2020 Presidential Election

[Bluedog]

“sex” is too binary. You need to add gender-fluid-nonidentifiers.

Actually, Republicans think it's not binary enough and would likely not support an ammendment that uses the word "sex." Check out R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is currently in front of the Supreme Court.

Basically, attorneys for a trans women are arguing that the use of the word "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act covers their client from workplace discrimination given it is her birth "sex" that caused her to be fired (i.e. if she was born a woman, she'd still have a job). There is no dispute that she was terminated from her job after coming out as trans, the question is merely if an employer can legally discriminate based on that.

Congress has had chances to modify the 1964 civil Rights act to explicitly call out protections based on sexual preference and sexual identity but have declined to do so. That is the argument of the other side (i.e. Congress makes law and have clearly not expanded those protections and it's obvious nobody in 1964 was thinking about trans protections).

Ironically, it's the conservative judges who are often textualist and actually make a judgment based on the legal definition of a word without trying to look at the context of how it came to be, while liberal judges more frequently examine the nuances and try to understand intent behind it. In this case, it's being flipped with the liberals ignoring intent behind the 1964 act and conservatives not buying the textualist argument, although it's possible one conservative judge sides with the four Democrat-appointed ones (but not likely).

Learned the above from The Daily podcast from the NY Times. I am not an attorney.

[dudog84]

Extremely good news for Biden. Quinnipiac now has him up 4 in NH. 'Medicare for All' is going to sink Warren's ship.

Still early, but less than three months out from IA and things will start to firm up.

[JasonEvans]

Extremely good news for Biden. Quinnipiac now has him up 4 in NH. 'Medicare for All' is going to sink Warren's ship.

Still early, but less than three months out from IA and things will start to firm up.

Here are the full results of that poll:

Biden 20
Warren 16
Buttigieg 15
Sanders 14
Gabbard 6
Yang 4
Klobuchar 3
Steyer 3

A couple interesting breakouts...

Among voters who value "Winning in 2020" the most: Biden 31, Warren 20, Buttigieg 19, Sanders 6, Klobuchar 5, Gabbard 2
Among voters who value "Someone who cares about me: Sanders 25, Warren 13, Biden 12, Buttigieg 9, Yang 9, Gabbard 6
Among voters who value Healthcare the most: Biden 22, Sanders 21, Warren 16, Buttigieg 13
Among voters who want a good leader: Buttigieg 24, Warren 19, Gabbard 14, Biden 10, Sanders 8

And most interesting to me: Who is your second choice?

Biden voters: Buttigieg 20, Warren 20, Sanders 16, Klobuchar 9, Harris 5
Sanders voters: Warren 45, Biden 9, Yang 8, Buttigieg 7
Warren voters: Buttigieg 28, Sanders 27, Biden 12, Harris 7
Buttigieg voters: Biden 28, Warren 25, Klobuchar 9, Sanders 6, Steyer 6

Those numbers certainly seem to suggest Warren is in the best position to pick up support as others falter, particularly Sanders.

-Jason "once Iowa votes, NH will change, perhaps a lot... it always does" Evans

[budwom]

Extremely good news for Biden. Quinnipiac now has him up 4 in NH. 'Medicare for All' is going to sink Warren's ship.

Still early, but less than three months out from IA and things will start to firm up.

I don't think her wealth tax is going to get much traction either, and it could be a useful weapon for Trump. I can't even imagine (with today's numerous accounting tricks, off shore accounts, etc) how one would go about determining someone's total wealth...seems unduly intrusive and confiscatory. I would say that much of the same benefit could be achieved by returning marginal tax rates to the levels they were at some time ago...

Neither proposal, of course, stands any chance of getting through a Republican senate, and the wealth tax might not get through any senate, IMO.

The Medicare For All thing will be subject to the FUD defense, which is a potent one: fear, uncertainty and doubt, regardless of how much our health care system needs changing.

[dudog84]

I don't think her wealth tax is going to get much traction either, and it could be a useful weapon for Trump. I can't even imagine (with today's numerous accounting tricks, off shore accounts, etc) how one would go about determining someone's total wealth...seems unduly intrusive and confiscatory. I would say that much of the same benefit could be achieved by returning marginal tax rates to the levels they were at some time ago...

Neither proposal, of course, stands any chance of getting through a Republican senate, and the wealth tax might not get through any senate, IMO.

The Medicare For All thing will be subject to the FUD defense, which is a potent one: fear, uncertainty and doubt, regardless of how much our health care system needs changing.

You need another D. I want a FUDD defense, as in Elmer.

I vote for Distrust.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Interesting piece from Politico on plausibility of a secret ballot vote by the Senate and potential for R’s to have time to look for a viable candidate for 2020. Obviously, just because the scenario is plausible does not mean it is likely. But it’s a potentially very interesting win-win for just about everyone.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-office-229911

[bundabergdevil]

I don't think her wealth tax is going to get much traction either, and it could be a useful weapon for Trump. I can't even imagine (with today's numerous accounting tricks, off shore accounts, etc) how one would go about determining someone's total wealth...seems unduly intrusive and confiscatory. I would say that much of the same benefit could be achieved by returning marginal tax rates to the levels they were at some time ago...

Neither proposal, of course, stands any chance of getting through a Republican senate, and the wealth tax might not get through any senate, IMO.

The Medicare For All thing will be subject to the FUD defense, which is a potent one: fear, uncertainty and doubt, regardless of how much our health care system needs changing.

Palin's "death panels" was named "Lie of the Year" by Politifact back in 2009, we'll almost certainly see that claim on hulk-level steroids if Warren or Sanders earns the nomination. This WaPo editorial suggests about 30% of Americans still believed in ACA-related government death panels in 2016. This election is going to be a hot mess no matter what so part of me is morbidly curious to see how outrageous the claims will get...

[JasonEvans]

Interesting piece from Politico on plausibility of a secret ballot vote by the Senate and potential for R’s to have time to look for a viable candidate for 2020. Obviously, just because the scenario is plausible does not mean it is likely. But it’s a potentially very interesting win-win for just about everyone.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...-office-229911

Do you think Donald Trump would just quietly go away? If the GOP Senate turns on him he will go into a fit of rage unlike anything we have seen thus far. He will tell his followers not to support any of the folks he suspects of voting against him. He will gladly burn the GOP to the ground for revenge.

How is that a win-win?

If it looks like the GOP senate is even considering turning on Trump, I am betting several leading GOP folks will sit down with Trump and try to talk out a solution to this that saves him some face and does not destroy the party... not at all unlike Nixon's resignation.

-Jason "if, as suggested in the article, 3 GOP senators tried to force a secret ballot, Trump would go crazy and the resulting chaos would, I think, doom the GOP" Evans

[budwom]

You need another D. I want a FUDD defense, as in Elmer.

I vote for Distrust.

IBM did rather well decades ago with the FUD argument...sure, you may save quite a bit of money by going to another IT vendor, but if things turn to cat feces on you, how much will your family enjoy your new job in South Dakota?
The argument resonates with me because in the late 1970s I was with a bank that decided to save some money and go with an alternative to IBM for its new on line banking system, and it was a horror show that lasted for over a year.
Bank branches closed at 4pm in those days, but it was not unusual for tellers (and everyone else) having to hang around until 9pm while we tried to unravel the day's transactions. Hideous.

People may have lots of complaints about their job provided health care, but at least they know, for better or worse, what it is...

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Do you think Donald Trump would just quietly go away? If the GOP Senate turns on him he will go into a fit of rage unlike anything we have seen thus far. He will tell his followers not to support any of the folks he suspects of voting against him. He will gladly burn the GOP to the ground for revenge.

How is that a win-win?

If it looks like the GOP senate is even considering turning on Trump, I am betting several leading GOP folks will sit down with Trump and try to talk out a solution to this that saves him some face and does not destroy the party... not at all unlike Nixon's resignation.

-Jason "if, as suggested in the article, 3 GOP senators tried to force a secret ballot, Trump would go crazy and the resulting chaos would, I think, doom the GOP" Evans

It wouldn’t have to be public knowledge which three senators would force a secret ballot. That could be part of a quiet deal with McConnell. And I believe Trump is such a narcissist and so concerned with his brand that he might take an exit that allows him to move on free and clear from all federal, state and local investigations... and with a couple agents in dark suits trailing him for the rest of his life. He gets a win. The GOP gets a shot at getting their party back. And the Dems obviously get what they want. Putin might not love it, but hey. Can’t win ‘em all.

[OldPhiKap]

Trump and cohorts are already yelling that impeachment is a coup. Having him removed by a secret ballot would validate that argument.

That would be awful.

[Acymetric]

Do you think Donald Trump would just quietly go away? If the GOP Senate turns on him he will go into a fit of rage unlike anything we have seen thus far. He will tell his followers not to support any of the folks he suspects of voting against him. He will gladly burn the GOP to the ground for revenge.

How is that a win-win?

Yeah, secret ballot seems more like "lose-lose" to me. Its only even worth discussing for anyone involved if it becomes clear that the options are "public vote, no impeachment" vs. "secret ballot, successful impeachment" and even if those are the only two options I'm not sure secret ballot is the smart move for anyone involved.


Also, this:

If it looks like the GOP senate is even considering turning on Trump, I am betting several leading GOP folks will sit down with Trump and try to talk out a solution to this that saves him some face and does not destroy the party... not at all unlike Nixon's resignation.

Is almost certainly going to lead to this:

-Jason "if, as suggested in the article, 3 GOP senators tried to force a secret ballot, Trump would go crazy and the resulting chaos would, I think, doom the GOP" Evans

If Trump is going down, it isn't going to look anything like Nixon and there are going to be bridges burning (metaphorically!) right and left. If the GOP ends up going along with impeachment and want to come out intact, they're going to need to get as many party officials as possible firmly on board, and sell it like impeachment was the clear and obvious necessary thing (completely torching Trump) to the point that hardly any Americans see reason to oppose it.

[dudog84]

Some rumbling that Trump might toss Pence overboard and bring on Nikki Haley for 2020. Pretty sure that hasn't happened since FDR (and I do not know of the circumstances for his multiple VPs).

I don't see it happening, but wonder what others think.

The arguments I've heard for:
- her recent schmoozing book tour, some think she's angling for it
- she would help Trump with women
- loyalty isn't known to be Trump's strong suit, he's transactional
- she's a darling of the standard conservatives

Reasons I think it won't happen:
- could backfire, isn't necessarily a good look to switch
- at first I thought it would hurt him with evangelicals, but they are solid Trump
- Pence knows a lot...but would probably keep his mouth shut

So now I'm not so sure.

[PackMan97]

Some rumbling that Trump might toss Pence overboard and bring on Nikki Haley for 2020. Pretty sure that hasn't happened since FDR (and I do not know of the circumstances for his multiple VPs).

I don't see it happening, but wonder what others think.

The arguments I've heard for:
- her recent schmoozing book tour, some think she's angling for it
- she would help Trump with women
- loyalty isn't known to be Trump's strong suit, he's transactional
- she's a darling of the standard conservatives

Reasons I think it won't happen:
- could backfire, isn't necessarily a good look to switch
- at first I thought it would hurt him with evangelicals, but they are solid Trump
- Pence knows a lot...but would probably keep his mouth shut

So now I'm not so sure.

First thought that comes to my mind. Do you feel certain Pence would be pushed instead of jumping? Logic says if you fear the ship is going down, don't be on it. Get off now.

Second thought is that women don't seemed to be persuaded by the sex of a candidate being all that important. It didn't help McCain. It didn't help Clinton. I doubt it helps Trump.

Last thought is who comes up with these crazy ideas?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Hold onto your butts, this just in:



Mark Sanford has suspended his presidential campaign.

[PackMan97]

Mark Sanford has suspended his presidential campaign.

Dagnabit! You beat me to this breaking news that is certain to change the face of the Republican primaries! ...however I will do what you have not and include a link.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/polit...bid/index.html

"I am suspending my race for the Presidency because impeachment has made my goal of making the debt, deficit and spending issue a part of this presidential debate impossible right now," Sanford said in a statement. "From day one, I was fully aware of how hard it would be to elevate these issues with a sitting president of my own party ignoring them. Impeachment noise has moved what was hard to herculean as nearly everything in Republican Party politics is currently viewed through the prism of impeachment."

[budwom]

Hold onto your butts, this just in:



Mark Sanford has suspended his presidential campaign.

Was the announcement made from the Pimento State or from Argentina? Could've been from either one.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Hold on to your butts again.

Buttigieg is leading in an Iowa poll. (Monmouth)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/polit...ber/index.html

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-ins...oll_IA_111219/

[CameronBornAndBred]

Hold on to your butts again.

Buttigieg is leading in an Iowa poll. (Monmouth)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/polit...ber/index.html

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-ins...oll_IA_111219/

By the way, I heard an interesting tidbit on NPR this morning. While he's leading in that poll, Buttigieg is at the opposite end with college voters. He's barely registering. (Bernie is at the top with those folks, then Warren and then Biden if memory serves me correctly.) Pete was in low single digits.

[sagegrouse]

Some rumbling that Trump might toss Pence overboard and bring on Nikki Haley for 2020. Pretty sure that hasn't happened since FDR (and I do not know of the circumstances for his multiple VPs).

I don't see it happening, but wonder what others think.

The arguments I've heard for:
- her recent schmoozing book tour, some think she's angling for it
- she would help Trump with women
- loyalty isn't known to be Trump's strong suit, he's transactional
- she's a darling of the standard conservatives

Reasons I think it won't happen:
- could backfire, isn't necessarily a good look to switch
- at first I thought it would hurt him with evangelicals, but they are solid Trump
- Pence knows a lot...but would probably keep his mouth shut

So now I'm not so sure.

VPs have been retained on the ticket out of loyalty from the president and a desire to not make it a big issue -- and distraction. With Trump both issues cut in the opposite direction, so who knows what he will do?

You mean, aside from the fact that John Nance Garner (VP, 1933-1941) hated the job -- "not worth a bucket of warm [whatever]." He also broke with Roosevelt and sought the 1940 Democratic nomination -- before FDR engineered his renomination for a third term. Garner was rather opposed to the New Deal policies of FDR.

Here's the dope on Henry Wallace, VP from 1941-1945, who was replaced on the ticket by Harry Truman in 1944. From Wiki --

Wallace served as Secretary of Agriculture under President Roosevelt from 1933 to 1940. He strongly supported Roosevelt's New Deal and presided over a major shift in federal agricultural policy, implementing measures designed to curtail agricultural surpluses and ameliorate rural poverty. Overcoming strong opposition from conservative party leaders, Wallace was nominated for Vice President at the 1940 Democratic National Convention. The Democratic ticket of Roosevelt and Wallace triumphed in the 1940 presidential election, and Wallace continued to play an important role in the Roosevelt administration before and during World War II. At the 1944 Democratic National Convention, conservative party leaders defeated Wallace's bid for re-nomination, replacing him on the Democratic ticket with Harry S. Truman. The ticket of Roosevelt and Truman won the 1944 presidential election, and in early 1945 Roosevelt appointed Wallace as Secretary of Commerce.