Biden/Harris Presidency Discussion Thread

duploelabs

Eric Cartman wrote: »

That was their mistake with Hillary, one they hopefully learned from.

Why? What similarities are there between KH and HRC?

Tell me how

duploelabs wrote: »

Which is why I think Nikki Haley won't be running in the near future, a female candidate might be fine for the democrats however I can't see her defeating any male candidate in the republican primaries

She's my early favourite for their nomination. Ticks a lot of boxes which would work well in campaign material. Woman, Mother, Minority background. Also, former Governor, former US Representative at the UN and supported Trump enough that she can pivot to attract his crowd, or say that she resigned from the position he gave her if he is completely out of favour.

That being said, the way the GOP has moved in the last 10 weeks, it looks like they will be forcefully hard right by the time 2024 comes around and so the woman, minority thing might indeed count against her. If so, I think Pence will be the challenger.

Itssoeasy

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd actually say Harris has become more recognisable and liked since she got nominated as VP. So I would say she's pretty viable for 2024.

Well being VP used to be the normal path to the presidency. Or at the least a governor anyway. So it’s not a guarantee but Kamala Harris if she ever runs for President will have followed a path that used to be the usual way.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

Degree in Political Science/Economics
Degree in Law
Former District Attorney
Former US Senator
Current Vice-President

You might not like her, but she's far from a terrible candidate. Compare the above with Trumps record in 2016, and he won.

None of those degrees address her actions as a politician. She has an extremely checkered past as a DA, with her approach to prosecutions. She falls in line with the standard milquetoast neo-liberal wing of the Dems, with added opportunistic identify politics when it suits.

Seems most are content to focus on how wonderful it is that she's a woman, as opposed to her actual political views.

Rjd2

Brian? wrote: »

You don’t think 4 years as Veep will sort that out? She’s a very capable and intelligent woman who should have mass appeal to the centre.

Unfortunately capability and intelligence aren’t what a lot of people are looking for.

I'l cry if she wins, because I backed her in 2017 for 2020 got excited and then she utterly flopped.

Mediocre jokes aside, I don't think anyone doubt's her smarts, I just don't know if she has the charisma to win an election, but to be fair a long time to go. The way she handled the Gabbard beatdown was revealing, she couldn't respond at the time and then took ages to come back with some rubbish about "MUH PUTIN" when the moment was gone.

duploelabs wrote: »

Which is why I think Nikki Haley won't be running in the near future, a female candidate might be fine for the democrats however I can't see her defeating any male candidate in the republican primaries

Brave call.

I think Noem is the sleeper for the Republicans in 2024, she won't get the nomination but will out perform much bigger names and could end up as VP.

Haley will bomb because for many she is Jeb II.

Heck to tie it all back to Harris her campaign could end up like Harris in 2020, will get a lot of hype, the GOP establishment will cheerlead but won't connect with the voters.

Rjd2

While I don't like many of Biden's hires in foreign policy and am skeptical knowing his record, fair is fair that is good news.



https://apnews.com/article/biden-end-support-saudi-offenseive-yemen-b68f58493dbfc530b9fcfdb80a13098f

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

None of those degrees address her actions as a politician. She has an extremely checkered past as a DA, with her approach to prosecutions. She falls in line with the standard milquetoast neo-liberal wing of the Dems, with added opportunistic identify politics when it suits.

Seems most are content to focus on how wonderful it is that she's a woman, as opposed to her actual political views.

Just because you and the other lad want something to be the case, that doesn't make it so.

I take it given you acknowledge that actions as a politician are a worthwhile consideration when considering nominees and that therefore you think Donald being able to vote in 2024 is about the best he should be able to hope for.

SimonTemplar

What are the odds that the republicans will put forward a "normal" candidate in 2024. I only really started following US politics during the 2016 election so I don't really remember the Obama vs Romney and McCain elections. But I gather those two republicans were fairly normal politicians who clashed with the democrats on matters of policy rather than the self-serving lunacy that people like Trump, Graham and Cruz have been spouting recently.

My fear is that Cruz or someone like him will win the nomination in 2024 and it will be the madness and indignity of the 2016 election all over again.

Tell me how

SimonTemplar wrote: »

What are the odds that the republicans will put forward a "normal" candidate in 2024. I only really started following US politics during the 2016 election so I don't really remember the Obama vs Romney and McCain elections. But I gather those two republicans were fairly normal politicians who clashed with the democrats on matters of policy rather than the self-serving lunacy that people like Trump, Graham and Cruz have been spouting recently.

My fear is that Cruz or someone like him will win the nomination in 2024 and it will be the madness and indignity of the 2016 election all over again.

Right now, pretty slim. The actions of the GOP since November have shown that their focus is harnessing the affections of those who voted for Trump.

Cruz, Haley, Pence, Abbott, Rubio, Pompeo, De Santis are probably the front runners at this point. Romney will be younger in Jan 2025 than Biden is now so maybe he might be the normal you are speaking of but I think the current swing in the party will exclude him. Time will tell.

Maybe the Republicans have been acting as they have in an effort to keep Donald somewhat on board rather than have him split the party.

spacecoyote

Tell me how wrote: »

Right now, pretty slim. The actions of the GOP since November have shown that their focus is harnessing the affections of those who voted for Trump.

Cruz, Haley, Pence, Abbott, Rubio, Pompeo, De Santis are probably the front runners at this point. Romney will be younger in Jan 2025 than Biden is now so maybe he might be the normal you are speaking of but I think the current swing in the party will exclude him. Time will tell.

Maybe the Republicans have been acting as they have in an effort to keep Donald somewhat on board rather than have him split the party.

Isn't it kind of irrelevant who the Rep top brass want though, given it's their membership that vote in each state? That's how they ended up with Trump, and that's the risk they'll be running in 4 years time of some Trumpist stealing the show. Would have thought that would be incentive enough for them to get on the Impeachment train

Tell me how

spacecoyote wrote: »

Isn't it kind of irrelevant who the Rep top brass want though, given it's their membership that vote in each state? That's how they ended up with Trump, and that's the risk they'll be running in 4 years time of some Trumpist stealing the show. Would have thought that would be incentive enough for them to get on the Impeachment train

Probably a sign of their concerns about the Party fracturing.
Were it to do so. It could give Democrats a 15-20% advantage straight out the gate in next Presidential election.

As for Party Top Brass. This is much less obvious in US politics than it is in Irish politics or in the UK where there seems to be a head office or Board which has the ability to reign in errant members.
US parties at a national level seem to be only about administration and logistics more so than having any great strategy input. Which is your point.

Rjd2

spacecoyote wrote: »

Isn't it kind of irrelevant who the Rep top brass want though, given it's their membership that vote in each state? That's how they ended up with Trump, and that's the risk they'll be running in 4 years time of some Trumpist stealing the show. Would have thought that would be incentive enough for them to get on the Impeachment train

Its going to be impossible for anyone to win a GOP primary who doesn't grovel somewhat to Trump.

Haley, Hawley, Big Ron, Pence, Ivanka, Noem,Scott etc are pally with Trump.

The idea that a non Trumper like Romney or Hogan winning is absurd.

Water John

Rjd2 wrote: »

Its going to be impossible for anyone to win a GOP primary who doesn't grovel somewhat to Trump.

Haley, Hawley, Big Ron, Pence, Ivanka, Noem,Scott etc are pally with Trump.

The idea that a non Trumper like Romney or Hogan winning is absurd.

With the underlying trend of a number of States moving to the Dems over time, sticking to the extreme position will make the GOP unelectable in terms of winning a majority in either House or the Presidency.
In the longer term this would not be in anyone's interest.

BonnieSituation

Rjd2 wrote: »

While I don't like many of Biden's hires in foreign policy and am skeptical knowing his record, fair is fair that is good news.



https://apnews.com/article/biden-end-support-saudi-offenseive-yemen-b68f58493dbfc530b9fcfdb80a13098f

This was great news today.

He really is marching through the shítshow that he inherited and just getting on with it.

I also don't have to hear him everyday. It's glorious.

Eric Cartman

duploelabs wrote: »

Why? What similarities are there between KH and HRC?

I didnt compare them, I just said they put hillary up because it was ‘her turn’ rather than her being the best pick and I hope they learn from that

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

Just because you and the other lad want something to be the case, that doesn't make it so.

I take it given you acknowledge that actions as a politician are a worthwhile consideration when considering nominees and that therefore you think Donald being able to vote in 2024 is about the best he should be able to hope for.

That's literally the majority of coverage she receives in the media, so that is patently inaccurate. Not sure what point you're driving at in your 2nd paragraph there. Did you vote in the election?

TomOnBoard

BonnieSituation wrote: »

This was great news today.

He really is marching through the shítshow that he inherited and just getting on with it.

I also don't have to hear him everyday. It's glorious.

For me, this (not having to 'check in' ) is the biggest benefit of all. Second benefit is not having a spoilt child in the WH dictating the news agenda Every.Single.Day. The Twtter silence is absolutely Goooolden!!!

Tell me how

BonnieSituation wrote: »

This was great news today.

He really is marching through the shítshow that he inherited and just getting on with it.

I also don't have to hear him everyday. It's glorious.

More of the same.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1357674093936574465

I hope the Republicans continue to focus on making excuses for a conspiracy theorist and pretending the have never heard of QAnon, it's good to see Biden and the Democrats powering on in these first few weeks.

Get as much done as quickly as possible.

TomOnBoard

Tell me how wrote: »

More of the same.

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1357674093936574465

I hope the Republicans continue to focus on making excuses for a conspiracy theorist and pretending the have never heard of QAnon, it's good to see Biden and the Democrats powering on in these first few weeks.

Get as much done as quickly as possible.

This new Administration is not playing! They've come in with a huge amount of preparation done, despite the outrageous blocks put in the way of the transition process by the outgoing Administration.

One element that concerns me however, is the last-minute electioneering in Georgia using a clear and unambiguous promise that, if Warnock and Ossoff were elected, $2,000 checks would be going out the door. Attempts in recent day to re-frame these checks as $1,400 top-ups to the already passed, but inadequate $600 ones, are fudging the committment made in GA.

For the sake of the amount involved, playing with maths explanations is ill-advised. Get the $2,000 payments approved and move on!

looksee

Did they? While I can't recall specifics of Georgia, my impression all along was the 1,400 top up was how they would achieve 2000. My impression may be wrong, but I'd be interested to see the quote.

moon2

looksee wrote: »

Did they? While I can't recall specifics of Georgia, my impression all along was the 1,400 top up was how they would achieve 2000. My impression may be wrong, but I'd be interested to see the quote.

I believe the discussion at the time was that they wanted to give a $2,000 payment, but what actually passed was a $600 payment.

No-one was discussing topups as the conversation was about whether to provide $600 or $2,000.

So while it may be technically correct that they're now "spinning" things as a $1,400 top up, the reason is that their original intention was to provide everyone with $2,000. $600 has already been provided for, so they're now paying the balance of what was originally proposed .

TomOnBoard

moon2 wrote: »

I believe the discussion at the time was that they wanted to give a $2,000 payment, but what actually passed was a $600 payment.

No-one was discussing topups as the conversation was about whether to provide $600 or $2,000.

So while it may be technically correct that they're now "spinning" things as a $1,400 top up, the reason is that their original intention was to provide everyone with $2,000. $600 has already been provided for, so they're now paying the balance of what was originally proposed .

I know you mean well, but you're simply explaining, and explaining!

And you know that when you're explaining, you're losing...

Joe Biden went to Georgia on 4th January in support of Warnock and Ossoff.. He asked voters to vote Before the election day, and On that day!

My paraphrase of what he said abt Covid cheques was: Elect warnock and Ossoff, and as soon as they're in, ye'll get the $2,000 checks we reckon ye need.

By that time, $600 checks were in the post!

Stop with the arithmetic BS..

Pay the $2 grand and move on!!!

moon2

TomOnBoard wrote: »

My paraphrase of what he said abt Covid cheques was: Elect warnock and Ossoff, and as soon as they're in, ye'll get the $2,000 checks we reckon ye need

And they will get the $2,000 they reckoned people needed they won't get the $2,600 no-one suggested would be paid

Water John

Don't think a majority could be got to vote for $2K cheques, Joe Manchin for one. What does seem to be in there is a major pay out to poor families. This will be the way to go in lifting children out of poverty.

astrofool

TomOnBoard wrote: »

I know you mean well, but you're simply explaining, and explaining!

And you know that when you're explaining, you're losing...

Joe Biden went to Georgia on 4th January in support of Warnock and Ossoff.. He asked voters to vote Before the election day, and On that day!

My paraphrase of what he said abt Covid cheques was: Elect warnock and Ossoff, and as soon as they're in, ye'll get the $2,000 checks we reckon ye need.

By that time, $600 checks were in the post!

Stop with the arithmetic BS..

Pay the $2 grand and move on!!!

He promised they would get $2,000.
They got $2,000.
Promise kept.

How is this even a thing? Like, in what reality can a sane person even debate something like this?

TomOnBoard

astrofool wrote: »

How is this even a thing? Like, in what reality can a sane person even debate something like this?

:eek:

Seriously?

Rjd2

Biden has hired some ghouls so far but bloody hell Neera ****ing Tanden been confirmed is the lowlight so far.

Be good to see if Bernie to show some backbone after how she smeared him and other progressives over the years.

Tell me how

Rjd2 wrote: »

Biden has hired some ghouls so far but bloody hell Neera ****ing Tanden been confirmed is the lowlight so far.

Be good to see if Bernie to show some backbone after how she smeared him and other progressives over the years.

He already has.

"Of course, your attacks were not just made against Republicans. There were vicious attacks against progressives, people who I have worked with, me personally," he added, before asking Tanden to “reflect” on her past rhetoric.

But Sanders’s criticism did not end there.

He also raised concerns about major corporate donations Tanden solicited as head of CAP, including from major banks and tech companies.

"Before I vote on your nomination it is important for me and members of this committee to know that those donations that you have secured at CAP will not influence your decision making at the OMB," he said.

Tanden promised that those relationships would not impact her decision making.

Rjd2

Its something but not much. He will vote to confirm her.

Tanden having such a prominent role in the government is the pits but its to be expected knowing how close she is to the Democrat establishment.

It reflects poorly on him and to a lesser extent Warren that they will vote to confirm such a ghoul but ah well they always fall in line.

Tell me how

Rjd2 wrote: »

Its something but not much. He will vote to confirm her.

Tanden having such a prominent role in the government is the pits but its to be expected knowing how close she is to the Democrat establishment.

It reflects poorly on him and to a lesser extent Warren that they will vote to confirm such a ghoul but ah well they always fall in line.

I think people have to realize the reality of trying to get some governing done. There are established Democrats who are not too different from established Republicans (centre leaning Republicans as opposed to what is going on in their outer limits right now) and they will not immediately acquiesce to progressive Democrats. Doing so is a sure fire way to defeat in 2022 mid-terms meaning the last 2 years of his Presidency could be virtually hobbled and then for him to be defeated in 2024.

The reality is that 74M voted for Trump, and more voted for Biden than Sanders knowing exactly what they were doing. There was no ambiguity about this. In an ideal world Bernie would be President, Warren would be his VP and AOC would be going full steam ahead with her GND but the reality is that America is not ready for that.

AOC has copped on to the realization that sometimes you have to lose the battle because you are focused on the war and I think Bernie knows this also.