What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah I mean Terry's campaign in Virginia was political malpractice on par with Bill Nelson's disastrous reelection campaign for Florida Senate, which is one of the worst national-tier Dem performances in recent memory.

One of the things that's bad about the Democrats reckoning on these highly technical policies, is in their minds they're looking to harvest the popularity windfall that came from past major social projects like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid etc. The problem is Obamacare and various other technocrat stimulus projects look nothing like those programs. People know what Medicare is, what Medicaid is, and what Social Security is. They get checks with their logos on them (or did in the era of paper checks, now they get digital transfers, but they know where from).

There's been plenty of reporting on the fact many recipients of subsidized Obamacare plans don't even know it's "Obamacare", ditto for some of the current stimulus rolling out, Wisconsin farm area Democrats (a dying breed) have remarked that many of their neighbors happily cashing special stimulus checks and taking benefits Biden rolled out for rural areas don't even really know it came from Biden.

I loathe the man because I'm not a socialist, but Bernie understands some of these issues much better than Democrats do--"Medicare for All" may not be ideal policy, but people actually would know what it was.

I also think a core issue for Democrats is like Oex says, too much of the power brokers in the party are actually too tied into inner beltway shit and they don't want to ruffle feathers and hurt potential lobbying opportunities when they leave government. Democrats need people willing to burn the house down to advocate for their issues, and they instead have people that are primarily technocrats and fundraisers and money bundlers. A party needs those but when that's all you have, you're going to have trouble resonating with your issues. Democrats have some big issues that carry weight, but they rarely seem to come to the national forefront and rarely drive legislative battles in congress, so I think they get subsumed in the noise and ebb and flow of politics.

[Sheilbh]

Totally agree with Oex and Otto and others on this.

I think the inner beltway stuff is particularly true with Biden because that is his political project - and we always knew that's what Biden was about. But it's more than that. Remember the amount of time the Obama administration would spend trying to win one Republican vote in the hope of making it "bipartisan" (in a pretty technical approach to what that means), as if the public should care - a notion Mitch McConnell should really have disabused us of.

It all reminds me of this article:
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/05/roe-v-wade-democrats-2022-elections-523759

I totally get that it might not make much of a difference in 2022 but it blows my mind that after seeing how the Republicans have used an extreme position on abortion that is shared by about a third of Americans and the court as key rallying issues, that Democratic consultants are apparently think it probably won't work for them and they need to focus on the technical, technocratic, wonkish policy ideas instead. Same, as you say, with the Medicare for All or even a public option. Easy to understand, poll very well - so the mainstream Democrat position is let's make it complicated and add some nuance to the debate

[Admiral Yi]

Note that the Federal election and gerrymandering laws would be unambiguously constitutional but would only apply to Federal elections. State legislatures would still be a problem.

Educate me please.

I do know that the Constitution says the states can select reps and Senators however they want.  I also know the Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering, as opposed to racial gerrymandering, is not unconstitutional.

I did not know the federal legislature had the power to impose election laws other than related to race on states.  Can you tell me which clause does that?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Note that the Federal election and gerrymandering laws would be unambiguously constitutional but would only apply to Federal elections. State legislatures would still be a problem.

Educate me please.

I do know that the Constitution says the states can select reps and Senators however they want.  I also know the Supreme Court has ruled that partisan gerrymandering, as opposed to racial gerrymandering, is not unconstitutional.

I did not know the federal legislature had the power to impose election laws other than related to race on states.  Can you tell me which clause does that?

Pretty basic Part of Article I, Section 4. Frankly your understanding of the constitutional situation is simply not correct. Let's break it down.

1. Power to impose election laws other than laws related to race on states. This is directly not accurate. Article I, Section 4 makes no mention of race. I can perhaps understand where the confusion came from--in the 1960s we passed the Voting Rights Act, which as one of its core provisions included something that normally would be of questionable constitutionality--a "preclearance requirement", that meant State legislatures had to get their election laws precleared by the Department of Justice, specifically states with a proven history of disenfranchising black voters. Under our constitution, areas of shared sovereignty between the States and the Federal government, the Federal government's laws triumph when they conflict. However there is nothing under the supremacy clause that actually lets the Federal government preclude a State even enacting a law without prior Federal approval. That was a deviation from the Constitutional norm, and ultimately it was upheld on 14th Amendment grounds that it was a necessary part of ensuring states applied their laws equally. Roberts when he nuked this didn't even nuke the core concept, he simply said it didn't apply anymore because those States were no longer racist so the original justification was gone (essentially--it was not a great ruling.)

2. Gerrymandering is not unconstitutional. This simply means there is no Federal constitutional issue with States gerrymandering districts. But it doesn't speak to whether the Federal government can pass laws concerning gerrymandering.  It simply means the current reading of the constitution doesn't preclude States from gerrymandering (in most cases) on Federal constitutional grounds.

Now let's go to the text of Article I, Section 4:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

This actually is one of the more sweeping Federal powers in the constitution--because it says the "times, places and manner of holding elections" is prescribed by each state. But the next clause essentially says that the Federal government can pass almost any law it wants in this regard, except as it pertains to the choosing of Senators (those were specifically intended to be hard coded to the State legislature, which is why we needed a constitutional amendment for direct elections of Senators.)

You may for example note that every State in the United States holds Federal elections on the same day. That is because the Federal government passed a law requiring it. That overrode many State laws that had many varying election days. You may also notice that every State in the union has to allow absentee voting of people living overseas or stationed abroad with the military. Why? Because of a 1986 Federal law that says states must do so--they have no option.

Article I, Section 4 grants the Congress broad powers of lawmaking over elections to Federal office, and because it is a dual grant--to both the States and the Federal government, when they conflict, the supremacy clause makes it obvious which side wins--the Federal government.

This is why I said it won't fix State legislatures though. State legislatures are constituted by the State constitutions and elections to those (and other State and local offices) are much more limited in scope. For local elections the Feds still have some powers--particularly due to the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Federal government can step in to protect equal protection claims and claims of disenfranchisement based on race, but the grant in Article I is far more powerful.

The reason nothing like this has been done is found in the phrases the Republicans have been using in response to some of these very assertion "we don't believe we should Federalize our elections", essentially, they are saying this needs to be left to the States because Federal government bad. That's not a bad argument in terms of politics--most people tend to trust State and Local government more than the Federal government, and historically Federal intrusions into State matters have been ill-appreciated. Essentially there has been no political will to fully standardize and Federalize elections, but there is no real constitutional bar.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I should add--Federal control of the district process flows from this part of the Constitution as well. The first Federal laws regulating districting go back to the 1840s. Before that, there were widely divergent practices, for example some States had "at large" members of the House, who did not serve a specific district, the constitution does not explicitly forbid this, but Congress didn't like it, and eventually banned the practice.

One of the shittiest things is part of its control over districting, lead Congress to pass a law in 1901 that actually required congressional districts be drawn as geographically compact as possible. It was law of the land until 1929, the very shitty 1929 Apportionment Act is actually a major blight on our legislative districts and membership and actually lead the congress in a worse direction in a number of ways (most of the decisions around that act have tended to penalize concentrations of population and states with high population to the benefit of rural voters.) But for a roughly 28 year period gerrymandering was technically not legal in the United States. Now, being "not legal" and "not done" are not the same thing. That law wasn't vigorously enforced, but it could have been, and another like it could be.

[PJL]

OVB - only problem re Federal standardisation of state electoral laws in Federal elections, is it works both ways.  Can easily see a future Republican government standardising them in a way that suits them.

[OttoVonBismarck]

OVB - only problem re Federal standardisation of state electoral laws in Federal elections, is it works both ways.  Can easily see a future Republican government standardising them in a way that suits them.

It already works both ways and they already do that. This isn't a "he might shoot me so I better not shoot him" situation, it's a "he shot me should I shot back" scenario. It's also generally not as easier to overturn laws that are procedurally neutral and fairly good government in nature. Even in our current situation.

That's one reason I am still in favor of the non-partisan commissions for districting that have been created in some states, right now those non-partisan commissions are mostly in purple and blue states (although a few red ones have them), but I think it's very hard to get rid of those commissions once established, and it's protection against future bad behavior. Note that some commissions--like the one we built in Virginia and the one in Ohio, were designed badly and need modified, but some like the ones in Colorado and Arizona seem to work well.

[Admiral Yi]

Thanks Biscuit

[viper37]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/28/opinion/2021-political-stories-politicians.html

[DGuller]

One more dose of reality that is sorely needed if we are to avoid the return of Trumpism: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/us/politics/ruy-teixeira-democrats.html. 

I think he puts it exactly right:  the takeover of the Democratic party by the professional class is the root of a lot of their political problems.  It's hard for sheltered yuppies to realize just how crazy and off-putting they sometimes sound to people outside of their circle.  The irony is that what Democrats are missing is the real diversity and real tolerance. 

The real diversity is the diversity of views and backgrounds, not the "diversity" that's just a code word for certain minorities.  The real tolerance is not destroying anyone who says anything perceived as intolerant, but actually embracing freedom of speech as a concept that is desirable beyond the First Amendment protections.  Maybe the professional class would have a better idea of how out of mainstream their dogmas really are if they didn't force people to shut the fuck up all the time, and say creepy Orwellian things like "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech".

[Berkut]

One more dose of reality that is sorely needed if we are to avoid the return of Trumpism: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/us/politics/ruy-teixeira-democrats.html. 

I think he puts it exactly right:  the takeover of the Democratic party by the professional class is the root of a lot of their political problems.  It's hard for sheltered yuppies to realize just how crazy and off-putting they sometimes sound to people outside of their circle.  The irony is that what Democrats are missing is the real diversity and real tolerance. 

The real diversity is the diversity of views and backgrounds, not the "diversity" that's just a code word for certain minorities.  The real tolerance is not destroying anyone who says anything perceived as intolerant, but actually embracing freedom of speech as a concept that is desirable beyond the First Amendment protections.  Maybe the professional class would have a better idea of how out of mainstream their dogmas really are if they didn't force people to shut the fuck up all the time, and say creepy Orwellian things like "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech".

You write about something you call "the Fox News Fallacy," which you say is "blinding Democrats to real problems."

The basic idea is when one of these criticisms appears — like, Democrats are allowing the intrusion of race-essentialist ideology into curriculum and teacher training — the first reaction is to deny it and just to say it's simply a racist dog whistle to constituencies who aren't that happy about the way the country has changed.

uhhhh....yeah. That sums up every single discussion on Languish about left wing politics.

[Sheilbh]

Possibly relevant - also to other conversations we've been having. The always provocative John Gray () and Ross Douthat in conversation:
https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2022/01/the-light-that-failed-why-liberalism-is-in-crisis

[jimmy olsen]

I am just going to go ahead and be outraged at the report Syt linked, though. I know MURRICA and all that, but still.

I am skeptical. It just sounds stupid. Not that people being stupid are that hard to imagine, but this just seems extra dumb. People who run businesses are generally not so totally ignorant of basic relations between employees and managers.

You have a really rosy view of people who run businesses.

No, I just don't have a reflexive animosity against people who run businesses.

Running a business is hard. Being bad at it generally leads to failure of the business.

The market is actually pretty damn good at weeding out stupid business owners. I doubt making candles is getting massive out of market subsidies to keep them going while they blunder around making idiotic decisions.

But hey, maybe in this case they really are dumb and the market just hadn't caught up to them yet.

We weren't talking about business owners being dumb and bad at business, we were talking about them exploiting the shit out of their employees and treating them like trash. This includes one of the most successful companies of all time, Amazon. Let's face it, in our society treating your employees badly is not something that leads to failure of your business.

Except that of course that is exacty what it leads to. Your employees are an asset just like everything else, and treating them like "trash" and "exploiting the shit" out of them will cause them to leave.

Noting that one of the most successful companies of all time has been accused of doing that, and yet are still incredibly successful with huge numbers of employees who are not quitting to go work elsewhere in a free world might make you consider whether the stories of them "exploiting the shit" out of their "trash" employees might actually be entirely accurate in the first place.

I am generally skeptical of hyperbolic claims like the idea that amazingly successful companies that are reliant on a productive work force for their success treat their employees like trash and exploit the shit out of them, when it is consistently and inexplicably never backed up with actual data...

Isn't Amazon explicitly worried about running out of employees in the next few years because their turnover is so ridiculously extreme?

https://www.essence.com/news/amazon-burning-through-workers/

At the beginning of 2019, Amazon employed approximately 650,000 people. Over the course of the year, they hired over 770,000 hourly workers—this basically equates to the entirety of Amazon's work force leaving and being replaced—in the span of just one year. This phenomenon of Amazon's massive worker turnover prompted the New York Times to investigate. They published their findings in an illuminating exposé just in time for Amazon's self-proclaimed holiday, "Prime Day," this Monday and Tuesday.

"In documenting the untold story of how the pandemic exposed the power and peril of Amazon's employment system, reporters interviewed nearly 200 current and former employees, from new hires at the JFK8 bus stop to back-office workers overseas to managers on Staten Island and in Seattle," the report says. Reporters also "reviewed company documents, legal filings and government records, as well as posts from warehouse feedback boards that served as a real-time ticker of worker concerns."

To sustain this churn of their work force leaving and being replaced, about 10 million people need to apply to work at Amazon every year, which is roughly 5% of the total work force in the United States.

"That rate, almost double that of the retail and logistics industries, has made some executives worry about running out of workers across America." One such Amazonian who worked in human resources "likened [this strategy] to using fossil fuels despite climate change...'We keep using them,' he said, 'even though we know we're slowly cooking ourselves.'"

...

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPhBZoy_6tI

Chris Christie, of all people, backs Pence's condemnation of Trump.

[HVC]

Finally getting revenge for all the fat jokes?