7,170 comments in a year. That comes to 19.2 comments per day, every single day, for the past year. The user you’re responding to has serious mental health issues.
Edit: Fifty-nine in the past 24 hours as of the writing of this comment. Dude(tte) needs help.
If the Republicans take the Senate and White House, they will ditch the filibuster the first day the next Senate leader takes the gavel. Count on it.
The Judiciary Act of 1869 should be amended today, and 4+ justices should be confirmed before January. It’s a hell of a lot easier to confirm them now than it will be for Republicans to remove them from the bench next year. Not easy, mind you, but easier.
The problem is party leadership are all moderates, and only a tiny slice of Dem voters are.
Fifty-two percent of Democratic voters are moderates. Only 12% are progressive. You don’t help your argument by making statistics up out of thin air.
I wish I could disagree with you but I just can’t anymore. I fear that we will look back on this as the breaking point.
You’re right. He consulted on campaigns for some pretty vile sons-of-bitches, but at least he’s a member of the Lincoln project who endorsed Biden in 2020 and voted a straight-D ticket, so in that way he’s one of the few who’s putting his money where his mouth is.
Mueller: “I can’t do it. Congress should handle it.”
Congress: “We can’t do it. The Court should handle it.”
Supreme Court: “Nah.”
Imagine how powerful leftist grassroots organizations would be if folks like you would dedicate the same amount of time and energy to voter engagement and activism that you devote to ranting and raving on political message boards. This country would be completely transformed in a matter of months.
Edit: Seriously, 6,800 comments over a 12 month period is almost 19 comments every single day of the year. That’s borderline obsession, and it can’t possibly be good for your mental health.
You’ve offered no proof that it is, despite my asking several times. From what I can tell that’s just your opinion, which is fine but carries significantly less weight.
So his delegates are not pledged to Harris, they aren’t required to support Harris, her name isn’t on a single ballot in the country, Biden’s name isn’t on a single ballot in the country, and no one has officially been nominated. You’ve offered no proof to the contrary.
Whether you think a change is likely before ballots are finalized was not my question, merely whether or not you had proof that it’s impossible.
As you suggest it’s a regulatory problem. There was a recent kerfuffle involving the Ohio ballot, which was solved by putting Biden/Harris on the ballot before they are officially nominated. So any changes made at the Democratic convention will come too late to change the Ohio ballot.
…nnnnno. That’s not what’s happening in Ohio. From your article:
President Joe Biden will be formally nominated as the Democratic presidential nominee through a virtual roll call ahead of the party’s official convention in Chicago in August
The Democratic National Convention, where the president would otherwise be formally nominated, comes after Ohio’s ballot deadline of Aug. 7. The party’s convention is scheduled for Aug. 19-22.
I really hate to repeat myself because it seems like you’re engaging sincerely and at least trying to support your argument, but there are currently no ballots that have been formalized in the entire country. Biden and Harris have not been put on the ballot before they’re nominated, they’re being nominated before the ballot access deadline in Ohio. So quite simply, as long as the Democrats nominate any US-born person older than 35, that person’s name will appear on the Ohio ballot. You have it quite literally backwards.
partly because her name can’t be taken off the general ballot in multiple states
Again, where is your proof of this? Ballots haven’t been finalized anywhere in the country, as Biden isn’t even officially the nominee yet. You keep saying these things as if they’re set in stone, but from what I can tell they’re not. Do you have proof that ballots have been printed before the convention, or that states have closed the registration window for running mates before closing the registration window for candidates?
Note: I agree with the rest of what you said, for the most part.
And sadly, the campaign response to this sentiment is not inspiring a lot of faith in their judgment. This after the NYT Editorial Board called on him to step aside:
Does he think that “LOL! Fuck you!” is the correct response here? The chorus of people in every corner of the country calling for him to step aside is deafening, and all he can muster is a Trump-style clapback?
Furthermore, at this point I’m having a hard time envisioning a scenario where asking the incumbent to drop out would be more justified. Like, how bad would it actually have to get for the party to admit, “hey guys, this isn’t fixable, time for Plan B”? Incumbency advantage is huge, but it’s certainly not all-powerful.
But they’re not “Biden/Harris delegates”. They’re Biden delegates, as he was the only name on the ballot. Are you just saying they’ll go with her out of deference?
If Biden decided to step down, his delegates are pledged to support Kamala Harris.
I’ve tried to verify that this is the case and can’t find evidence anywhere. Can you point me to a source? I was under the impression that they’d be expected to turn to her, but that they’re not required to.
Edit: After lengthy back and forth, it finally became clear that this is simply an opinion. User has absolutely no proof.
Yes, and the rules were voted on by party members before the primary started. They’re now in place, and they’re obligated to respect them until this process plays out. Same thing happened in 2016. Say what you will about whether the rules were “fair” or not, they were agreed upon before Iowa, and they were respected through the Convention.
The way you use “kneecap progressives” tells me you’re conflating DNC primary rules and campaign finance. The two are not the same thing. They could do to Biden what they did to Bernie and blast the airwaves with damaging, misleading attacks, but none of that would fundamentally change the fact that the primary rules were agreed upon and are immutable until the Convention comes to a close.
And to reiterate, it’s not “principles” that are holding them back. It’s a contractual obligation whose violation would open them up to civil litigation. Voters picked delegates and they’re obligated to respect the voters who selected them. The DNC can’t just tell them to take a hike.
But Biden can.
edit: AP just put out a piece that confirms what I’ve been saying. They’d be sued into oblivion if they usurped the process right now. The ball is very much in Biden’s court.
In all honesty I think negotiating with Kamala for her to step into the AG role and open up the VP slot for Newsome or Buttigieg would be the game changer.
He absolutely can be replaced at this stage, and by nearly anyone.
Only if they can convince him to step aside and let someone else run. At this point the voters have selected 3,904 delegates who are contractually obligated to cast a vote for him at the Convention. If the delegates somehow simply ignored the primaries, they’d be quite literally ignoring the will of their voters and taking matters into their own hands. It’s alarming how many on the left (who presumably had a problem with the DNC’s treatment of Bernie in 2016) are cheering for the DNC to heavily influence the primary process again. I don’t necessarily disagree that something drastic needs to be negotiated, but the irony of this is really hard to ignore.
Dems will need to run the table on Senate races, in addition to keeping the White House, for that to happen. If not, Alito and Thomas get to pick their hard right replacements and all but the youngest of us will wither and die with a conservative SCOTUS supermajority.
That’s Nadler’s statement. Now look at AOC’s:
Now don’t get me wrong, it’s possible that he made some kind of compelling reelection case in private that these folks just couldn’t disagree with, but take a look at the verbiage. They’re not saying “Biden is going to win” or “I’m excited to vote for Joe Biden”. They’re not actually saying anything about November except that Trump must be defeated. Everything they’re saying is in present tense and is really just an observation of current reality:
All of that sounds weirdly noncommital, almost as if they’ve been told something behind the scenes that they’re not allowed to tell us yet. All of it would still be true even if they were planning to replace him. The only part that might not work like that is “he is not leaving this race”, but it could still mean, “he is not leaving this race right now”.
It feels like Biden’s camp came out and said, “Look guys, there’s this thing we’re working on, and it’s going to be big, but we need you to stay the course. Act like nothing’s happening.” Is anyone else sensing that? It looks real fucking suspicious to me.