The Biden Cabinet

[bad_teammate 13132]

If someone lost it is because they did not get their voters excited to come vote for them. Progressive or moderate, at the end of the day you need voters and it's your job to get them.

[Texaspython 231]

12 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Moderate Dems lost too.

Of the 38 "red to blue" candidates the DCCC pushed, one has won and two are in close vote counts.  35 lost.  Some of them were progressive.  Some of them were moderate. 

In NE-1, Kate Bolz was a moderate candidate.  She is currently in the Neb Unicameral, and voted for a piece of shit abortion bill.  She was decently funded.  She lost by 22 points, which was 7 points behind Biden. In 2018, a practically unfunded candidate with little campaign staff lost the same district by 21 points. Donna Shalala is a moderate and she lost her election despite being an incumbent. 

No matter how you cut it, there was a headwind against Democratic candidates.  Progressive or Moderate was irrelevant.  My guess is there was considerable Trumpster turnout which voted against Dems, while enough of the more traditional Republican split their tickets - Biden + Rs.  There may have also been enough independent voters who went Biden+Rs.  

 

And why do you think that is? Those moderates were saddled with dumb progressive politics like “defund the police”. You don’t win elections running far left. It’s a miracle Joe was able overcome that bs. 

[Firemans4Horn 17833]

1 minute ago, Texaspython said:

And why do you think that is? Those moderates were saddled with dumb progressive politics like “defund the police”. You don’t win elections running far left. It’s a miracle Joe was able overcome that bs. 

 

61% of Floridians voted to raise the minimum wage to $15. 
 

68% of people in Mississippi voted to allow medical marijuana. Arizona, South Dakota, Montana, New Jersey also legalized marijuana. 
 

Sounds like one of the two parties has a lot of opportunity to pick up voters if they actually ran on progressive issues that voters give a shit. 

[G650 14106]

1 minute ago, Firemans4Horn said:

 

61% of Floridians voted to raise the minimum wage to $15. 
 

68% of people in Mississippi voted to allow medical marijuana. Arizona, South Dakota, Montana, New Jersey also legalized marijuana. 
 

Sounds like one of the two parties has a lot of opportunity to pick up voters if they actually ran on progressive issues that voters give a shit. 

I honestly wouldn't even categorize those as especially progressive policies anymore. This isn't 1994.

[Texaspython 231]

Just now, Firemans4Horn said:

 

61% of Floridians voted to raise the minimum wage to $15. 
 

68% of people in Mississippi voted to allow medical marijuana. Arizona, South Dakota, Montana, New Jersey also legalized marijuana. 
 

Sounds like one of the two parties has a lot of opportunity to pick up voters if they actually ran on progressive issues that voters give a shit. 

Right, and they don’t, that’s why they lose. Talk about healthcare, social security, minimum wages, not defund the police and systemic racism. But progressives are gonna progressive. Losing elections is tradition with these guys.

[Firemans4Horn 17833]

Just now, Texaspython said:

Right, and they don’t, that’s why they lose. Talk about healthcare, social security, minimum wages, not defund the police and systemic racism. But progressives are gonna progressive. Losing elections is tradition with these guys.

I mean Biden is going to win by 7,000,000 votes. 

[David Dennison 18658]

1 minute ago, G650 said:

I honestly wouldn't even categorize those as especially progressive policies anymore. This isn't 1994.

Which just goes to show that conservatism is all about delaying the inevitable.

Which is why conservatives are dicks.

 

[Texaspython 231]

Just now, Firemans4Horn said:

I mean Biden is going to win by 7,000,000 votes. 

Yes, the centrist democrat is doing quite well.

[Firemans4Horn 17833]

2 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

Yes, the centrist democrat is doing quite well.

Biden did a lot of work to bring Bernie and his voters over. That made the difference in WI/MI/PA. Hillary fucked that part. 

Edited November 8, 2020 by Firemans4Horn

[washparkhorn 9935]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

. . . conservatism is all about delaying the inevitable.

Which is why conservatives are dicks.

[Huckleberry 32701]

6 minutes ago, G650 said:

I honestly wouldn't even categorize those as especially progressive policies anymore. This isn't 1994.

Why are they not progressive anymore?

Because progressives ran on them for decades.

And yet here we are with people saying candidates shouldn't run on progressive policies.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Huckleberry

[wildcat09 29256]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If someone lost it is because they did not get their voters excited to come vote for them. Progressive or moderate, at the end of the day you need voters and it's your job to get them.

This. Moderate Dem candidates in swing districts that spend all their time saying the rest of the party is bad because X but they’re not like that lose because that’s not a message that’s going to win you many votes.

How many Republicans does anyone know who spend most of their time during a campaign disavowing their most fervent supporters? It’s zero. They don’t do that shit, even when their supporters are actual nazis, because they’re good at politics.

[G650 14106]

11 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Why are they not progressive anymore?

Because progressives ran on them for decades.

And yet here we are with people saying candidates shouldn't run on progressive policies.

To me, the biggest disconnect I see is wildly declarative statements that everyone needs to do "X", whether that be being centrist being progressive, supporting whatever policy. Simply, candidates need to find out whats popular and run on it. A lot of times it's progressive policy for sure, especially deliverables like healthcare. But running AOC and identity in say Missouri isn't doing anyone any favors, nor is running a Joe Manchin in an Austin house race.

[Texaspython 231]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

This. Moderate Dem candidates in swing districts that spend all their time saying the rest of the party is bad because X but they’re not like that lose because that’s not a message that’s going to win you many votes.

How many Republicans does anyone know who spend most of their time during a campaign disavowing their most fervent supporters? It’s zero. They don’t do that shit, even when their supporters are actual nazis, because they’re good at politics.

They do it all the time. Their base is just insanely loyal because they understand something is better than nothing. Hell, all that Trump has done isn’t half as bad as what his base wants.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Voters aren't primarily (or even secondarily) motivated by policy.

The policy king/queen doesn't win. Warren got destroyed in the primary and she was firing policy proposals out of a potato gun. Joe won and he was asleep and talking about little black kids playing with his leg hairs.

Policy DOES matter because it's what actually matters and it is part of selling a candidate in ways that motivate voters?

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, G650 said:

But running AOC and identity in say Missouri isn't doing anyone any favors, nor is running a Joe Manchin in an Austin house race.

What is this even referring to?

[G650 14106]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

Voters aren't primarily (or even secondarily) motivated by policy.

The policy king/queen doesn't win. Warren got destroyed in the primary and she was firing policy proposals out of a potato gun. Joe won and he was asleep and talking about little black kids playing with his leg hairs.

Policy DOES matter because it's what actually matters and it is part of selling a candidate in ways that motivate voters?

Yes and no. Policy on it own does nothing. But the candidate who can emotionally connect a voter with the policy is a home run. See Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.

[G650 14106]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

What is this even referring to?

Everyone who is saying that candidates need to be progressive to win or centrist to win instead of appropriate to win the particular race. So basically 99% of the people.

[Tuco 5076]

And why do you think that is? Those moderates were saddled with dumb progressive politics like “defund the police”. You don’t win elections running far left. It’s a miracle Joe was able overcome that bs. 

So, when a progressive loses, it’s because they are a progressive. When a moderate loses, it’s because they were associated with progressives? It doesn’t matter that many moderates performed worse than many progressives, it’s still the progressives’ fault.

With that kind of logic, who needs logic.

[SilasCoade 2620]

2 hours ago, Texaspython said:

Look at how badly their candidates did.

1. They didn't do that badly.

2. That reinforces my point. This election did not repudiate leftist policies at all. It highlighted the role that identity plays in our mouthbreathing electorate that when given the opportunity to vote on leftist policies directly they will do so but when asked to vote for leftist personalities they will not.

[berlinerbaer 670]

2 hours ago, Texaspython said:

We lost ground with minorities because they want less left. It’s silly white liberals they’re tired of.

You can’t persuade anyone on this board including me. Of course, I’m a democrat, I don’t know what you are.

Some minorities, yes. There is evidence that Hispanics like progressive economic policies. Bernie Sanders did well in states with large Hispanic populations during the primary, like California and Nevada.

South Texas' Henry Cuellar came damn close to losing his seat to a progressive in his primary. Cristina Ramirez almost made the run-off for TX Senate by doing well in South Texas. She was nonexistent everywhere else.

Edit: The senate primary in Hidalgo county was won my Sema Hernandez, who is even further to the left than Cristina.

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

What progressive candidates did badly?

Considering she lost by 5%, Kara Eastman in NE-2 ran at least that many points behind Biden there (I can't find presidential results from that district).

Katie Porter easily won reelection in CA-45, a district that had been red for a very long time before 2018. Then again, she's a rock star.

Edited November 8, 2020 by berlinerbaer

[RexWilson 1341]

Don't derail the cabinet thread. Take it to the "Where do Democrats go from here thread".

[G650 14106]

1 hour ago, berlinerbaer said:

Katie Porter easily won reelection in CA-45, a district that had been red for a very long time before 2018. Then again, she's a rock star.

She ran 5 behind Biden as well

[washparkhorn 9935]

Does progressive = identity politics in reality?  

Seems to me identity is more a neoliberal/centrist banner than a progressive one, given the progressive focus on class-based deficiencies. 

If identity politics are the rubbing point, it is probably wise to explore its proponents, especially those clad in "resistance" fervor, rather than just lump them into leftists/progressives/commies or whatever else comes to mind. 

Edited November 8, 2020 by washparkhorn
I have no problem with resistance. And the intersectionality tools used by identitarians are extremely useful and valid.

[CooterBrown 17911]

I think he will appoint one in order of likelihood, Transportation, Defense, maybe Veterans Affairs.

Put one I charge of the VA and make sure you’re very vocal about their task with improving socialized healthcare for veterans.

[Gil Bang 25898]

 

 

7 hours ago, Llogg said:

Inslee not a bad choice for Energy either, but he should get a spot.

I'd rather see Yang in Education.

Abrams should be DNC chair.

Yang won't get education.  Biden has promised that it will be somebody with teaching experience.

[berlinerbaer 670]

15 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Does progressive = identity politics in reality?  

Seems to me identity is more a neoliberal/centrist banner than a progressive one, given the progressive focus on class-based deficiencies. 

If identity politics are the rubbing point, it is probably wise to explore its proponents, especially those clad in "resistance" fervor, rather than just lump them into leftists/progressives/commies or whatever else comes to mind. 

Progressivism can equate to identity politics if you are a conservative who can't tell anyone left of center apart. The Dem establishment deserves blame for this.

I wouldn't attribute identity politics with the centrist/moderate wing at all, since they often represent ethnically homogeneous constituencies. I agree it shouldn't be linked with the progressive wing, which focuses more on economic issues. Identity politics is coming more out of the Democratic establishment who are in the ideological middle within the party, and who tend to come from safe districts.

One reason the Dems did so well in 2018 was because the party took a decentralized strategy of messaging. The only real commonality between the candidates was healthcare, which was and still is a winning cause. 

 

[ruitxn 295]

3 hours ago, Texaspython said:

And why do you think that is? Those moderates were saddled with dumb progressive politics like “defund the police”. You don’t win elections running far left. It’s a miracle Joe was able overcome that bs. 

And don’t forget, every Repub. ad about Dem opponent had snarly Pelosi shots through out.

[Satchel 6908]

3 hours ago, Texaspython said:

Yes, the centrist democrat is doing quite well.

With one of the most progressive platforms ever.

[SilasCoade 2620]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

Yang won't get education.  Biden has promised that it will be somebody with teaching experience.

I guess the Manhattan Prep years experience doesn't qualify exactly, but I don't think the skillset of teaching and running a government department have much overlap. I'm a big fan of Yang and I think we are 20 years behind in education, so my preference is to marry those two, but I hope Yang gets an opportunity to contribute on some level.

[Gil Bang 25898]

2 hours ago, ruitxn said:

And don’t forget, every Repub. ad about Dem opponent had snarly Pelosi shots through out.

In the debate against Jamie Harrison, Graham must have said "Pelosi" 20 times.

[orangecat92 306]

AOC?   Energy?

[Biff Tannen 45495]

AOC will not be in his cabinet. Good gravy. 

[Gil Bang 25898]

4 hours ago, orangecat92 said:

AOC?   Energy?

WTF?   AOC is a hot little piece of ass, but I don't need her in charge of our nukes.  We had Rick fucking Perry in that job.  Let's get somebody a LOT smarter than him, not marginally smarter than him.

[Firemans4Horn 17833]

AOC is leagues ahead of most of her peers in the house as far as intelligence and “giving a shit”. She’s 50x smarter than Perry. But the idea of her as Secretary of Energy is ridiculously stupid. 

[USMCHorn 1369]

Please stop mentioning AOC for cabinet positions. This isn't a popularity contest.

[Bama Chick 28596]

lol at the idea of AOC at energy.

Just because she was the face of the GND? Seriously? She’s attached to the GND because of the economic portion of that bill not the science portion.

Plus, after her NYT interview and tweets this weekend airing her thoughts about the election and why the DNC should take her advice more (irrespective of whether she’s right or not; and if she is right it probably makes some DNC people even madder) I doubt she’s getting any calls from the Biden transition team even if she were qualified for a cabinet post (she is not - yet).

I imagine Biden is pretty old school in his thinking about pissing of party colleagues via the press.

I actually wonder if we’ll get any of the really “hot” superstar up and comers for political reasons. Kamala Harris will be the front runner for the Democratic nomination - be interesting to see if they elevate the profile and resume of any of her competition.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

Can he put Bill de Blasio in a worthless cabinet position where he can do no damage, but where he has to leave as Mayor of NYC so we can get a new one?  

[Ghost of LL 15492]

9 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

WTF?   AOC is a hot little piece of ass, but I don't need her in charge of our nukes.  We had Rick fucking Perry in that job.  Let's get somebody a LOT smarter than him, not marginally smarter than him.

My expectation is that this is going to be a very technocratic cabinet.  So you're not going to see a lot of current politicians getting cabinet positions.  Energy typically goes to someone with a scientific background.  Obama had two nuclear physicists (including a Nobel laureate).  Bush had an engineer.  The previous Bush had the former CNO who had a background as a nuclear submariner.  That's the kind of person Biden is going to appoint for Energy--almost certainly someone we've never heard of.

I think State is going to Susan Rice.  Biden has a long relationship with her, and it makes a lot of sense.

I don't know about the AG.  It could be Sally Yates.  But I might expect that Harris would have some input on that.  I might look at some of the states' attorneys general for that.

Treasury isn't going to Warren.  That would be too hard a nomination fight.  I hate to break this to people, but it's going to be someone from Wall Street.  I really wouldn't be surprised to see someone like Tim Geithner come back.  eta: The Washington Post reports that Lael Brainard (current Fed governor and former Obama Treasury Dep't official) is a leading candidate--that sounds right to me.

Defense--who the fuck knows.  Conceivably someone like McRaven.  But I really don't have the first clue.

Only far lower down are you going to get into the politicians and primary opponents.  I see Mayor Pete being the Ambassador to the UN.  I don't know that it will happen, but I'd love to see Beto in charge of ICE.  If you really want to do something fun, make Jay Inslee Secretary of Transportation.

Edited November 9, 2020 by Ghost of LL

[G650 14106]

I'm amped that we might get to see Moniz's haircut back on the PBS Newshour from time to time.

[bad_teammate 13132]

 

13 hours ago, Firemans4Horn said:

AOC is leagues ahead of most of her peers in the house as far as intelligence and “giving a shit”. She’s 50x smarter than Perry. But the idea of her as Secretary of Energy is ridiculously stupid. 

It's astonishingly sexist. Notice how the centrists are just fine with it, though.

Just like they were fine with devolving into a Klan rally during the red mirage.

Teaches you something, doesn't it?

 

[Gil Bang 25898]

 

[burntorangebongos 10681]

Acting Secretary of the Treasury, Elizabeth Warren. Do the same shit for any that will get a hard confirmation fight.

[Ghost of LL 15492]

5 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 

It's astonishingly sexist. Notice how the centrists are just fine with it, though.

Just like they were fine with devolving into a Klan rally during the red mirage.

Teaches you something, doesn't it?

 

How in the hell is it sexist?  The two leading candidates I've heard for SecTreas are women--Yellen and Brainard.

And as to AOC, are you in any way arguing that she is qualified to head the Department of Energy?  Look at the people who have previously headed that department.  Generally, they should be people with (1) advanced degrees is some applied science, and (2) extensive managerial experience.  

If you want to throw out AOC as Secretary of Labor, ok.  If you want her on the National Labor Relations Board, I mean, ok (though generally I think that should go to experienced labor lawyers who have dealt with the NLRA for a number of years).  But don't tell me that Rick Perry is a joke as Secretary of Labor (he was) and then turn around and tell me that AOC is fine and dandy.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Hmmmm...

[bad_teammate 13132]

36 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

How in the hell is it sexist?  The two leading candidates I've heard for SecTreas are women--Yellen and Brainard.

It's sexist to say that AOC is similar to Rick Perry in intelligence.

Quote

And as to AOC, are you in any way arguing that she is qualified to head the Department of Energy?  Look at the people who have previously headed that department.  Generally, they should be people with (1) advanced degrees is some applied science, and (2) extensive managerial experience.  

That's fine. I'm not saying she should be given ANY cabinet position, but it's pretty telling to me that centrists are like, "She's pretty but stupid" and the lib responses is either silence or agreement.

[swraith 336]

Seems like AOC would be better off and more effective continuing to agitate for change from the left flank in the House rather than getting buried inside the Biden administration.

[Ghost of LL 15492]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's sexist to say that AOC is similar to Rick Perry in intelligence.

That's fine. I'm not saying she should be given ANY cabinet position, but it's pretty telling to me that centrists are like, "She's pretty but stupid" and the lib responses is either silence or agreement.

Ok--I didn't read any of those.  

For the record, and not to compare him to anybody, but I don't think Rick Perry is particularly stupid.  I think he's corrupt.  And obviously woefully unqualified for being the Secretary of Energy.  But I don't think he's particularly stupid (that "D" in "Meats" on his aggy transcript notwithstanding).

But that's a digression.  

[wildcat09 29256]

Cmon man, it was a D in Meats. He’s stupid.

[Ghost of LL 15492]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Cmon man, it was a D in Meats. He’s stupid.

Nah.  He is of middling intelligence.  Very average.  Not stupid.  But decidedly not smart.

He very often exercised good political judgment, however.  He exercised a lot better political judgment than his successor has ever exhibited.  And I guaran-goddamn-tee you that Abbott is a lot smarter by any metric of pure intelligence.