Cont: 2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker Part IV

[Beelzebuddy]

What does that mean? They have the Senate.

It means doing things the right way, giving them a chance to cooperate with you, and if they don't you get them done regardless.

Put legislation forward, and if McConnell (assuming he's still around) doesn't let it hit the Senate floor, put it into place as an executive action. All of it. McConnell don't want a vote, McConnell don't get a vote.

Each year, draft a set of appointee candidates for the Senate's consideration. If they don't get hearings withing a reasonable time limit, they don't get a budget. No promises to be reneged on, no unspoken but mutually-understood mores to be broken in technically-legal betrayals.

I don't think Biden's got the spine for that.

Maybe I’m just being paranoid, but it’s a sick feeling that’s starting to creep into my otherwise optimistic world view.

Whereas I'm a cynical bastard so I'm wondering why Trump hasn't invaded someone by now. Presidents don't lose elections in wartime.

 

[Belz...]

It means doing things the right way, giving them a chance to cooperate with you, and if they don't you get them done regardless.

Put legislation forward, and if McConnell (assuming he's still around) doesn't let it hit the Senate floor, put it into place as an executive action.

Don't executive orders have more limited scope than actual laws, though?

 

[d4m10n]

Are we one party or a vanquished foe?

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1231021453270769664

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Don't executive orders have more limited scope than actual laws, though?

In theory, yeah. These days? Not so much.

 

[varwoche]

...A Biden presidency represents homeopathic levels of progress. But it wouldn't be further backsliding into a fascist dystopia, so at least there's that.

Here's hoping the good guys take the senate. But even if they do, it's not going to be a fillibuster proof margin. And it's unlikely to be Manchin proof.

Meaning, a Sanders administration would also represent homeopathic levels of progress.

 

[Suddenly]

Here's hoping the good guys take the senate. But even if they do, it's not going to be a fillibuster proof margin. And it's unlikely to be Manchin proof.

Meaning, a Sanders administration would also represent homeopathic levels of progress.

A democratic senate putting Manchin in a position to bring home significant pork would put him in the Robert C. Byrd zone where he could vote to put Trump's head on a pike as a warning for future generations and still hold that seat until he dies.

 

[theprestige]

Don't executive orders have more limited scope than actual laws, though?

Correct.

In the United States, an executive order is a directive issued by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government. The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the president some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
​

Note that EOs are expressions of the President's authority over the employees of the Executive Branch. He can direct them in the execution of their duties, including law enforcement priorities and the like. He cannot create new legal requirements, nor bind the citizenry with new laws. He can't enforce laws that haven't been passed by Congress, nor can he allocate funding except as provided by Congress.

Beelzebuddy's fantasy that Biden could propose a new law, then enact it as an EO, is exactly that: a fantasy.

("Delegated legislation" is a more nuanced topic that can certainly be debated, but probably isn't worth the effort here. If it's an aspect of presidential authority that interests you, feel free to research it and tell us what you find.)

In theory, yeah. These days? Not so much.

Name one EO that Trump has signed, that is effectively new legislation.

Name one legislative initiative Biden has promised, that he could conceivably enact via EOs in the face of an obstructionist Congress. Or would you like me to dig one up for you, and we can examine it together?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Overton Window much?
Biden's platform is incredibly progressive, just not as progressive as Sanders'.
It's weird to claim that Biden just wants to return to the Status Quo Ante. And it seems that Biden is moving to the left to woo Sanders' supporters for the general election.

 

[d4m10n]

Name one EO that Trump has signed, that is effectively new legislation.

Executive Order 13767^WP comes to mind. In previous administrations, this sort of thing went through the House.

 

[Segnosaur]

Even if Sanders is sincere about his stated intentions, the problem is the large number of BernieBros that might not listen.

Sanders supporters here like to point out that Sanders ended up campaigning for Clinton in the end, but approximately 1 in 10 of his supporters ended up voting for Trump.

Can we put this ridiculous smear to rest?

Uhhh.... no. Because I have already addressed/debunked your arguments several times before.

Hillary supporters voted for McCain at 25% in 2008. 9% of Obama primary voters voted for McCain in the general, riddle me that.

And once again...

Yes, many Hillary supporters voted for McCain than BernieBros voted for Trump.

But here's why you cannot compare the 2 situations:

McCain would have been a competent president. As Obama said (to paraphrase)... "While we differed in matters of policy I never thought that McCain couldn't do the job". So had McCain won the election (due to Hillary supporters switching to McCain), they would still have ended up with someone who knew what they were doing.

On the other hand, any BernieBro who voted for Trump was not just selecting someone with different policies... they were picking someone who was a bigoted con-artist who was totally unsuited for the job. A man who openly talked about using nuclear weapons and engaging in war crimes. A man with little or no grasp of anything relevant to the role of the presidency.

And that's what 1 in 10 BernieBros decided to select... not just someone who had different ideas regarding tax rates or foreign policy, but a man who ended up calling neo-nazis "fine people" and has declared the press "enemy of the people". (I doubt that McCain would have done either of those things.)

This whole thing smacks of desperation to avoid the truth that Hillary lost on her own merits. Toxic Bernie bros didn't cost Hillary the election. She was a bad candidate and ran a poor campaign.

There were many reasons Clinton lost... her campaign did make mistakes, but she also had to contend with Russian election interference and an unfavorable electoral college. However, there were more than enough 'BernieBros' who ended up supporting Donald "I'm a racist!" Trump that if it wasn't for those voters Hillary would have won.

 

[Segnosaur]

At least two NHL teams are playing to empty stadiums as well.

If they did that in Florida or Arizona, nobody would notice, since they tend to play in front of largely empty stadiums anyways.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Uhhh.... no. Because I have already addressed/debunked your arguments several times before.

And once again...

Yes, many Hillary supporters voted for McCain than BernieBros voted for Trump.

But here's why you cannot compare the 2 situations:

McCain would have been a competent president. As Obama said (to paraphrase)... "While we differed in matters of policy I never thought that McCain couldn't do the job". So had McCain won the election (due to Hillary supporters switching to McCain), they would still have ended up with someone who knew what they were doing.

On the other hand, any BernieBro who voted for Trump was not just selecting someone with different policies... they were picking someone who was a bigoted con-artist who was totally unsuited for the job. A man who openly talked about using nuclear weapons and engaging in war crimes. A man with little or no grasp of anything relevant to the role of the presidency.

And that's what 1 in 10 BernieBros decided to select... not just someone who had different ideas regarding tax rates or foreign policy, but a man who ended up calling neo-nazis "fine people" and has declared the press "enemy of the people". (I doubt that McCain would have done either of those things.)

There were many reasons Clinton lost... her campaign did make mistakes, but she also had to contend with Russian election interference and an unfavorable electoral college. However, there were more than enough 'BernieBros' who ended up supporting Donald "I'm a racist!" Trump that if it wasn't for those voters Hillary would have won.

This seems like a very convenient dodge. The only standard you can measure Bernie-Bro disloyalty is by some imagined scenario in your head. Only a dastardly Bernie Bro would vote for Trump, Clinton supporters are as pure as the driven snow and would never do such a thing. How many Clinton Pant-Suit nation dead-enders would have crossed the picket line to vote for Trump? More than 10% I suspect, but we'll never know.

The only reason that the historically small number of disloyal primary voters mattered is because HRC was such a weak candidate that the margins were so slim.

Bernie supporters overwhelming supported Clinton after the primary concluded. Bernie himself campaigned hard to her. She lost despite this.

If anything, blaming Bernie supporters for knifing Clinton in the back and costing the election, when it is objectively false, is only going to alienate them further from the party. No one likes being made into a scapegoat, especially when it's to launder the many failures of the HRC campaign.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yup, if the GOP hold the senate it will be difficult for President Biden to get legislation passed.

But then, given the fact that Trump has been running things by executive order, Biden is probably smart enough to know he could do the same.

Smart enough to do the president's actual job, you mean?

It's not actually the president's job to get legislation passed. There's a whole branch of government for that, and it's not called the Executive.

Please don't bob the thread.

I think most people here understand the different roles in the American political system, and that the President does not directly enact legislation.

But, Presidents can and do influence the process, by either using the presidency as a bully pulpit, or through direct interactions with congress critters. (For example, Obamacare. Or more recently, negotiations between the white house and Pelosi regarding the economy and COVID-19).

And at the end of the day, the president does have veto power, to at least block legislation that they find contrary to their preferred policy goals.

 

[Segnosaur]

Yes, many Hillary supporters voted for McCain than BernieBros voted for Trump.

But here's why you cannot compare the 2 situations:

McCain would have been a competent president.
...
On the other hand, any BernieBro who voted for Trump was not just selecting someone with different policies... they were picking someone who was a bigoted con-artist who was totally unsuited for the job.

This seems like a very convenient dodge. The only standard you can measure Bernie-Bro disloyalty is by some imagined scenario in your head.

Please point to me any time McCain was caught running a fake university scam.

Please point to me the time when McCain spoke in favor of using nuclear weapons and torture.

Please point to me the time when McCain labeled Mexicans 'rapists'.

Then perhaps you can claim equivalency.

The only reason that the historically small number of disloyal primary voters mattered is because HRC was such a weak candidate that the margins were so slim.

The slim margins do not absolve the 1 in 10 BernieBros for switching their votes from Sanders to Trump. Nor do they absolve Sanders himself, who could have done a better job at preventing the schism.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Please point to me any time McCain was caught running a fake university scam.

Please point to me the time when McCain spoke in favor of using nuclear weapons and torture.

Please point to me the time when McCain labeled Mexicans 'rapists'.

Then perhaps you can claim equivalency.

The slim margins do not absolve the 1 in 10 BernieBros for switching their votes from Sanders to Trump. Nor do they absolve Sanders himself, who could have done a better job at preventing the schism.

Do you think HRC supporters would have supported Bernie at higher levels than Bernie supporters went for Clinton?

The Bernie coalition is probably the most reliably anti-Trump cross section of people in the country.

 

[theprestige]

Executive Order 13767^WP comes to mind. In previous administrations, this sort of thing went through the House.

I would debate this one. The EO relates to the execution of border enforcement duties. This is well within the authority and responsibility of the Executive branch.

It's debatable whether the president needs Congress to pass a law authorizing the erection of obstacles on the border, or whether it's something the Executive can do as necessary to fulfill their national security responsibilities.

Certainly Congress could pass a law saying all such construction requires Congressional approval. Then we'd see if it got challenged, and what the court say. The line between Executive and Legislative authority is fuzzy in places*. Disputes over what exactly falls on which side of the line, in those gray areas, is not the same as Beelzebuddy's fantasy that the President can simply create new laws out of whole cloth, and supersede the well-established authority of Congress.

And note one very important aspect of this EO: It doesn't provide funding for execution. That's something only Congress can do. Without the assent of the Legislative branch, the EO is effectively DOA. Which is my point.

Now, other than the fact that it's a fantasy, Beelzebuddy's prescription for Biden doesn't bother me. In my opinion, the President should do his job to the limit provided by the Constitution and the law. Including Executive Orders. Including EOs that pressure Congress to act.

If Biden wants to "legislate" by EO, by all means he should do it. As far as I'm concerned, that's pretty much his job. And if he pushes the limits, he'll run into the same judicial and legislative checks that Trump has done. If he assents to those proper checks on Presidential power (as Trump has done), then there's no problem. It's a fantasy, but a harmless fantasy.

---
*Congress has made things even fuzzier over the years, by delegating some Congressional authority to the Executive for expediency. But they can revoke this delegation and resume their full legislative powers in those areas any time they want.

 

[Segnosaur]

Do you think HRC supporters would have supported Bernie at higher levels than Bernie supporters went for Clinton?

I have no idea. Although I kind of find it a bit hypocritical for you to complain about me having "imagined scenarios" earlier on, and then asking about another completely imagined scenario.

Here's the thing... I recognize that a politician does not have direct control over all their supporters. I recognize that Sanders cannot dictate what each and every one of his followers do in the general election. I can only criticize him for what he actually does.

And that is the problem... he could have dropped out of the race weeks earlier in 2016 (when he was trailing in delegates and didn't have any real hope of winning). He should drop out now (since he's trailing badly in delegates and in most polls for remaining states). If he drops out early (when he hasn't numerically been eliminated but has no real chance of winning), then its respectable... he's done what was for the best of the Democratic party (for which he's trying to become their nominee) and for the country. And if some of his supporters end up voting for Trump? Well, at least Sanders tried. Its his foolishness of sticking in the race that is the problem.

The Bernie coalition is probably the most reliably anti-Trump cross section of people in the country.

First of all, I think black voters (especially black women) were much more reliable anti-Trump voters than Sanders supporters.

Secondly, keep in mind that many BernieBros switched from the Democrats to the Greens (or didn't vote in the general election at all). While you might consider those voters "anti-Trump", their little protest votes are not as useful as if they had actually voted Democrat in the general election.

 

[Segnosaur]

But then, given the fact that Trump has been running things by executive order, Biden is probably smart enough to know he could do the same.

That's Sander's solution.

So in other words Sanders' "solution" is try to use executive orders, which:
1) can easily be undone by any future republican president. (Witness the way Trump has undone many of Obama's executive orders.)
2) would make it impossible to enact many of his signature policies (such as BernieCare) since those changes cannot be enacted without congress.

Can you see the problems here?

As soon as Biden wins the election the GOP are going to start moping and whining about bipartisanship, crying big crocodile tears at the mean ol' Democrats trying to get stuff done without them. And Biden, drawing on his decades of experience working across the aisle, will water down his own proposals to nothing if it means getting them on board...

You are making some mighty-big assumptions there.
- That Biden wouldn't actually use executive orders to at least reverse the worst of Trump's actions
- That he would accept watered-down "do nothing" legislation.

Sounds to me like baseless smears.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So in other words Sanders' "solution" is try to use executive orders, which:
1) can easily be undone by any future republican president. (Witness the way Trump has undone many of Obama's executive orders.)
2) would make it impossible to enact many of his signature policies (such as BernieCare) since those changes cannot be enacted without congress.

Can you see the problems here?

You are making some mighty-big assumptions there.
- That Biden wouldn't actually use executive orders to at least reverse the worst of Trump's actions
- That he would accept watered-down "do nothing" legislation.

Sounds to me like baseless smears.

I think it's very unclear what Biden's issues are. Does anyone know what he wants to accomplish as president beyond beating Trump and beating Bernie?

I think he probably ends the worst excesses at the border, but I don't see him being a firm advocate for ending the ongoing problem of family separation of the kind that happened under Obama.

 

[theprestige]

Please don't bob the thread.

I think most people here understand the different roles in the American political system, and that the President does not directly enact legislation.

But, Presidents can and do influence the process, by either using the presidency as a bully pulpit, or through direct interactions with congress critters. (For example, Obamacare. Or more recently, negotiations between the white house and Pelosi regarding the economy and COVID-19).

And at the end of the day, the president does have veto power, to at least block legislation that they find contrary to their preferred policy goals.

Yes.

However. Even if Congress entertains no new legislation during his term, it would not affect at all the president's ability to do his actual job. The president could not take to the bully pulpit once in four years, without being derelict in his constitutional duties. That said, if Biden wants to use the celebrity power and media spotlight of the presidency to try to influence legislative outcomes, I think that's fine. If Biden wants to use his political influence and network to encourage Congress to pass the laws he wants, I think that's fine too.

But Beelzebuddy isn't talking about that. He's fantasizing that if Biden's celebrity appeal and political network don't cut it, he should just legislate by EO. So I think Beelzebuddy, at least, doesn't really understand the role of the Executive branch. And I think that a lot of people, over the years, have formed the mistaken impression that the reason you elect a president is to get laws passed*. I think this is a harmful meme, that causes a lot of misplaced frustration, due to a basic misunderstanding about what to expect from each branch of government.

---
*Which is a stupid idea when you think about it. The power of the president to pass laws is nothing more than the power of his influence as a celebrity. A president who wins in a landslide certainly enjoys enough public support to motivate Congress to implement his agenda. But a president who barely captures half of the electorate isn't going to be able to drum up enough public support to force Congress to do anything it doesn't already want to do.