nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Mar 25, 2020 18:32:44 GMT
Biden seems unwilling to do an April debate against Sanders saying that: "My focus is just dealing with this crisis right now. I haven’t thought about any more debates. I think we’ve had enough debates. I think we should get on with this."
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Mar 25, 2020 18:35:57 GMT
Stay Alive, Joe Biden - Democrats need little from the front-runner beyond his corporeal presence"Voters seem to have coalesced around Biden for his past—who they have known him to be for the past four decades in American politics—rather than for anything in his present. It’s as if Biden exists primarily as an idea, rather than an actual candidate." "For the foreseeable future, there will be no more speeches in front of hundreds, or lines of people waiting to shake Biden’s hand. There may not even be the glossy fanfare of a convention with a prime-time address. But, truthfully, all those things were always sort of beside the point. Like on that morning in McClellandville, and countless other ones besides, Biden was never really convincing anyone on the stump—his political power at this point is an idea, held collectively, about how to defeat Trump. The work now is to keep that idea convincing enough, for long enough, among as many people as possible, for the corporeal man to actually win."
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,235
|
Post by maxque on Mar 25, 2020 18:36:05 GMT
Biden seems unwilling to do an April debate against Sanders saying that: "My focus is just dealing with this crisis right now. I haven’t thought about any more debates. I think we’ve had enough debates. I think we should get on with this." In which was does he deal with the crisis? Sanders, as a senator, is dealing more with the crisis than Biden.
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Mar 25, 2020 18:49:40 GMT
Stay Alive, Joe Biden - Democrats need little from the front-runner beyond his corporeal presence"For the foreseeable future, there will be no more speeches in front of hundreds, or lines of people waiting to shake Biden’s hand. There may not even be the glossy fanfare of a convention with a prime-time address. But, truthfully, all those things were always sort of beside the point. Like on that morning in McClellandville, and countless other ones besides, Biden was never really convincing anyone on the stump—his political power at this point is an idea, held collectively, about how to defeat Trump. The work now is to keep that idea convincing enough, for long enough, among as many people as possible, for the corporeal man to actually win." This is Clintonesque complacency and should be seen as nothing but.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 25, 2020 18:54:16 GMT
The idea of a debate in April is ridiculous given the present circumstances. Given that the amount of states now voting on 2nd June makes it impossible for Biden to secure the nomination before then a debate in May, when things might be starting to return to normal, seems like a more rational idea.
|
|
nelson
Non-Aligned
Posts: 2,645
|
Post by nelson on Mar 25, 2020 19:09:16 GMT
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 25, 2020 19:58:02 GMT
Sanders wants a debate in April to pretend that he’s somehow still relevant. Biden doesn’t want a debate in April because he’s already shifted his attention to the general election, evidenced by the hiring and firing of campaign staff, but is trying to avoid looking presumptuous by saying any of the above publicly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2020 20:13:59 GMT
Sanders wants a debate in April to pretend that he’s somehow still relevant. Biden doesn’t want a debate in April because he’s already shifted his attention to the general election, evidenced by the hiring and firing of campaign staff, but is trying to avoid looking presumptuous by saying any of the above publicly. Primary isn't over yet 🙂 Even when it is, Sanders will remain relevant in the sense that if enough of his voters stay home, Trump wins. For example, in Minnesota Sanders' strongest showing was in the most Democratic Congressional District. I do think Biden has to offer something to Sanders supporters that is more than not being Donald Trump.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2020 20:15:15 GMT
Is the general election even going to happen
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Mar 25, 2020 20:34:38 GMT
Is the general election even going to happen Then step forward President Patrick Leahy. No election - no President, no Vice-President, no House of Representatives. No Senate elections and most defending are Republicans.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 25, 2020 20:39:22 GMT
Is the general election even going to happen Then step forward President Patrick Leahy. No election - no President, no Vice-President, no House of Representatives. No Senate elections and most defending are Republicans. It would be President Chuck Grassley unless there’s a change of Party control of the Senate. Leahy was given the courtesy title of President Pro-Tem Emeritus, but as the longest continually serving Senator of the Majority Party, Grassley is the actual President Pro-Tem of the Senate.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 25, 2020 20:39:56 GMT
Sanders wants a debate in April to pretend that he’s somehow still relevant. Biden doesn’t want a debate in April because he’s already shifted his attention to the general election, evidenced by the hiring and firing of campaign staff, but is trying to avoid looking presumptuous by saying any of the above publicly. Primary isn't over yet 🙂 Even when it is, Sanders will remain relevant in the sense that if enough of his voters stay home, Trump wins. For example, in Minnesota Sanders' strongest showing was in the most Democratic Congressional District. I do think Biden has to offer something to Sanders supporters that is more than not being Donald Trump. You mean he should stand down?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2020 20:44:35 GMT
Primary isn't over yet 🙂 Even when it is, Sanders will remain relevant in the sense that if enough of his voters stay home, Trump wins. For example, in Minnesota Sanders' strongest showing was in the most Democratic Congressional District. I do think Biden has to offer something to Sanders supporters that is more than not being Donald Trump. You mean he should stand down? I think Biden should agree not to veto Medicare for All if it passes.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 25, 2020 20:45:31 GMT
Then step forward President Patrick Leahy. No election - no President, no Vice-President, no House of Representatives. No Senate elections and most defending are Republicans. It would be President Chuck Grassley unless there’s a change of Party control of the Senate. Leahy was given the courtesy title of President Pro-Tem Emeritus, but as the longest continually serving Senator of the Majority Party, Grassley is the actual President Pro-Tem of the Senate. The point is that the GOP would lose their majority if no elections take place as they are defending about two thirds of the seats up for re-election.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 25, 2020 20:46:57 GMT
You mean he should stand down? I think Biden should agree not to veto Medicare for All if it passes. Meaningless since it won't pass and everyone knows it. However Biden has already hinted at many policy concessions towards the Sanders wing of the party.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 25, 2020 20:53:10 GMT
You mean he should stand down? I think Biden should agree not to veto Medicare for All if it passes. There are two lots of possible Bernie supporters who may not bother to vote for Biden. I would be in the first group and would be very unlikely to vote for him irrespective of his promises The second are those who just won't be motivated to vote at all and may be tempted by that sort of offer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2020 21:12:22 GMT
I think Biden should agree not to veto Medicare for All if it passes. Meaningless since it won't pass and everyone knows it. However Biden has already hinted at many policy concessions towards the Sanders wing of the party. With that attitude...
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Mar 25, 2020 21:28:30 GMT
It would be President Chuck Grassley unless there’s a change of Party control of the Senate. Leahy was given the courtesy title of President Pro-Tem Emeritus, but as the longest continually serving Senator of the Majority Party, Grassley is the actual President Pro-Tem of the Senate. The point is that the GOP would lose their majority if no elections take place as they are defending about two thirds of the seats up for re-election. According to the Congressional Research Service in a paper produced after 9/11 if there are no elections Governors appoint Senators to the seats up for election. Realistically I think it’d be a huge risk to that Governor not to reappoint the incumbent, so potentially the only change would be Kansas where Pat Roberts is in poor health. If we went on partisan governors appointing people from their own party Doug Jones still loses Alabama, Cory Gardiner may be replaced by a Democratic Governor in Colorado, I’d be “surprised” if Steve Beshear or John Bel Edwards didn’t reappoint Mitch McConnell and John Kennedy in Kentucky and Louisiana respectively. I guess Charlie Baker would reappoint Ed Markey in Massachusetts, Montana might be fun(!), New Hampshire and Alaska are unpredictable, and McSally likely gets reappointed in Arizona. Maine and Susan Collins, lose-lose for the Governor.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Mar 25, 2020 21:29:31 GMT
It would be President Chuck Grassley unless there’s a change of Party control of the Senate. Leahy was given the courtesy title of President Pro-Tem Emeritus, but as the longest continually serving Senator of the Majority Party, Grassley is the actual President Pro-Tem of the Senate. The point is that the GOP would lose their majority if no elections take place as they are defending about two thirds of the seats up for re-election. Obviously this is an academic exercise but it further occurred to me that state Governors would be able to fill most of the vacancies. In this scenario the two appointed Senators (Loeffler and McSally) would stay in office till the special elections took place. That would leave the continuing Senate split 35-32 in the Democrats favour. Then we come to new appointments. Of the 33 vacancies there would be 16 in states that will have GOP Governor's on the day that the vacancy occurs and 13 in states that will have a Democratic governor. 3 of those states do not allow for any appointment by the Governor. So assuming that all Governors appoint someone from their own party that leaves as with 48-48 tie and then we come to the state where things are even more complicated, namely North Carolina. The current term of Gov Cooper, all statewide elected officials and all members of the legislature expires on 1st January, i.e before the Senate vacancies occur. Who the Governor of North Carolina would be if there are no elections is anybodies guess.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Mar 25, 2020 21:40:12 GMT
ISTR from the Coleman-Franken battle that the power to appoint a Senator pending a resolution to the regular election is more ambiguous than that paper makes out.
Also the Senate has the power to decline credentials - so in theory a Democrat majority could reject such casual appointments or at least defer them long enough to sort everything else out.
|
|