The Biden Presidency

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

Oh nonsense! I've heard, and possibly from the same person who said that Trump only wanted to restore the nation's faith in our election system, that Trump never took vacations! Sure, he may have gone golfing two or three times, but one of them was with a foreign leader he was negotiating with, so it counts as work!

This is the kind of no-information voter that forms the core of the GOP. They're not stupid, it's a question of trust. They trust their news sources, the same sources tell them to fear all others (and brown people, and 'the government', and probably the children too) so they don't accept any other sources.

Well, who wouldn't trust Tucker Carlson to tell us the truth?

Oh, his own lawyers successfully argued in court that he is not 'stating actual facts' on his program. My bad.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Horatius

As a follow-up to this, I'll note this story I just saw:

Lawyers have found the parents of 105 separated migrant children in past month

Any attempt to make Biden look like Trump over this issue is entirely partisan ********.

I expect Biden to do a much better job than Trump on this. Well, many, many things, but this too.

But, man, it's such a mess, like many, many things, and due to Trump's tendency to kick the can down the road, he's going to take some heat no matter what.

[Galaxie]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/s...29766134358018

Quote:

White House chief of staff Ron Klain says on MSNBC they are “fighting our guts out” to get Neera Tanden confirmed. If not confirmed, they won’t try to make her acting director, but will put her in a role that doesn’t require Senate confirmation.

Why?

Yeah, why not just make her acting director? We know the GOP is totally fine with that sort of thing.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Quote:

BREAKING via @laraseligman


The U.S. has carried out an airstrike on a structure connected to an Iran-backed militia in Syria, following three separate rocket attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq, according to a defense official.

President Biden ordered the strike.

https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/...87377644007428

It's nice to know that, in these times of extreme division, the bipartisan desire to fight the forever wars is as strong as ever.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Neera Tanden fanatics are engaged in an online harassment campaign against a journalist that covered Tanden in an unflattering light, including a lot of openly racist abuse.

Quote:

The Washington Post on Thursday denounced online abuse that targeted one of its reporters after a photo of her speaking with Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was shared on Twitter.

The attacks on White House correspondent Seung Min Kim came after Huffington Post reporter Igor Bobic on Wednesday shared a photo of Kim showing Murkowski a tweet from Neera Tanden, President Biden's nominee for Office of Management and Budget director, in which Tanden criticized Murkowski.

Originally Posted by WAPO Editor

“What she did was basic journalism,” Steven Ginsberg, national editor for the newspaper, said in a statement shared by Kristine Coratti Kelly, the paper's vice president of communications.

“No one should have to deal with the hate that has been directed at Seung Min. She did her job and she did it well, like she always does. We could not be prouder that she is our colleague and a reporter for The Washington Post,” Ginsberg said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5...se-of-reporter

I recall the conduct of a politician's online mob was something of particular importance in the recent past. Surely Tanden won't get a pass for the awful conduct of her unhinged pack of freakish followers.

Tanden has a reputation as being particularly combative on social media and seems to have amassed a fan base that views such belligerency as a positive.

Tanden should be dumped from consideration, she's needlessly divisive.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/...87377644007428

It's nice to know that, in these times of extreme division, the bipartisan desire to fight the forever wars is as strong as ever.

Having a tough time with this one. I want to oppose war. What might be the appropriate response to rocket attacks, though?

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Galaxie

Yeah, why not just make her acting director? We know the GOP is totally fine with that sort of thing.

That's a bit hard to do when you run on a platform of returning the Executive branch to normal and following established norms.

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Neera Tanden fanatics are engaged in an online harassment campaign against a journalist that covered Tanden in an unflattering light, including a lot of openly racist abuse.





https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5...se-of-reporter

I recall the conduct of a politician's online mob was something of particular importance in the recent past. Surely Tanden won't get a pass for the awful conduct of her unhinged pack of freakish followers.

Tanden has a reputation as being particularly combative on social media and seems to have amassed a fan base that views such belligerency as a positive.

Tanden should be dumped from consideration, she's needlessly divisive.

But she's the only nominee being held to that standard. I'm not okay with old white men holding a woman of color to a standard they don't follow themselves. It's sexist and racist and needs to stop.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by gnome

Having a tough time with this one. I want to oppose war. What might be the appropriate response to rocket attacks, though?

The President should not be unilaterally escalating conflict with Iran. I know it's been normalized that the President can arbitrarily wage war on his own authority, but this really is the kind of thing that Congress should have to sign off on.

Endless war in the middle east is not popular and I suspect there would be a more restrained approach if Congress had to publicly debate the issue.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Neera Tanden fanatics...

I find it difficult to believe she has them. I'd actually expect that they're really "a Democrat President can do no wrong no matter what he does" fanatics. There are plenty of those.

Originally Posted by Delvo

Bizarre... Axios has a report that apparently Biden and his people thought they were doing what the left would want with the appointment of... Neera Tanden... because she's... female and not quite 100% white.

My immediate reaction is that there's no way that's true because they can't actually be that stupid and politically unaware. But then, what could they be trying to hide with that as the cover story?

(old quote from the Long-Long-Ago, back when her name was first floated for this job)

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Tanden should be dumped from consideration, she's needlessly divisive.

I can reach no other conclusion but that the divisiveness is the point. Biden never misses an opportunity to demonstrate his disdain for the left. It's something he has in common with Trump, but he's just less boarish & uncouth about it.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I recall the conduct of a politician's online mob was something of particular importance in the recent past. Surely Tanden won't get a pass for the awful conduct of her unhinged pack of freakish followers.

Originally Posted by Craig4

But she's the only nominee being held to that standard.

The standard is unfair & irrational and I'd be happy if everybody dumped it, but I read that as not a serious suggestion but sarcasm highlighting how important some of Biden's defenders acted like it was, back when they were pretending Bernie's supporters acted this way (nevermind the fact that Biden was already the one with by far the worst average behavior from his supporters even back then, and this accusation was a part of it).

Originally Posted by gnome

Having a tough time with this one. I want to oppose war. What might be the appropriate response to rocket attacks, though?

Think bigger. What might be the appropriate response to the fact that even having our people in range of their rockets at all is entirely pointless for us, doing no good for them either, unwelcome over there, and unwanted by the voters here?

The only thing that letting them have the opportunity to shoot at us in the first place accomplishes is giving the pro-war people something to say we must refuse to "surrender to" by leaving.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Quote:

Tim Kaine goes after Biden administration for the Syria strikes last night.

"Offensive military action without congressional approval is not constitutional absent extraordinary circumstances."

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1365317898730889218

Retaliatory attacks are an escalation that hasn't been approved by Congress. The decades of Presidents unilaterally waging war in the Middle East have been nothing but a disaster.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Re: $15 minimum wage as part of covid relief bill:

Quote:

White House National Economic Council Director
@BrianDeeseNEC
reiterates VP Harris won't overrule Senate parliamentarian

"The Vice President is not going to weigh in."

Says, "We'll respect that process"

https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/stat...43142598303746

Democratic ineffectualness is beyond parody.

[Delvo]

...and they're shockingly not touching tax rates either now.

I don't think they're ineffective. I just don't believe their goals are what they've somehow gotten most off their voters to think they are.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Delvo

I find it difficult to believe she has them. I'd actually expect that they're really "a Democrat President can do no wrong no matter what he does" fanatics. There are plenty of those.

(old quote from the Long-Long-Ago, back when her name was first floated for this job)

I can reach no other conclusion but that the divisiveness is the point. Biden never misses an opportunity to demonstrate his disdain for the left. It's something he has in common with Trump, but he's just less boarish & uncouth about it.

The standard is unfair & irrational and I'd be happy if everybody dumped it, but I read that as not a serious suggestion but sarcasm highlighting how important some of Biden's defenders acted like it was, back when they were pretending Bernie's supporters acted this way (nevermind the fact that Biden was already the one with by far the worst average behavior from his supporters even back then, and this accusation was a part of it).

Think bigger. What might be the appropriate response to the fact that even having our people in range of their rockets at all is entirely pointless for us, doing no good for them either, unwelcome over there, and unwanted by the voters here?

The only thing that letting them have the opportunity to shoot at us in the first place accomplishes is giving the pro-war people something to say we must refuse to "surrender to" by leaving.

I hate to say this and have no substantive proof of this. But I think it is possible that she is a pawn sacrifice. The GOP politicians want or need a scalp to justify their jobs. Show they are putting up the fight. So you give them a scalp.

[Silly Green Monkey]

What, there were strikes in Syria recently? I didn't see anything in Current Events. What for?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Delvo

.....
I can reach no other conclusion but that the divisiveness is the point. Biden never misses an opportunity to demonstrate his disdain for the left. It's something he has in common with Trump, but he's just less boarish & uncouth about it.
.....

What's your idea of "left?" By any rational measure, Biden is far to the left of Obama or H. Clinton. The fact that he's not a Sanders acolyte reflects the basic fact that the voting public doesn't place itself very far to the left of center: the Republicans picked up House seats in 2020, and the Senate is split 50/50, and that's largely a fluke that could easily change in 2022. What do you think Biden should -- or could -- do?

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Biden never misses an opportunity to demonstrate his disdain for the left.

That's quite a claim. I've never seen him express such disdain but maybe I just don't have the right eyeballs. I'm sure you can give me a couple of examples for my enlightenment.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

What, there were strikes in Syria recently? I didn't see anything in Current Events. What for?

To poke at a link...

Biden orders airstrikes in Syria, retaliating against Iran-backed militias
Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said Friday the bombing caused “casualties” but said it was too early to say how many fighters were killed or wounded.

Quote:

President Joe Biden on Thursday ordered airstrikes on buildings in Syria that the Pentagon said were used by Iranian-backed militias, in retaliation for rocket attacks on U.S. targets in neighboring Iraq.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Bob001

What's your idea of "left?"

For some people, anyone to the right of Joe Stain or Vlad Lenin is a right winger!

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Bob001

What's your idea of "left?" By any rational measure, Biden is far to the left of Obama or H. Clinton. The fact that he's not a Sanders acolyte reflects the basic fact that the voting public doesn't place itself very far to the left of center: the Republicans picked up House seats in 2020, and the Senate is split 50/50, and that's largely a fluke that could easily change in 2022. What do you think Biden should -- or could -- do?

What are you basing this assessment of Biden as being further left than previous neoliberal democrats? What has he done as President, or in his prior political career, that supports this?

In the 2008, the selection of Biden as the VP was framed as a more conservative element to balance out Obama's perceived progressiveness.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Bob001

What's your idea of "left?" By any rational measure, Biden is far to the left of Obama or H. Clinton. The fact that he's not a Sanders acolyte reflects the basic fact that the voting public doesn't place itself very far to the left of center: the Republicans picked up House seats in 2020, and the Senate is split 50/50, and that's largely a fluke that could easily change in 2022. What do you think Biden should -- or could -- do?

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

What are you basing this assessment of Biden as being further left than previous neoliberal democrats? What has he done as President, or in his prior political career, that supports this?

In the 2008, the selection of Biden as the VP was framed as a more conservative element to balance out Obama's perceived progressiveness.

Precisely. I don't think Biden is left of Obama at all. Hillary, probably. Obama's may have appeared to be further to the right, but I think that Obama failed to understand that you can't trust a Republican. Biden isn't making that mistake. He learned the the GOP doesn't negotiate in good faith.

My father was a labor leader and every couple of years he had to negotiate the wages for his men. One of the things he taught me was to shoot for the moon and with a little luck you'll hit the top of the barn. Where one ends up with an agreement depends on the starting positions of the negotiations. If you only ask for a little, you are likely to get very little. If you ask for a lot, you just might get something reasonable.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

What, there were strikes in Syria recently? I didn't see anything in Current Events. What for?

They shot one or more rockets at our soldiers and killed one, so ours shot back and killed something like 15-20 of theirs who probably were mostly not the ones who'd shot at ours first. Why did they do that first? Because that's what the situation over there promotes more of at any time.

Originally Posted by Bob001

The fact that he's not a Sanders acolyte reflects the basic fact that the voting public doesn't place itself very far to the left of center: the Republicans picked up House seats in 2020, and the Senate is split 50/50, and that's largely a fluke that could easily change in 2022.

Nothing could be further from the reality of modern American politics, and the longer Democrat strategy keeps clinging to this utterly mindless, enormously counterevidenced nonsense, the longer it will keep participating in the country's erosion into even more of a Republican-controlled nightmarescape.

Yes, this latest election was a disaster for the Democrat(ic) Party, with net losses in Congress and most lower legilsatures, and even its big prominent "win" (Biden/Trump) being a dire underperformance, but that's not a rejection of leftward politics by the voters. In fact, it's exactly the opposite: a rejection of those who have failed to lean left. Not only had the DP overall just spent its last couple of years demonstrating its complete uselessness to the left in general, but also, it was the DP's leftist candidates who won their individual elections while its non-leftists did the losing. And just a couple of years ago, the last time there was much of an increase in the number of leftist candidates and much of the talk from & about the party overall was about pushing for leftward policies, was when the party had big gains in elections... especially, again, from its further-left individual candidates. And that was after years of nearly constant net loss of Federal and state seats for Democrats all over the country while the "be more like the Republicans" meme dominated the DP's "strategy" and kept out almost any leftist candidates, totaling over a thousand losses during Obama's Presidency alone.

Recently, for obvious reasons, this argument has been more about how to win the Presidency than the more numerous legislative seats, so the sample size isn't great for spotting statistical trends, but the same thing has been true in that context too: as you were warned of before the latest election, the prediction that people don't vote for leftist Democrats and do vote for Democrats who sound like Republicans failed every single time since at least before Reagan. The only two Democrats in that era who won were the ones who campaigned as lefties, no matter how much the defenders of the "lefties can't win" myth want to distract from that by pointing out how non-leftily they governed once the elections were over, as if that proved that they had campaigned that way in the first place. (Not long ago, I watched some old Bill Clinton campaign speeches and noted every single point he made in them, and found that there was not even one single point anywhere in there at which he ever said a single solitary conservative, triangulatory, or capitulatory thing. I was actually expecting a few exceptions to the overall pattern just on the general principle that most such rules probably have exceptions, but they just weren't there. The brilliant response I got, from the only purveyor of this myth of Clinton having campaigned from a "moderate" position who responded at all, was a whine that it was a "wall of text". In other words, if the examples demonstrating that the claim is false are too numerous, they don't count just because there are too many of them to matter. Such is the desperation to sustain the myth against all reality.)

"But wait!", I hear some purveyors of the myth of how to determine Democrat electability say, "We finally got our first Presidential example on our side just a few months ago! Surely that means what we've been claiming all along is true now, because that one exception proves that all the hundreds & hundreds of examples consistently going the other way must all be flukes!". But no, at best, Biden's pitiful excuse for a win just means the rule of how Presidential elections work is no longer the simple absolute it was before, but now just requires a tiny caveat. Instead of still being able to point out that a "moderate"/"centrist"/Republicanoid Democrat never wins the Presidency in the modern era as we could before, now we need to add "...unless he happens to be blessed with the most unpopular candidate ever as an opponent... during a second great depression... and a plague... which that opponent happens to deliberately make much worse... in which case it might be possible to barely squeak by with the tiniest margin in ages (43000 votes in certain places)". Well congratulations, you finally got your caveat; your myth finally gets "upgraded" from wrong absolutely every single time to wrong absolutely every single time but one under excruciatingly special circumstances which will probably never recur. I hope you manage to stay happy about that while continuing to push obviously false nonsense that only results in constantly handing everything over the RP.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Yes, this latest election was a disaster for the Democrat(ic) Party, with net losses in Congress and most lower legilsatures, and even its big prominent "win" (Biden/Trump) being a dire underperformance, but that's not a rejection of leftward politics by the voters. In fact, it's exactly the opposite: a rejection of those who have failed to lean left.

If that is true when it's time for me to think about leaving this country, because the radicals are taking over and civil war is not far away.

But is it true? Voter turnout in 2020 was the highest since 1900, so all those leftists who 'rejected those who have failed to lean left' didn't stay home, they voted for someone. There was no swing to third parties, so that means 'leftists' voted for Republicans rather than Democrats. What kind of 'leftist' does that? Answer: one who isn't a leftist.

But perhaps there was another reason for the 'unperformance'. What do you notice about this list of House Democrats who lost re-election to Republicans in 2020.

Quote:

California 21: TJ Cox (first elected in 2018) lost to David Valadao.
California 39: Gil Cisneros (first elected in 2018) lost to Young Kim.
California 48: Harley Rouda (first elected in 2018) lost to Michelle Steel.
Florida 26: Debbie Mucarsel-Powell (first elected in 2018) lost to Carlos Giménez.
Florida 27: Donna Shalala (first elected in 2018) lost to Maria Elvira Salazar.
Iowa 1: Abby Finkenauer (first elected in 2018) lost to Ashley Hinson.
Minnesota 7: Collin Peterson (first elected in 1990) lost to Michelle Fischbach.
New Mexico 2: Xochitl Torres Small (first elected in 2018) lost to Yvette Herrell.
New York 11: Max Rose (first elected in 2018) lost to Nicole Malliotakis.
New York 22: Anthony Brindisi (first elected in 2018) lost to Claudia Tenney.
Oklahoma 5: Kendra Horn (first elected in 2018) lost to Stephanie Bice.
South Carolina 1: Joe Cunningham (first elected in 2018) lost to Nancy Mace.
Utah 4: Ben McAdams (first elected in 2018) lost to Burgess Owens.

Why did they lose to Republicans? Not because they weren't 'left' enough for the voters, but because they weren't Republican enough. The real reason for the 'underperfomance' is simple - a swing back from the swing towards Democrats in 2018. This swing occurred in the middle where voters are attracted to moderate candidates, not radicals.

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Why did they lose to Republicans? Not because they weren't 'left' enough for the voters, but because they weren't Republican enough. The real reason for the 'underperfomance' is simple - a swing back from the swing towards Democrats in 2018. This swing occurred in the middle where voters are attracted to moderate candidates, not radicals.

The incumbency effect is indeed weakest for the newest incumbents, but if that were it then the effect would have hit people with various positions on policies randomly. Instead the ones who stood for things like M4A and a livable minimum wage got re-elected and the ones who didn't didn't. And that was also true for non-incumbents.

And remember, even if that pattern hadn't held, you would at best have an argument that policies & goals don't matter, not one for the original claim I was countering: that going left harms Democrats' chances. Even if the evidence didn't actually point in the opposite direction, that wouldn't conjure up any pointing in that direction.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Voter turnout in 2020 was the highest since 1900, so all those leftists who 'rejected those who have failed to lean left' didn't stay home, they voted for someone.

Not necessarily; I don't know the statistics of what really happened in this case but it's possible for one group to "stay home" while another group more than makes up for it, and Trump appears to have been uniquely good at drawing out voters against himself regardless of what their voting behavior in Trumpless years might have been. However, that would just mean the "staying home" crowd was a stubborn fringe too small to usually affect the big picture anyway, and I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about most Americans.

Most Americans, even most Republicans, are in favor of M4A, along with comparable alternatives like a "public option". Most Americans, even most Republicans, want a livable minimum wage. Most Americans don't want us to still be hanging around in foreign "wars" that seem to serve no purpose. Most Americans want politicians not to be allowed to take bribes. Most Americans want higher tax rates on the rich. Most Americans want more money invested in various domestic programs and less in the military. And it goes on down the line, one issue after another, with the leftier position practically always being the more popular one. You have to get down the line to some fairly insignificant stuff, like interpretations of the word "atheist", to find anything that doesn't go that way. The left isn't a fringe; it's most of us. It's the real "middle". The middle among politicians is a fake middle that's well to the right of the people.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

There was no swing to third parties, so that means 'leftists' voted for Republicans rather than Democrats. What kind of 'leftist' does that? Answer: one who isn't a leftist.

Or one who isn't a Democrat partisan; one who picks policies one issue at a time without thinking of the bigger framework they fit into or insisting that the DP must really want their preferred ideas even when it really hasn't been acting like it.

(But also, yes, there is also the point that left & right isn't really the best spectrum along which to analyze American politics anyway; populism & its opposite is. And populism is mostly more easily aligned with leftiness, but a Republican can also appear populist sometimes too. And doing so improves the odds of getting elected for both parties. That's how we got Trump and almost got Trump again (and practically certainly would have if we hadn't been saved from that by a plague). He was the candidate who acknowledged that America has problems to fix while his opponent both times pretended everything's fine. However, populism being generally a more natural fit for the left does make left/right often a reasonable proxy for talking about stuff that actually works or doesn't primarily based on populism or lack thereof anyway.)

[SuburbanTurkey]

Quote:

POLITICS
White House defends decision not to punish Saudi crown prince, says U.S. does not sanction foreign leaders

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/28/whit...rince-mbs.html

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Precisely. I don't think Biden is left of Obama at all. Hillary, probably. Obama's may have appeared to be further to the right, but I think that Obama failed to understand that you can't trust a Republican. Biden isn't making that mistake. He learned the the GOP doesn't negotiate in good faith.

Obama was, prior to running, flat-out in favor of marriage equality, and said that he'd be for M4A were it not for the fact that it'd never pass congress.

He was actually wrong on the latter, as Liebermen would have happily tossed everything out for so much as a public option or Medicare being expanded to people 55 and up - as well as a few proposals that he had himself endorsed before then.

But yes, at the moment the main opponents for $15 minimum wage are Manchin and Sinema, not just the GOP. Meanwhile, Biden all but endorsed unionization in Alabama (something Obama didn't do)), and I've never seen him express disdain for the left (as opposed to disagreement - a seperate matter)

[Delvo]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Obama failed to understand that you can't trust a Republican. Biden isn't making that mistake.

He's withdrawn his comments insisting how rational & reasonable the Republicans would become once Trump was out of office?

And withdrawn his years of talking about the wonderfulness of his former ultimate goal in politics, bipartisanship & reaching across the aisle?

And advocated getting rid of the filibuster so his own party wouldn't be entirely crippled in the Senate?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Reporter in press briefing asks Psaki if WH is pushing harder for Tanden than for $15/hour minimum wage.

Psaki: "That's mixing a few things kind of irresponsibly, if I'm just being totally honest."

https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/stat...689206278?s=19

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Reporter in press briefing asks Psaki if WH is pushing harder for Tanden than for $15/hour minimum wage.

Psaki: "That's mixing a few things kind of irresponsibly, if I'm just being totally honest."

https://twitter.com/JStein_WaPo/stat...689206278?s=19

That's not really an unreasonable response. The reporter could just as easily have asked "Do you want more covid vaccines or a $15 minimum?" You can want both, and more. In this particular case, if the Senate votes thumbs down on Tanden, she's done. But there may still be mechanisms to get to a $15 minimum, even if it's not in the relief package. So Tanden is the immediate concern.

[Delvo]

Invalid analogy

The question wasn't "do you want X or Y". It was about fighting for X and not fighting for Y. That's an invitation to offer some other reason to argue for X and not Y other than simply not really wanting Y. (And she didn't give one.)

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Delvo

He's withdrawn his comments insisting how rational & reasonable the Republicans would become once Trump was out of office?

And withdrawn his years of talking about the wonderfulness of his former ultimate goal in politics, bipartisanship & reaching across the aisle?

Can you provide evidence of Biden claiming those things specifically.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by Delvo

Invalid analogy

The question wasn't "do you want X or Y". It was about fighting for X and not fighting for Y.

Invalid reply. It was not about "not fighting for Y" but rather the question was which one was the WH pushing for more than the other. The unstated assumption behind the question was that the WH can't walk and chew gum at the same time. So the answer basically said that they can, only more politely.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Delvo

even its big prominent "win" (Biden/Trump) being a dire underperformance, but that's not a rejection of leftward politics by the voters.

Say what? Biden had the most votes ever, and beat Trump by a large margin. That's a pretty good win.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Say what? Biden had the most votes ever, and beat Trump by a large margin. That's a pretty good win.

And yet Trump could have won the election if around 43,000 votes in three states had gone the other way. That should chill us all.

Quote:

If Trump picked up the right mix of 42,921 votes in Arizona (10,457), Georgia (11,779), and Wisconsin (20,682), the Electoral College would have been tied at 269 all. The House would have then decided the election. Republicans will hold the majority of state delegations in the new Congress, and they undoubtedly would have chosen Trump.

https://www.cfr.org/blog/2020-election-numbers

Quote:

But if Trump had managed to get those 45,000 votes, he would have won 37 more electoral votes, making the electoral college a 269-to-269 tie. Under the Constitution, the election would have then been decided by the House of Representatives, with each state delegation getting just one vote. Even though Democrats have a majority in the House, more state delegations have Republican majorities. Trump would have been reelected.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ser-than-2016/

[Silly Green Monkey]

I think that's better, that he lost because votes didn't go his way, than in 2016 when because a tiny fraction of his lesser overall pool of votes were in the right spots, he won.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Bob001

And yet Trump could have won the election if around 43,000 votes in three states had gone the other way. That should chill us all.

https://www.cfr.org/blog/2020-election-numbers


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ser-than-2016/

That's not an 'underperformance' by Biden, that is a flaw in the system.

[gnome]

Frankly, Republicans having a majority of state delegations is a flaw in the system already. How many of those states are Republicans in the majority of representation only because of the way districts are drawn?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Should $15 minimum wage be stymied in the Senate, it's because VP Harris chose for that to happen. The Parliamentarian is not the presiding officer and Harris has complete discretion to rule whether increasing the wage can pass through the budget reconciliation process.

Quote:

When people say that the parliamentarian ruled that the minimum wage hike violates the Byrd Rule, what they are saying is that the parliamentarian has declared that she would advise the presiding officer to sustain a point of order that claimed that the minimum wage hike “produces changes in outlays or revenues which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision.” The presiding officer does not have to defer to the parliamentarian’s opinion on how to rule on the point of order, nor should the presiding officer take that advice where the question is how to interpret a vague phrase in the Congressional Budget Act...

What she should not do is pretend like her hands are tied by some other person with no authority saying that they read that phrase as excluding the minimum wage. It is not the parliamentarian’s call. It never has been the parliamentarian’s call. It is Harris’s call and, if the provision is stripped out of the reconciliation bill, it will be her fault.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org...ule-questions/

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Should $15 minimum wage be stymied in the Senate, it's because VP Harris chose for that to happen. The Parliamentarian is not the presiding officer and Harris has complete discretion to rule whether increasing the wage can pass through the budget reconciliation process.

When will the Democrats realize they're in the majority and start acting that way?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

When will the Democrats realize they're in the majority and start acting that way?

Partly because they have people like Manchin in their party, who might be a democrat but is also a moderate who often opposes many of the more progressive policies (like the $15 minimum wage and the filibuster).

Perhaps after the 2022 midterms, if the Democrats hold on to their majority in the house and expand their majority in the senate, they will have more flexibility to push for more.