Serious The Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Having the 51 majority doesn't really matter, you need a supermajority to overpower the filibuster. Unlikely the Dems will get that any time soon.

Even so having the Presidency has massive advantages when it comes to courts and passing bipartisan bills. It's better than nothing but keep in mind even a sweeping Democrat win in 2024 doesn't mean the Republicans are going to become irrelevant.
 
SittinGamer said:
My brother in Christ the Democrats HAVE the Senate at this moment. The Dems had all three for the first two years. Yes, we have obstructionists like Sinema and Manchin. When Obama had a near supermajority, Lieberman was that very same obstructionist. I'm all for voting blue and hoping to expand our margins, but acting like we will get Progressive Wave America even if we got to fuckin 53 Senate seats is simply naive.
Click to expand...

Tell us you haven’t looked at the Senate map. We won’t be expanding anything. Need to win by 4-5 points just to hold the Senate. The Senate’s partisan bias in the modern landscape on average is about R+4.

Looking at the current map, it is 51-49 Dem. Manchin’s seat is gone. That’s 50-50. That means all Dem Senate incumbents must hold their seat to win with the tiebreaker. Problem is you have Tester and Brown in states Trump will win. If one (or both) of them loses, there has to be flips from a Republican state. The closest ones are Texas and Florida. Good luck with that…

Not sure what you mean by Progressive Wave America. Nothing is getting done without the Senate majority.

MrHands said:
Having the 51 majority doesn't really matter, you need a supermajority to overpower the filibuster. Unlikely the Dems will get that any time soon.
Click to expand...

Don’t need a supermajority. Need 50+ the Vice Presidency. Democrats can remove the filibuster with a simple majority. The main point here is without the Senate majority the Democrats can’t even get their nominations confirmed. No cabinet picks, judges, anything. If Republicans grab the Senate, expect debt ceiling fights and not a single Harris appointment to go anywhere.

I don’t think people recall how close Biden’s presidency was to being a nothingburger. The Senate was 48-50 with a D+4.5 victory. Dems had to win two Georgia runoffs to get the 50-50 Senate, which VP Harris broke the tie more than 30 times.
 
Last edited:
Finchinator said:
Kamala picked Walz as her VP
Click to expand...
Screenshot 2024-08-06 095123.png
 
Teh said:
I'm OOTL, whats so exciting about Walz? Is it just that he's not Shapiro?
Click to expand...

He seems to genuinely be quite progressive, former teacher, veteran, from Minnesota’s Farmer Labour party, legalised weed, made school lunches free, free college, paid family leave for 20 weeks, right to repair, pro-union, pro-lgbt, etc.

He also kinda just looks friendly (santa claus vibes courtesy of mountain dew apparently?)

Of course, this would be implying that the VP actually has any meaningful power or say over policy, so uh, yeah it’s probably just that he’s not Shapiro.
 
why did she not pick a moderate from a swing state??? seems like the better political play?
 
BP said:
I hope Minnesota goes Red. That would be so fucking funny
Click to expand...
Don’t think increased risk of people losing basic freedoms is particularly funny — that’s what happens if the election goes Red, but pop off I guess.

Walz was the best candidate for the job regardless of political plays. Look at his actual record, listen to him speak, and base your opinion off of content rather than silly kneejerk shit.
 
I want to add that one of the strategic reasons for the Democrats to pick Walz is to to avoid someone who will severely anger the pro-Palestinian movement. Shapiro for example would have definitely massively increased attention in that area. However in reality Tim Walz is very bad in this area too, it is just that this isn't something he is known for nationwide. So hopefully this whitewashing attempt is not successful
 
lilyhollow said:
I want to add that one of the strategic reasons for the Democrats to pick Walz is to to avoid someone who will severely anger the pro-Palestinian movement. Shapiro for example would have definitely massively increased attention in that area. However in reality Tim Walz is very bad in this area too, it is just that this isn't something he is known for nationwide. So hopefully this whitewashing attempt is not successful
Click to expand...

Like it or not Palestine is a tiny part of US politics and to the average American it is a non-voter issue. Even voters who consider it extremely important probably are going to recognize that when it comes to that the Democrats are by far the less bad option.
 
Make whatever voting predictions and things that you want. I'm talking about the reality of the genocide here, so I feel it is important to avoid whitewashing it. Maybe the strategy will work (at first), or maybe it won't.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9Nnz4DJfml/

Here would be an example of what I'm talking about btw. Palestinian families had a meeting with Walz that he then cancelled at the last minute because he didn't like what they had to say and weren't just there to be tokenized.
 
BP said:
why did she not pick a moderate from a swing state??? seems like the better political play?
Click to expand...
every progressive person is now like 5x more interested in voting for kamala rather than if she went someone like shapiro which would make most progressives be wary to vote for kamala

also like the worst thing in his past is he had a DUI once before becoming sober for 30 years, which does two things- for the weirdly large number of people in this country who kinda digs drinking and driving? he's based, to the people who respect people who can end an addiction (most normal people!)? based
 
lilyhollow said:
I want to add that one of the strategic reasons for the Democrats to pick Walz is to to avoid someone who will severely anger the pro-Palestinian movement. Shapiro for example would have definitely massively increased attention in that area. However in reality Tim Walz is very bad in this area too, it is just that this isn't something he is known for nationwide. So hopefully this whitewashing attempt is not successful
Click to expand...

Yeah, but sometimes what’s more important than the truth of the record is the direction indicated by the decision. No democrats are anti-Empire, but a choice signaling favoring human rights is certainly better than flat-out saying “fuck y’all” to them.

So regardless choice of Walz celebration continues
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top