the main reasons the Democratic Party rallied around her so hard in 2014-’15 is that when she was secretary of state, her approval ratings were far higher than Barack Obama’s, and she was an in-demand midterms surrogate even in states where he was toxic.
Biden, meanwhile, was not especially popular as vice president during Obama’s first six years in office and only saw his numbers rise as he appeared to step out of the electoral arena — swapping places with Clinton as the kind of generic Famous Democrat Who Isn’t Running.
Joe Biden has yet to formally declare his presidential bid, but he’s already complicating Kamala Harris' path to victory in a must-win state: South Carolina.
The pivotal early primary state is the linchpin of Harris' strategy to capture the Democratic nomination, yet the former vice president’s experience, pragmatism and close association with former President Barack Obama have given him a significant advantage here — even more so than in other states, according to more than two dozen interviews with state operatives and elected leaders, as well as public and private polling.
African-Americans and women make up strong majorities of Democratic primary voters here, and Harris aggressively courted local support last weekend in her fourth visit of the young campaign, which focused on rural areas. Biden, meanwhile, starts with broad across-the-board backing from an array of establishment Democrats to rank-and-file black voters. His overall early support skews toward older South Carolinians that form the most reliable voting bloc — and who are assembling to support Biden right away when he jumps into the race this week. State Rep. Jerry Govan, the chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, told POLITICO he expects Biden to receive “a warm welcome from a very diverse group of South Carolinians.”
I wasn't expecting this, but I might end up supporting Buttigieg for president. One thing I like is that he proposes constitutional amendments for things that are clearly beyond the scope of federal power instead of just calling for legislation or executive orders. I'm not aware of any other D/R candidates going that route.
Yeah, I see how he could be playing me. I also know I probably can't trust him to make SCOTUS picks that I agree with, and that's one of my top issues.It's an honest way to get around a question too that he can't really do anything about because it sounds like he's attempting to make a big sweeping move but we know any Constitutional amendment won't likely happen. Keeps the casuals happy while subtly giving an honest answer they wouldn't like if they knew what it meant.
Yeah, I see how he could be playing me. I also know I probably can't trust him to make SCOTUS picks that I agree with, and that's one of my top issues.
The specific issue I was referring to was on money in politics. He proposes a constitutional amendment to "get money out of politics". That's pretty vague, but I see myself supporting it in most forms it could possibly take. O the other hand, I would oppose legislation or executive orders to do the same thing.
Right, I understand. I'm just saying there's a good chance he's not being sincere if he made such a calculation.I'm not necessarily saying he's playing you. I'm just saying his answer is crafty because the other options are:
1) Lie and say he could just do X
2) Be honest and say it isn't likely to happen
but he choose a hybrid
3) Be honest with what he could do and not mention how nearly impossible it would be for it to work
How do you think you can get money out of politics?
Right, I understand. I'm just saying there's a good chance he's not being sincere if he made such a calculation.
I definitely haven't thought about it enough. First-pass answer is:
This totally fails to address the issue with PACs and other groups running advertisements, however. I'm not even sure if that's something that needs to be addressed, but if it is I think it gets very very thorny.
- the amendment would require public funding of all campaign expenditures for federal offices in an amount determined first by the text of the amendment, with any future increases to come through the legislative process.
- campaigns would be forbidden from receiving private contributions from any private entity
- a full accounting of all campaign expenditures, subject to routine audit, must be published every month
- Force a similar arrangement upon the states
The rude awakening creeping up on Kamala Harris
Politco
Interesting take. Do you all think Harris would stay in the race until California even with bad performance in states she may be targeting like SC?
Bernie already getting major South Carolina people support it seems. Could change but it's going to help.
Understood. I think he can be sincere though and still understand the uphill battle. It isn't necessarily a slimy thing to say imo.
No. Never heard of that idea before. I think that system could be corrupted quite easily.So would you do a voucher system where voters could publicly fund a candidate?
I'm still uncertain how you distribute the public funding based on candidate.
I rather just have them make PACs more transparent then try to reign in campaign finance. Just force any group that gets involved to make disclosures
No. Never heard of that idea before. I think that system could be corrupted quite easily.
Just a fixed sum per candidate's campaign from the treasury, say $3 million. I seem to recall that the UK does something like this. Thorny issue would be threshold of support before the funding kicks in. Right now there are nearly 700 candidates running for 2020 (685 last I checked), and obviously the vast majority should not be getting funding.
But that gets thorny. What if I, a private citizen, want to pay for a pro-Cory Booker browser ad? I have to disclose that? I think the enforcement bureaucracy could get really bloated really quickly and/or corruption in enforcement would sneak in quickly.
That's where I still see a problem however. Like is your threshold of support based on polling or signed petitions?
Polling could make it insanely corrupt. Signed petitions to me would sound just a similar as vouchers.
I don't know the name of it but it's a system where each person had x amount to submit in to fund candidate(s). This would level the economic field since the voucher represents public funds and also would level the power as whatever economic class you were in, you'd still have the same amount to your voucher.
I suppose. That's a very small case however. Most of these groups are dealing with millions in PAC money. I think when it comes to enforcement, you go after the big fish and not just some average joe trying to advertise for the campaign. If it's a fairly rich person who is putting in significant amount of adwords/etc, they would have enough resources to go through a PAC or disclose themselves.
I guess the core question is: does there exist a neutral and incorruptible means of measuring "support"? I'm thinking not, so that's a great point.
I actually think polling is one of the best methods conceivable. Have the federal government randomly sample adults by phone or internet according to an open source polling method. Do not offer names of candidates. Instead request that the voter offer a name. Anyone who can get 1% in any of the polls gets access to funds.
Signed petitions is a bad idea. That just rewards the ability to rack up signatures. Mark Dice has 10s of videos like this one:
I can imagine it would be pretty easy to get people to give their vouchers to a particular candidate if certain incentives are offered.
It's a great point. I think my main concern is in arbitrariness of enforcement though. Like what if I fund a series of radio broadcasts that are strongly anti-Trump but don't actually name Trump? That's basically what Rush Limbaugh is from the other side, but FEC doesn't consider him to be making campaign contributions.