Who will run in 2020?

Unfortunate acronym of LOWVoters

Are you fucking kidding me?

Klobuchar at 3% NATIONALLY? What the hell?

1 Like

She got some good reaction press from the last debate, and that is literally all that matters. Similarly, Warren got a week of bad coverage even though she said the same shit sheā€™s BEEN saying the whole time, and her polls are tanking.

Debates donā€™t matter. People donā€™t watch, and those who do are too dumb to understand what is going on. Media coverage of debates is what matters.

I actually like that the requirements are increased only slowly. This (in theory) gives a nationally unknown/lesser known candidate the chance to build up a voter base over time. If they had to poll at 10%+ a year prior to the election most candidacies are dead on arrival, for example no Yang or Castro. The only viable candidates would be those with massive name recognition, great fundraising ability and/or DNC support.

Counterpoint: We still have to deal with Klobuchar and Tulsi.

2 Likes

Sure the earlier debates were fine. Iā€™m talking about December/January. At this point either itā€™s working or it isnā€™t.

https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1187423303402737664?s=19

2 Likes

Boy, that sounds like a ringing endorsement to me. :roll_eyes:

note: Kennedy also voted to protect Roe v. Wade and to legalize gay marriage.

Nuance is dead.

I mean, obviously Pete has been saying the same thing from the beginning, and he wants judges that will think for themselves rather than along party lines.

His idea is ridiculous. The idea that weā€™ll get five GOP appointed justices to agree to seat anyone left of David Duke is insane. In reality, Kennedy would be a pie in the sky best case scenario for what his five ā€œat largeā€ justices might look like, and that is terrifying. Regardless of whatever he voted for gay marriage.

Also the fact that he said he wants more people that look like Kennedy canā€™t really be read as anything other than an endorsement?

itā€™s not his idea. itā€™s from some Yale profs. here:

also:

So Iā€™ve floated several ideas and deliberately kept some level of open-mindedness about which ones are going to work best.

I like sugary cereal like Capā€™n Crunch and Lucky Charms. Time to go tweet that I plan to eat Lucky Charms for the rest of my life forever!

1 Like

I donā€™t care if he originated it. He is currently advocating for it. Like, Obama didnā€™t get to deflect criticisms of the ACA by pointing out that actually itā€™s the Heritage foundationā€™s plan.

Iā€™m happy to hear about any of his other SCOTUS plans. This is the only one Iā€™m familiar with, and it doesnā€™t inspire confidence that he thinks this is remotely reasonable.

1 Like

term limits. (also has a big negative for me, which is the fact that theyā€™d need jobs afterwards, which opens them up to influence by bad actors/corporations/etc)

Rotating from the appellate bench. I donā€™t know much about this, but I wonder if thereā€™s enough on both sides of the political aisle to do this effectively.

I have done barely any reading or thinking about this idea so this is an extremely low info take: a) seems pretty unrealistic, although, thatā€™s perhaps a leak in my thinking about a lot of things, b) Kennedy is pretty bad and the fewer Justices like him the better; I appreciate the structural point to make the courts less ideological in general but eh, just win and put in as many 37 year old triathlon capable liberals/progressives wherever you can place them c) no more likely to think negatively about Pete over this, still a great candidate

1 Like

Yeah I wasnā€™t aware of his SC plan. Itā€™s awful. We should just pack the court and be done with it. Thereā€™s absolutely no reason to give the GOP any say in the matter at all if we win the Senate/Presidency. If they want to reestablish norms they can surrender unconditionally. Until then itā€™s war.

We should also pack the lower courts like the GOP loves to do. Like this isnā€™t hard, the time for compromise, civility, and bipartisanship was like 25 years ago. They fired the first shots and for some reason weā€™ve never even considered returning fire. Might explain why they think shooting at us is a good idea.

2 Likes

I mean if youā€™re talking about how you would go about composing a healthy breakfast, and the only point you make is that too many people argue about nutrition and in your plan youā€™d see more foods like lucky charms and Capā€™n Crunch it would be completely reasonable to point out that your idea of a good breakfast is pretty fucked up.

3 Likes

Hereā€™s the thing, in nuanced conversation about judges (or politicians), we can use examples without it meaning we agree with everything theyā€™ve ever done ever in their lives.

Hereā€™s one:

I think we need to grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants. I think we need more people in power who would grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants, like Ronald Reagan.

Does that mean I endorse or agree that Reagan was a great guy? fuck no it doesnā€™t. It is, however, true that Reagan did this one good thing, and I can use him as an example

Justice Kennedy was a staunch conservative and a Trump lover who procured an unearned reputation as a swing vote and free thinker solely because he wasnā€™t a ghoul to gay people. Pete wasnā€™t praising a single decision, like you are in your example. Heā€™s lauding the body of work.

2 Likes

Ridding the office of tRUmp is unequivocally the first priority, but electing a democrat that is willing to accept corporate contributions and compromise progressive ideals is a recipe for ushering in a more capable fascist once republicans retake the white house. Unless the wealth divide is addressed and the tentacles of big business rooted from the halls of government the sickness in the country that manifested tRUmp will continue to fester and get worse.

3 Likes

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1187437244430389248?s=19

6 Likes

Pete screwed up, you canā€™t even indirectly praise any R like that without it being the soundbite/narrative.

I disagree. Now that we know who GOPete is we shouldnā€™t be surprised by these types of statements. Heā€™s just playing to his base, I assume people who would vote for him like that statement. FWIW I believe that if Bernie and Warren werenā€™t in the race he would have said he would want more justices like RBG.