Where is any evidence that any of Harris's policies or messages affected the election negatively? From any direction. It feels like using the past as a cudgel rather than solving an actual problem in front of us
I think Harris's approval ratings being higher than Biden's as she ran and in exit polls is decent evidence that he'd prob have done worse than her, but that's still just my inference
This is an exceedingly dumb poll question for like 5 reasons, but the point of it is to scare Kamala out of the race and or validate those who wanted Shapiro or whatever instead of her
I totally disagree here: the libs are furious and will not vote for someone who wants to compromise on democracy or social liberalism. Newsom is a great example - he *wanted* to be Mr. Reactionary Centrism and now he's saying shit like anti-woke is anti-Black (correct) because of the base
I think Harris/Walz had a generally good platform and it would have done well if the environment wasn't poisoned with, "Democrats made everything more expensive and broke society bc COVID" If Americans hated their platform so much (or even the candidates personally) they'd have done much worse
You guys had very liberal economic and regulatory policy. I pretty much fully supported it. Insofar as that accurately reflected a new D consensus, it was a more progressive (laudatory) consensus. Even if it wasn't consciously that way
It's also underrated how angry the "bosses" were at Biden's econ/reg policy. The sectors that got feted at the WH during Obama were told to fuck off when Biden were asked to cool it a bit. This was the rift Tony West was trying to mend in 24
Warrenite/Employ America economic and regulatory policy and general social liberalism. It feels antiseptic to some but purely on a comparative level, yeah it was a pretty liberal presidency. If he wasn't so bad on IP I don't think this would even be a debate
I think this thought exercise is really important for a lot of what's going on - the admin hasn't discovered that they can get away with stuff in front of neutral arbiters if they just try. They've discovered that republicans have literally no line anymore, and no other refuge to turn to
They're rewarded for acting like dicks because their co-partisans on the bench have decided to stop caring and just let their preferred side win. This isn't because they were bold in their legal strategy, it's because they're basically colluding
Yes, also why they landed on both of these demands at the same time. And it's easier together, some of them have correctly been saying we want the money for ACA, and we want to make sure the admin actually spends it after we sign the deal. I think that is easy enough to understand
I don't think he's "joking" exactly but I don't think his heart is in it. If it were he wouldn't shut up about it, talk about his successors, etc. I think the apparatus around him would really like him to be their battering ram to overturn the constitution though bc they are already in very deep
The extent to which he's revealed himself a worm is almost unfathomable, I don't think I can think of anyone who has been more of an obsequious toady than him, anywhere, in any context lol
Oh *I* definitely know that, as a Cuban-American I am unfortunately intimately familiar with his schitck. I'd likely not have voted for him just out of spite. That being said, I thought he retained enough "don't do stupid shit" FP sensibility to not try to kill USAID, revoke visas for speech, et al
That will definitely not work. By then we will have an answer re whether he can be on a ballot or not, so necessarily if he is not on the ballot by then that will mean the write ins for him will not be counted
