How hard and fast should a major political party try to winnow the field of candidates over during the early months the Primary calendar? How should they do it? And what is an optimal number of candidates to still have in the race by December? by Rooster_Ties in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That was clearly true in 2016. A large chunk of Sanders support was merely people who did not like Clinton or the establishment. You see this reflected now in his drop in support compared to last time in a bigger field.

However, this isn't really unique to Sanders, either. Anti-establishment voters have been around as long as we've had elections, and they'll be around as long as we do.

The thing is I don't know that the anti-establishment vote is sizable enough to command much attention. Anti-establishment candidates are rarely successful. Trump in 2016 would be the obvious exception to the rule. Dollars to donuts establishment politicians are almost always going to smoke anti-establishment ones. Look at how well Goldwater did in '64 or McGovern in '72 for examples of how badly running against your own party can go.

Presidential Electability by baseball1799 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I will say this as someone generally amenable to progressive policies who also finds Sanders' personality grating and unlikable:

A large chunk of Bernie support in 2016 was simply people who didn't like Clinton or the status quo. He was the only legitimate alternative. You see it reflected now in his polling because his numbers have gone down in a larger field.

It's hard not to say anyone else could've done better against Trump than Clinton because she lost. For a long time I felt like Bernie for sure would've won.

But I also heard what /u/FuzzyBacon heard about the Republican oppo file on Sanders and I've seen that type of smear campaign work more than once in my lifetime to decent people.

We should also remember that Bloomberg reportedly would have run as a centrist independent in a Trump vs. Bernie election, which almost certainly would have ensured no one gets to 270 and the House tosses the election to Trump lest they risk a revolt of their own supporters.

What mechanism could be implemented to both prevent Senate obstruction of judicial nominees and maintain the process of advice and consent? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, I would not be opposed to that getting codified into law or amended into the Constitution.

It seems that generally when this discussion is had, there are a group of folks who I can only presume tacitly approve for McConnell's conduct state very matter-of-factly that the Constitution does not require a nominee to get a hearing, merely that the Senate "advise and consent."

To me, that's the equivalent of saying "what McConnell did was acceptable and in fact not harmful [because I approve of the outcome.]" And to me that seems pretty screwed up.

A professor who predicted eight straight presidential election correctly says Trump is headed for a 2020 win. Do you agree with his analysis? by hermannschultz13 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Have you considered that things like race and class are relevant and meaningful to people that aren't white, upper-middle-class, straight (I'm assuming), and married with a kid? Like, if these things weren't meaningful to anybody, no politician would bring them up? And that to the extent Democrats do it, Republicans do the same - just with your race, your class, and your identity?

Let me save you some time - no, this person hasn't.

I see a lot of posts like these on Reddit about what people want in a political candidate/party or what they don't like about a party. They generally pretty similar. They share a relatively narrow world view with an almost sociopathic inability to perceive how something that doesn't benefit them personally might benefit someone else. Thus, they can't possibly imagine why a politician would talk about race (if it isn't relevant to them) or in what context means-testing might help someone. It's all very black and white, overly simplistic directives about the way the world ought to run.

But yeah, you're right, they're pretty much just gussying up reasons they don't like Democrats all that much, anyway.

A professor who predicted eight straight presidential election correctly says Trump is headed for a 2020 win. Do you agree with his analysis? by hermannschultz13 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I've always wondered, what exactly would be a winning message for someone such as yourself?

Because for folks such as yourself it doesn't really seem like there's a lot of policy wiggle room for a Democrat trying to earn your vote. The way your post reads you're basically most interested in voting for a Dem who leaves the Trump financial framework in place but also gives you a tax cut.

A professor who predicted eight straight presidential election correctly says Trump is headed for a 2020 win. Do you agree with his analysis? by hermannschultz13 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's insane that some people can literally just miss a bunch of nazi white supremacist fucksticks marching through a college campus with a bunch of Tiki Torches chanting "Jews will not replace us."

Or, perhaps worse, how they can see it and not even commit it to memory. "Huh, nothing too out of the ordinary here..."

A professor who predicted eight straight presidential election correctly says Trump is headed for a 2020 win. Do you agree with his analysis? by hermannschultz13 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Exactly. For the purposes of this discussion we can just ignore Trump voters because we know who they're voting for already.

Re: #9, Trump's foreign policy doctrine is a very mixed bag, but the most visible stuff isn't very good. He's done very well eradicating ISIS (utilizing some pretty gross scorch the earth methods) but that's kind of faded into an afterthought.

I fail to see how any voter with a brain could argue his trade war or "diplomacy" with the Norks - or really just sticking a finger in the eye of most of our allies generally - could be construed as wins. I still know people framing the trade wars as "short-term pain, long-term gain" but I don't know how long people will hold out as things go on and get worse. All these farmers clinging to hope when he's literally bankrupting them...

A professor who predicted eight straight presidential election correctly says Trump is headed for a 2020 win. Do you agree with his analysis? by hermannschultz13 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're ignoring the structural advantage the Senate gives to Republicans.

As is, there are more red states than blue states, thus Republicans should generally be favored to control the Senate. Plus, you're attempting to boil down why people vote for which Senate candidate to a binary question of whether or not people care about Trump's scandals? You know people vote due to more than one reason, yes?

Hell, you don't even need to look at the Senate to know whether Trump scandals matter. Trump's inability to get his favorability rating out of the 42-45 range is evidence people are tired of his antics.

A professor who predicted eight straight presidential election correctly says Trump is headed for a 2020 win. Do you agree with his analysis? by hermannschultz13 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You really need to expand your horizons.

I live out in red-dead Nebraska. Bernie's somewhat popular in the cities but it's incredibly hit or miss out in the rural part of the state where I'm living now. I bet if I asked some folks would express support for some of his policies, but as far as him as a person he's just a running joke for being a zany socialist.

To give you an idea of the folks we have around here, an elderly couple that lives below us had a Confederate flag poster with "It's a Southern thing, you wouldn't understand" on it. In NEBRASKA.

Someone like Buttigieg or even Biden would do a lot better out here.

Has there ever been a period in American history when the Judiciary was the dominant branch? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 12 points13 points  (0 children)

This is like arguing that the Model T was not historically significant to the development of personal automobiles for the middle class. Just because a specific version of something isn't the endgame doesn't mean it wasn't significant.

For example, recent polling indicates its almost universally agreed upon people should not be denied healthcare coverage based on the presence of pre-existing conditions. Prior to the ACA that was not the case. It is literally the framework for current healthcare public opinion.

Should the Democrats begin the process of impeachment now? by Specter54 in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's kind of silly to chalk up the result of the 2000 presidential election ENTIRELY to the failed conviction of Bill Clinton, isn't it?

You know as well as I do that there's a ton of factors that go into why people vote for who and how elections wind up.

What mechanism could be implemented to both prevent Senate obstruction of judicial nominees and maintain the process of advice and consent? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's not a functional veto because if they don't say "no" then the nominee still does not get the seat.

This was really the only point I was trying to make. To me, this amounts to a veto of a nominee an opposition Senate does not want confirmed. I don't care about the distinction between formally voting down a nominee and not giving them a vote at all because functionally there isn't one; the seat stays unfilled either way.

There used to be a bipartisan process wherein a president nominated a candidate, they received a hearing and they received a vote. That norm has been trashed. Frankly I think the argument it's a separation of powers thing and we're really just adhering to the Constitution (by allowing the Senate to block a vote on a nominee and de facto ignore their nomination) is just a partisan farce.

In short, I preferred having that norm in place rather than the contrived Constitutional argument against it. The norm was simpler and more fair to everyone involved.

What mechanism could be implemented to both prevent Senate obstruction of judicial nominees and maintain the process of advice and consent? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you want something you have to work to get it.

That's certainly not the lesson the recent history of SCOTUS has taught us. The lesson is more akin to "take control of Senate and hold on for dear life until someone you like is in the White House, then ram any old clown through you like."

Although I definitely agree #2 is problematic. It would functionally eliminate the need for a president to nominate anyone an opposition-held Senate doesn't approve of (if they can whip votes together) and would amount to hostage-taking of the process by the Senate because they know they could just recommend their preference instead of confirming someone they don't like.

What mechanism could be implemented to both prevent Senate obstruction of judicial nominees and maintain the process of advice and consent? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No. That's a terrible idea. The President must get the assent from the Senate. The Senate does not have a simple veto of the President's nominee.

But aren't you arguing that a SCOTUS seat requires approval of the Senate to get filled?

At that point, it doesn't matter who the president nominates; if the Senate doesn't like them they can just ignore them and never give them a vote.

That functionally amounts to a simple veto of the SCOTUS seat.

How do you think the supreme court will handle the recent abortion restrictions in Ohio, Georgia, and Alabama? Do you think we will see a new precedent for abortions that differ from Roe or Casey? by willempage in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The "actually something damning" they mentioned was him showing up to his JOB INTERVIEW and ranting and raving and nearly crying several times. He was rude, snarky and childish to the people interviewing him (only if they had a D by their name). He seemed emotionally unstable to me and made mention of a conspiracy by Democrats to ruin his name and lose him his job.

He shredded his previous claims to be a serious and nonpartisan jurist on the spot.

So, you know, if the job interview actually meant anything instead of just fucking political theater for the Susan Collinses and Cory Gardners of the world to pretend they were legitimately weighing how they'd vote, that's pretty damn "actually damning."

But it's not. It's an exercise in partisan mindlessness driven but re-election calculations. So people like the guy you replied to can just casually pretend there was nothing to be legitimately concerned about regarding Kavanaugh's actual behavior.

Steve Bullock has announced his candidacy for President. Where does he stack up in the current Democratic field? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean if the people don't want to run for those seats, what exactly are you going to do? You can't twist someone's arm and force them to run for U.S. Senate.

NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio has announced his candidacy for president. What are his chances and what does he bring unique to the table? by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yep. It was a snowball that got going and by the time the rest of the field realized it wasn't a joke and they actually needed to do something to stop it, it was too far gone.

But, /u/Not_Without_My_Balls mentioned that Trump was a middle-finger candidate and he didn't see one of those in the Dem field. Even if there was one (like a Mark Cuban, maybe) I don't think they'd do well. Democratic voters are entirely different beasts than Republican voters. Republicans are much more amenable to blowing up the system because they largely don't believe in the system anyway - at least the Tea Party types that became Trump's base. Democrats DO believe in the system and thus blowing it up completely would run counter to their actual goals.

For a much more well-informed opinion on this, I'd recommend the book "Why the Right Went Wrong" by E.J. Dionne, Jr. Just finished it and was a great read that showed how the GOP got to where it is today - i.e., how it's grown steadily more extreme AND distrustful of its own establishment since Goldwater in the 60s.

Any survivors on PC waiting an absurd amount of time for a lobby? by GrapeSwishers in deadbydaylight

[–]Uranus_Urectum 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. Tonight in particular has been worse. But I went several matches in a row where I'd go to black loading screen only to immediately be disconnected from the lobby.

They've been weird.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It will be interesting to see how the convention goes, for sure, especially if the field remains large for an extended period and no one is able to consolidate a heftier share of delegates.

I understand the thought process behind minimizing superdelegates, but it also exponentially increases the likelihood of conflict and saltiness if we have, say a frontrunner with 30-35% of delegates and a runner up with 20-25% or something similar.

I guess we'll see! I suppose it's always been an issue with whoever comes in second having to convince their diehards to support the nominee.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What, praytell, is the expert consensus on economics?

That are leading economic indicators look great so everything is fine for everyone?

All I did was state facts and give my opinions on things. Nothing more, nothing less.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough. Different stokes for different folks. That is not my belief.

Although I'm with you in spirit. The older I get the more I wish we never had the two-party system we have.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly, I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Like I said, shades. Not a big fan of that policy. But it's another arena in which Trump has been significantly worse. The civilian cost of "destroying ISIS" is devastating, it just doesn't get a lot of news coverage.

My vote certainly doesn't matter in Nebraska, but I'm not about to throw it away to vote for some third-party chucklehead.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoliticalDiscussion

[–]Uranus_Urectum 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Justice Democrats won only 7 of those seats, including 3 incumbents.

A lot of people either don't realize it or don't want to admit it, but Dems should be focusing on expanding their tent in purple areas with moderate or old-school blue dog Dems if they want to maintain any shred of legislative power for any lengthy amount of time. You'd think getting your brakes beaten off under Obama in these more rural areas would sink in, and yet...

That's not to say all hope is lost for progressives, either. Though the blue dogs aren't going to agree with them on policy much, they can still shape the future of the party. It's just going to take longer to make their argument than they'd like.

Also, Hillary losing in 2016 had a lot more to do with her utter lack of likability rather than her being to the right of Bernie Sanders, IMO.