The Biden-Harris Era

Sabin
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8869
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby Sabin » Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:19 am

Heksagon wrote
John Garner in 1940 counts, right?

I don’t know. I guess? That one seems like an outlier because he was running against his own President. That really never happens.

My point is, history would suggest that if Mike Pence is running, he's got a shot at getting that nomination, regardless of whatever we're being told about Trump voters hating him. Is there any candidate that could run that would have a stronger hold on the evangelical vote? Which has nothing to say about his pull as an elder statesman. That said and forgive me for being cocky, but if Mike Pence is the GOP nominee, I think he can be beaten. I have no doubt he'll do better than people think but Mike Pence is a fatal combination of boring AND a fanatic.
"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough." ~ FDR

Heksagon
Adjunct
Posts: 1198
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby Heksagon » Mon Apr 12, 2021 1:35 am

John Garner in 1940 counts, right?

Sabin
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8869
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby Sabin » Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:49 am

So, I just realized something. Joe Biden recently joined a grand tradition of Vice Presidents/Former Vice Presidents who later got their party's nomination (if not the Presidency). Over the last 120-ish years, how many Vice Presidents and Former Vice Presidents have run for their party nomination and lost?

Dan Quayle is the most famous of them. He opted out in '96 and dropped out after placing low in the '99 straw poll. I remember hearing he would run in '99 and thinking he was old news by then. Would Dan Quayle even count as mounting a Presidential campaign?

Alben Barkley and Thomas Marshall put them names into consideration at their party's conventions. But theirs was the party in power. And once you get earlier than that, the game gets so much murkier because of party rules. (does Adlai Stevenson count for 1896?)

Charles Fairbanks ran in his party's primaries in 1916 after his party split and lost in 1912. I guess Fairbanks counts. But that's really it over the course of 120-ish years. Every other time a Former Vice President made a proper go of it, they got the nomination.

I'm asking because if Mike Pence decides to run -- which he almost certainly will -- history would be on his side to get his party's nomination, wouldn't it? Regardless of however we are taking the temperature of the party.

The irony is that the other true exception to this rule (Charles Fairbanks) was also from Indiana. So if Pence lost, he would also be part of a grand tradition.
"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough." ~ FDR

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 17503
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby Big Magilla » Tue Apr 06, 2021 1:30 am


Yes, it's good news, but only if they use it before something else goes off the rails.

It still doesn't get them any closer to passing voting rights laws. Filibuster reform or abolishment is the only thing that will get them that.

Sabin
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8869
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby Sabin » Mon Apr 05, 2021 10:46 pm

"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough." ~ FDR

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 17503
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby Big Magilla » Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:11 pm

Sabin wrote:
Big Magilla wrote
Regarding potential primary changes, Nevada and South Caroline make more sense than Iowa and New Hampshire with their more diverse populations, but only as a temporary fix.

You mean as only a "partial" fix, right? You want campaign finance reform as well as a change of the primary calendar, correct?

Both. I meant Nevada and South Carolina would be a good change under present circumstances but eventually I think we should get to a point where primaries are simultaneous throughout the electorate. Mostly though, I want uniform election laws throughout the country, an end to the electoral college and on-line voting, enough of this bullshit from reactionary state legislatures trying to drive us back into the stone age.

Sabin
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8869
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby Sabin » Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:33 pm

Big Magilla wrote
Regarding potential primary changes, Nevada and South Caroline make more sense than Iowa and New Hampshire with their more diverse populations, but only as a temporary fix.

You mean as only a "partial" fix, right? You want campaign finance reform as well as a change of the primary calendar, correct?
"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough." ~ FDR

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 17503
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby Big Magilla » Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:29 pm

Regarding potential primary changes, Nevada and South Caroline make more sense than Iowa and New Hampshire with their more diverse populations, but only as a temporary fix. What we really need is campaign reform that includes a limit to the number of ads and TV appearances a candidate is allowed to make in a given period of time as well as the amount of money he or she is allowed to spend.

Sabin
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8869
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby Sabin » Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:57 pm

I'm obsessed with how many people Matt Gaetz is going to bring down with him.
"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough." ~ FDR

Sabin
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8869
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby Sabin » Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:41 pm

Democrats are looking to shake up the order of primary states. Couple of thoughts on my part:
1) Why can't they just reorganize the primary based on the closest margins of win or loss in the previous election and work outward from there? That way, the candidate we choose represents the choice of whatever the new swing state is? In 2024, it would be 1. Georgia, 2. Arizona, 3. Wisconsin, 4 Pennsylvania. And then, like, 5-10 are Super Tuesday? California and New York always go basically last.
2) The narrative of the article seems to be that South Carolina is the best option to begin the primary. That probably makes sense today, but we shouldn't make the mistake of looking to South Carolina as historically always choosing the best candidates for the general. Like George Wallace ('76), Jesse Jackson ('84, '88), sure, Bill Clinton ('92), sure, Al Gore ('00), and John Edwards ('04). And has been already pointed out, Obama probably wouldn't be the nominee in 2008 if South Carolina went first. (Jim Clyburn is being disingenuous by saying South Carolina "rescued" Obama).
3) The eventual Democratic nominee got second and first in the third and fourth state, but got fourth and fifth in the first and second state. Yes, something needs to change. And our current primary order artificially inflated the candidacy of Pete Buttigieg, who dropped off as soon as he needed the support of black voters.



https://apple.news/AWTg1_dOKQVuVjZ-FKCfISg

Dems could dethrone Iowa

The party, uncomfortable with the overwhelmingly white state's sway, is thinking about blowing up its presidential primary calendar.

Democratic Party leaders are considering overhauling the 2024 presidential primary calendar, a transformation that would include ousting Iowa and New Hampshire from their cherished perches as the first states to vote.

Senior party leaders and Democratic National Committee members are privately exploring the idea of pushing South Carolina and Nevada to the front of the primary election schedule, as well as the possibility of multiple states holding the first nominating contest on the same day.

Two political heavyweights with longtime bonds to President Joe Biden — South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn and former Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada — are among those discussing the possible changes.

Both have long insisted that Iowa and New Hampshire have an outsize role in framing the presidential contest despite being unrepresentative of the rest of the country.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate to have those two states to set the tone. It’s really a false premise that if you do well in Iowa and New Hampshire you’re going to do well across the country. That was proven wrong with Joe Biden,” Reid said in an interview. “There’s no diversity in Iowa. There’s certainly no diversity in New Hampshire.”

Interviews with more than a dozen Democratic leaders, DNC members and state party officials reveal that intense behind-the-scenes jockeying is already underway, with conversations ranging from reconfiguring the early state order to moving up Southern or Rust Belt states in the timeline.

Reid and Clyburn both make the case for their states voting first. But Clyburn said he wouldn’t lobby for it and would leave the decision to newly installed party chairman Jaime Harrison and the DNC.

Reid said he and Clyburn had spoken several times about the timing and possibility of both states going at the same time. But, the former Senate Leader said, he would be comfortable with South Carolina taking the lead, if necessary.

“I’m not going to arm wrestle Jim Clyburn,” Reid said.

The outline of the 2024 presidential nominating process is coming under scrutiny in part because of Iowa’s botched 2020 caucuses, which failed to deliver a clear winner at a time when the Democratic Party’s increasing diversity focused attention on the state’s predominantly white electorate. Elevating South Carolina’s role would pay homage to a changing electoral map, where Southern voters — including in Georgia — stepped up to support Biden in the general election.

Similar political and demographic considerations are at play in Nevada, where Reid has advocated ending caucuses altogether and the state Legislature is considering a proposal to do so.

Within the DNC, Democrats have talked about various approaches, including multiple states going first on the same day — such as Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina all voting together on a single date. Regional primaries are another option where, for instance, Iowa and another Midwestern state could vote at the same time.

“Many of us believe that the first four could be consolidated, and still provide a small-state focus,” said Larry Cohen, a longtime DNC member who was vice chair of the party’s post-2016 Unity Reform Commission. He also called for “further calendar consolidation so that states like New York and New Jersey actually mean something."

But there’s already pushback to the idea of challenging the traditional order. New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley said adding multiple states at once would mean a TV-driven campaign, supplanting the intimacy that comes when an individual state is the sole focus of all the campaigns.

“People have been kicking around that flawed concept for decades,” Buckley said. “Only the self funders or celebrity candidates would be able to compete. Without question, that plan would have prevented JFK, Carter, Clinton, Obama and Biden from ever being nominated. It would make having hundreds of millions for slick TV ads more important than one-on-one conversations with people. That idea should stay in the trash can of discarded ideas.”

When told Buckley referred to the concept of consolidating early state contests as flawed, Reid shot back, “I think he’s flawed to think that’s a bad idea,” and dismissed the idea of candidates not visiting the states as “baloney.”

Reid and Clyburn contend that Biden himself is the case in point for rethinking the current Iowa-followed-by-New-Hampshire setup: The president came in fourth and fifth respectively in those states before landing second in Nevada and carrying South Carolina.

“Those states demographically do not represent the Democratic voting bloc. They should not have an outsize influence,” Clyburn said. While Barack Obama had won Iowa in 2008, he lost New Hampshire to Hillary Clinton, Clyburn noted.

“South Carolina rescued Obama. If Obama had not won South Carolina, he would never have gotten the nomination. It’s that simple.”

“South Carolina is a state that gives Democratic candidates the best chance for developing a national primary,” he said.

According to some Democrats, the task of pushing for South Carolina to go first — unaccompanied by other states — could be politically sensitive for Harrison due to his home state ties: He previously served as chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party and ran for the Senate there in 2020. For that reason, some expect him to avoid that path.

“I think he’ll be very cautious about South Carolina, because almost his total life experience since law school was there,” said one DNC member. “He’s not a heavy-handed person at all.”

Pennsylvania is another state that might see its status change. There has been talk of Pennsylvania, Biden’s birthstate and a critical battleground, voting earlier in the calendar along with similar Rust Belt states.

Sharif Street, vice chair of Pennsylvania’s Democratic Party, said that after the primary last year he spoke with other state parties about creating a "Rust Belt primary” in which multiple Midwestern states would vote during the second week of March. He said DNC leadership at the time did not oppose the idea.

“I expect it will come back,” he said of the proposal. “It would allow candidates in the primary to focus on messaging on issues that are important to people in Pennsylvania and people in areas like Pennsylvania. Our issues can be a little different than issues in other regions of the country."

DNC members said they are also talking about instituting changes to the caucus process, such as making it easier for people to vote absentee and streamlining the allocation of delegates — including perhaps ending Iowa’s “state delegate equivalents” and utilizing a headcount instead.

Attempting to eliminate caucuses altogether — not just in Iowa, but across the country — is also on the table, said one DNC member. The committee could do this by refusing to count delegates from states that use them, the person said.

“The general chatter consensus seems to be that caucuses should go, and everyone should have a primary election,” they added. “And that one state can’t be first-in-the-nation anymore.”

But a DNC official said not all states provide funding for government-run primaries and that there must be a way for such states to participate in the nominating process.

As for state delegate equivalents, the official said the party gives flexibility to states to determine how they allocate delegates, and it is unlikely it would write a rule on such a specific circumstance.

Critics of caucuses argue that they make it harder for disabled and older people, as well as those who work on weekends or at night, to vote. After the 2016 presidential election, the DNC advised states to use primaries “where possible.” Their reputation has fallen only further since the Iowa debacle last year.

Iowa is not without its defenders, though.

“There still is a lot of political capital around Iowa and New Hampshire that I think some people may underestimate inside the party,” said another DNC member. “Those two states have a long history, especially New Hampshire with Chair Buckley, and longstanding relationships” with those in the DNC.

Jim Zogby, a longtime member of the DNC, said, “I have always been a fan of the Iowa caucuses. I remain a fan of the Iowa caucuses.”

He called the idea of consolidating several states for the first voting day a “horrible" idea: “If you do Super Tuesday the first day, then the guy with the biggest money wins."

Iowa Democratic Party Chair Ross Wilburn said in a statement that he is “committed” to advocating to party leaders why the state should go first.

“Not only that, but the opportunity Iowa has created for presidents, leaders in our party, campaign staff, and volunteers to connect with voters and have critical debates about the future of our country,” he said. “We’re very early in this process but, as we do every four years, we’re willing to talk with folks about the importance of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation role and make improvements to our system to make it stronger and more accessible."

"Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough." ~ FDR

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 17503
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby Big Magilla » Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:13 pm

I never thought of any of Trumps' predecessors as evil, misguided and wrong, yes, but not evil. Even Nixon I could feel sorry for, for the way in which he was forced to resign even though he brought it on himself, but Trump was and is pure evil. There's nothing he can do that will ever convince me otherwise.

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2822
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby criddic3 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:57 pm

I don't know when he developed Alzheimer's but it was well before it was publicly disclosed. It was clearly evident by his second term to anyone who didn't have blinders on. You could see it in his responses at press conferences and other public speaking engagements where he had to respond to questions. Either Nancy or one of his trusted advisors would whisper the answer to him or he would stare blankly which would be interpreted by the too kindly press of the day as his ignoring the question to put the questioner in his or her place.


It is speculated by historians that the wound Reagan suffered in his assassination attempt, as well as a fall post-presidency precipitated his Alzheimer's. So it is not unreasonable to assume some early signs may have been there very late in his second term, although he could be quite sharp even after he left office. We should remember he was already the oldest elected president up to that time and seniors do have "senior moments," so it is rather difficult to say that he was deep into it that early (he was diagnosed in 1994). He made a warmly received speech at the 1992 Republican National Convention, though it wasn't among his blockbuster moments. So I'm not certain you can imply he wasn't all there when he was president.

I was a Republican for 22 years, from 1996 to 2018, but never considered myself a hardliner on many of the core issues. I liked their talk about responsible government and strong defense. But over the years I found that many of their signature themes were never followed through on, such as fixing the debt and deficit. They would always drum up that topic during Democratic administrations but then never do anything about it when they had the power. I also came to really dislike the Tea Party movement, which at first seemed like a "let's reign in government" thing but turned into a nastier social fringe group. I hated that Mitch McConnell was always just blocking everything instead of working to solve problems when President Obama was in office, especially blocking the Merrick Garland nomination to the Supreme Court which did seem opportunistic and greedy. But it wasn't until Trump came on the scene as an actual candidate that I knew the party was doomed.

I have no problem with someone raising opposition or concerns about any president, but I do think it kind of undermines the case when every Republican, for example, is called an idiot or evil. Reagan, to a lesser extent the first Bush, and then W. It's like the Boy Who Cried Wolf. "This is the worst president ever!" and then when Trump comes along, who truly is a terrible president, it rings hollow for a lot of people and they feel justified in sticking with him because they've heard that song before. On the flip side, you have Republicans saying that President Biden has dementia and that he's a gateway to a Communist takeover. I mean the extreme caricature of either party allows people to be as apathetic about politics as they have become. If the leaders are all bad, or all the same, why does it matter who holds the power?
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 17503
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby Big Magilla » Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:35 am

You left out that Reagan was a Democrat before he met Nancy and that Jane Wyman left him because he talked too much.

I did get my Bush initials wrong. He wasn't W. who called him out on his voodoo economics, it was his father whose middle initials were H.W.

Reagan wasn't a great actor, but he was a competent one. He had a winning personality that endeared him to many of his fellow actors, and later the country and the world at large, which is what got him elected to the presidency of the Screen Actors Guild and later the governorship of California.

Reagan's affability charmed many, including swarms of Democrats who followed him down the garden path. He did a lot of bone-headed things as governor, including closing down state-run mental institutions which created the rampant homelessness which still exists today, first in California, then by the copycats around the country.

His tax cuts as president were the first to benefit the rich and screw the middle class in my lifetime. The only tax deductions I could take as a renter in the early 80s was for reimbursement of state sales tax which was eliminated by his tax cuts for the rich.

I don't know when he developed Alzheimer's but it was well before it was publicly disclosed. It was clearly evident by his second term to anyone who didn't have blinders on. You could see it in his responses at press conferences and other public speaking engagements where he had to respond to questions. Either Nancy or one of his trusted advisors would whisper the answer to him or he would stare blankly which would be interpreted by the too kindly press of the day as his ignoring the question to put the questioner in his or her place.

While I have been a registered Democrat since my first election, I always vote for the person I think will do the best job regardless of party. For example, in California, I voted for Schwartzenegger twice because the Democrats he was running against were jackasses. I can say, however, that I never voted for a Republican for President because I always found the Democrats running to be the better choice.

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2822
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby criddic3 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:38 am

Big Magilla wrote:
The Reagan thing I never got. He was an actor whose greatest performance was his pretending to be president while his writers wrote the lines for him and his wife fed him the lines when he couldn't remember them which was all the time when he wasn't in front of a teleprompter. He was the worst president between Nixon and Trump, but you'll never convince the bulk of the population of that. History will eventually paint a much less flattering picture of him than all those who fell for his voodoo economics as George W. Bush rightly called them before he, too, drank the Kool-Aid.


Actually this is factually and historically wrong. I may have switched parties, but I'm not going to let someone throw Reagan under the bus with a falsehood. Oppose his policies, even dislike the man, but the truth is he wrote a lot of his own material though he did have (like they all do) speech writers. He wasn't an airhead. He had real ideas about where the country should go, right or wrong. Not only was he an actor for nearly three decades, but he was elected 7 times as the President of the Screen Actors Guild and later became a two-term Governor of California. Obviously people liked him and thought he did a good job for them. He wrote most of his own speeches while working for General Motors and he also wrote his "Time for Choosing" speech supporting Barry Goldwater in 1964, which got much praise and attention, launching his own political career. So whether you liked him or not doesn't mean he was an empty suit. I don't think it's fair for one side to say that about every leader of the opposition party. There are good and bad leaders in both parties. But somehow Reagan and Bush are simply idiots to hardline Democrats. That's like the Republicans in my family who think Clinton and Obama were "evil people out to destroy the country." I think that's unfair, too, even if I didn't vote for them at the time.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021

Okri
Tenured
Posts: 2910
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: The Biden-Harris Era

Postby Okri » Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:13 pm

Sabin wrote:It's worth writing somewhere but the Atlanta Spa Shooting was super racist.

Also I'm not usually the first to call on law enforcement to resign. But the combination of Sheriff Baker saying that Robert Aaron Long wasn't racist but was just having a bad day (trying to protect him) plus his social media promoting sales of an T-shirt referring to the coronavirus as an “imported virus from Chy-na" probably can't go without consequence.


The official response doesn't make me feel better.


Return to “Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest