The thing is, I don't know if there still is an "R's" as an institutional body, which is of course part of the problem. I do suspect that institutionalists and closet institutionalists like McConnell (to the extent that he's cognizant these days) really do have regrets but whether that represents "the party" I have no idea.pearlbeer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 3:17 pmI mean, Shirley, by now the Rs are regretting not convicting him for the 2nd impeachment. Even if they just disqualified him from office, they would be out of this mess. He clearly isn't going away. It's abundantly clear that he could give two shits about the party, or anything other than himself. He did his best to steal attention away from and fuck up their first debate. If he goes down, he's going to take everything with him. Fuck them, they deserve it
You know it's not a good day when you're quoting Barnum to the effect of nobody ever went broke underestimating the American people. On top of everything else the stuff is so damn cheesy. But this is just another example of the frequently seen psychological mechanism the name of which I don't know, some kind of compensation thing, where people are so invested in a losing cause they have "no choice" but to embrace the bad and try to pretend it's actually good. To some extent this is an aspect of "the best defense is a good offense" but it's more than that. The amount of money so many people who can't afford to spend supporting a billionaire is just mind-boggling. Insane.
True, but don't mistake legal maneuvering for policy, principle or ideology. The only thing that matters now is "what's in it for me?" x 19.
This seems like an important question but damned if I know the answer. I don't think "the Dems" do either. To the extent that Biden is trying to run a "positive" campaign, touting his achievements and their impact on different and multiple populations, I think he's doing the right thing but who knows if that's gonna work. People hear (and don't hear) what they want to hear (and don't want to hear). I suspect that some version of "letting the trials speak for themselves" and "letting the process run its course" followed by pouncing on and trumpeting any guilty verdicts is the right way to go, but man this is seriously uncharted territory. I'm also thinking that the best the Dems can do on the negative campaign side is to do whatever's best to get Republicans to just stay home and not vote. I don't know what that means in practical terms though.pearlbeer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 3:17 pmWhat is the Dem strategy in all of this? Seems to be stay back and hope the snake eats itself. But, at some point they are going to need to go on the offensive. I hope they sink low at some point and start name calling. Show him in particular for who he is. Sore loser, whiny, blame-machine, baby. I know it wouldn't do much, but I think it could help some of the fence-sitters that "like his policies but dont like him" to switch.
But seriously, we really need an anti-vegetable law for the Feinsteins, McConnells and Ginsburgs of the world (Biden probably belongs in this group too but he seems to be in far better shape than the others so I don't think it's fair to fully lump him in w/ the others). A flat retirement age of 75 or 80 seems like an excellent virtually unobjectionable, essentially bipartisan idea to me but I'm not aware of much traction in that direction. I also don't know what Feinstein's about. I assume either the 'Democratic governor would fill her unexpired term or one of the several good candidates who've already announced plans to try to succeed her would win an election for the unexpired portion of the term (don't know what the rule is in CA). In either case, this would be a very good time to leave on realpolitik grounds and she needs to go now before what is merely embarrassing becomes unconscionable. Also, for people who say in a disparaging/warning way that a vote for Biden is a vote for Harris, it seems just as likely that a vote for Biden may be a vote for Jill Biden. See Woodrow Wilson and Ronald Reagan for troubling precedents.