2020 Presidential Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I do think it would be best for the Dems to shut up about Mueller, and really about Trump, and focus on what they are for and not what they are against. The left's strongest position sure has to be that Trump and the Reps did absolutely nothing to improve health care because they have no ideas. The left has ideas and should be focusing all their energy on getting that message out there.

I don't think it needs to be an either/or. Personally, I don't want them to "shut up about Mueller" because I think that the actions that Mueller investigated are very serious threats and should not be ignored (I'm talking about BOTH the fact that Trump campaign gladly accepted help from a foreign adversary that Trump obviously has at the very least financial connections to and has treated in a suspicious way since being in office, and the fact that Trump has engaged in obstructive behavior that far exceeds anything seen in recent memory, including by Richard Nixon). But I do agree that they should focus on issues such as health care, worker's rights, income disparity, and the fact that the "great" economy is mostly great only for some, and that even with low unemployment many, many people are still struggling.

As for who is the best person to represent that message, I think it is too simplictic to say that it is a battle between "progressive" and "establishment" Democrats. Even with all of his history of corporate support (and his somewhat buffonish image, and overly "touchie-feelie" reputation), Biden may be the best person to take on Trump. Which is why Trump and his minnions are trying so hard to discredit him early on. I can't say that he is my first choice candidate right now, but if it appears that he is the best chance to stop Trump from being reelected, like Dave I will take a return to that particular status quo in a heartbeat.

x-posted with both Frelga and yov.

[yovargas]

Personally, I don't want them to "shut up about Mueller" because I think that the actions that Mueller investigated are very serious threats and should not be ignored (I'm talking about BOTH the fact that Trump campaign gladly accepted help from a foreign adversary that Trump obviously has at the very least financial connections to and has treated in a suspicious way since being in office, and the fact that Trump has engaged in obstructive behavior that far exceeds anything seen in recent memory, including by Richard Nixon).

To what end? We're not going to remove Trump, or charge him with anything, or otherwise have him face any consequences. It's not going to matter to his polling numbers, which are stuck at low 40s through everything. So what's the point? All it's doing is distracting everyone from what we could be talking about. It's time to move on and stop letting Trump take up all the media's attention.

[Frelga]

Well, at a minimum, it would be a good idea to establish that it is still unethical at least and possibly illegal for a candidate to seek campaign help from the a foreign government, especially when assistance comes in the form of illegally obtained information. Because right now, there's nothing stopping a candidate from doing it again.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I understand what you are saying, and from a practical point of view, I even agree with you. So what is the point? The point is that calling something that is wrong wrong is the right thing to do, even if it isn't the "right" thing to do.

x-posted with Frelga. Again.

[Cerin]

Voronwë, regarding your claim that Trump's actions are worse than Nixon's, here is a segment of an article I read the other day, the key point of which was the difference between doing something within the sphere of presidential authority, as opposed to outside presidential authority. I believe Nixon's crimes were worse judged on this basis, and moreover because this investigation was politically motivated and a special counsel investigation should never have been started. IMO, it is not unlike the perjury trap that ended in Clinton's impeachment. All of Trump's actions that you consider aggregious were predicated on this illegitimate investigation and would not have occurred had it not been started, whereas Nixon's crimes were self-generated and real.

Nixon clearly exceeded his presidential authority when he ordered the payment of hush money to potential federal witnesses, when he destroyed evidence and when he told his subordinates to lie to the FBI. These are all independent crimes which are beyond the authority of anyone, even a president. Together, they constitute obstruction of justice, and Nixon was almost certainly guilty of that crime.

Contrast the Nixon case with the act committed by President Bush on the eve of the most significant criminal trial involving the Iran-Contra scandal. President Bush exercised his constitutional authority to pardon former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and a handful of other defendants. His purpose was clear: to end the Iran-Contra investigation and to prevent prosecutors from pressuring Weinberger and the others to testify against him.

Had similar actions been committed by anyone but a president, they clearly would have constituted an obstruction of justice. The special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, described it in terms that left little doubt about Bush’s unlawful purpose. Walsh condemned their pardons as part of the “cover-up” and “deception and obstruction.” But because the act of pardoning is authorized by the Constitution, no president can be charged with obstruction by acting pursuant to his constitutional authority.

The same is true of the firing of James Comey by President Trump. As Comey himself has acknowledged, President Trump acted within his constitutional authority when he fired Comey, and such a constitutionally authorized act cannot form the basis for a criminal charge of obstruction, regardless of why the president may have done it.

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-ju ... r-is-wrong

[Frelga]

In other news, I am increasingly impressed with Warren. Her message is on policy and on point. I'd go all in for Warren/Harris ticket.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

In other news, I am increasingly impressed with Warren. Her message is on policy and on point. I'd go all in for Warren/Harris ticket.

Warren is the most idea-driven candidate since Bill Bradley. Unfortunately, she is no more charismatic than he was.

[Frelga]

I hear you, but on the other hand, how charismatic is Trump?

[yovargas]

I don't know if "charismatic" is the right word but his fans certainly seem to love his personality or attitude or whatever you want to call it. He certainly didn't win because of his well-thought out policy proposals.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As it stands right now, I plan to vote for either Warren or Harris in the California primary next March, but obviously there is a lot that could change between now and then.

And, of course, I plan to vote for (and do whatever else I can for) whoever the Democratic nominee is in the general election (now that we know that it won't be Michael Avenatti ).

[Frelga]

I don't know if "charismatic" is the right word but his fans certainly seem to love his personality or attitude or whatever you want to call it. He certainly didn't win because of his well-thought out policy proposals.

Well. He had an attractive message - all your problems are because of those people who don't look like you. It's easier to snout MAGA, or Deutschland über alles, or whatever, than propose and explain viable solutions to complicated issues.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Charisma, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder.

[Frelga]

In other news, I am increasingly impressed with Warren. Her message is on policy and on point. I'd go all in for Warren/Harris ticket.

On the other hand, Cory Booker's bookshelf looks like this, according to @jaketapper’s tweet, so now I want him on the ticket.
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1 ... 76610?s=09

[Voronwë the Faithful]

New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio has announced that he is running (to the dismay of New Yorkers who would rather see him focus on actually running the big city ). That makes 23 announced candidates (Biden was 20, and Colorado Senator Michael Bennett was 21; I forget who 22 was but it was another person who had no chance).

[Dave_LF]

It was Steve Bullock, the governor of Montana. Who probably does at least have a chance, IMO.

[Frelga]

At this point, if people fairly well versed in the political situation have to ask "Who?" I think it's safe to say that it's a 999,999 to 1 chance. Which, unlike million to one chances, does NOT come through nine times out of ten.

[yovargas]

It was Steve Bullock, the governor of Montana. Who probably does at least have a chance, IMO.

I first read that as Steve Buscemi and found myself not especially surprised. That's how weird things have gotten.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Warren is out in front on so many issues. Other candidates have slogans; she has policies.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2019/5 ... roe-v-wade

As it stands right now, she probably has my vote.

Sent from my LG G6 using Tapatalk

[yovargas]

I certainly can't say that I am following candidates closely at this point, but Elizabeth's reputation of as "the one with real ideas" certainly has me rooting for her. She seems much more exciting and promising then any of the other candidates.
(Though I can't help but like the idea of an openly gay candidate at least being able to stick around in the race for the long run, even if I find the attempt to jump from small-town mayor to president a bit ridiculous.)

As an aside on that article you linked to, it is you're very surprising to see the claim that roughly half of Republicans do not want Roe v Wade overturned. That doesn't make any sense to me. I tried to Google to see if any other poll confirmed that but didn't find any. I'm a bit skeptical about that.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The article does link to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. That's a pretty reliable source. Frankly, I don't find it that surprising. Like with anti-gun control, it is a very vocal and committed minority that drives the GOP anti-reproductive choice position.

Here is another similar poll that I found. I don't know how reliable it is (it was linked to by Planned Parenthood) but it appears that Perry Undem Research/Communication is a reputable source. It says that 49% of Republicans want Roe upheld versus 48% who want it overturned. I haven't found any other polls that specifically confirm that, but the overall percentage of people opposing overturning Roe v. Wade in other polls is fairly similar (see, e.g. the Gallup poll from the same time period of July 2018 showing that 64% of people oppose overturning Roe v. Wade and just 28% support overturning it, compared to the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that has it at 71% vs. 23%, and the PerryUndem poll that has it at 73% vs. 25%. Interestingly, that same Gallup poll found that an equal number of people, 48%, identify as both "pro-choice" and "pro-life".