Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Not everything a hater does is based upon hate. Hitler painted water colors of churches, as an example. Or, Flower; Flower rides bikes.

The foundation of all of my bike rides is hate.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

The foundation of all of my bike rides is hate.

Clearly Hank has never ridden a bike.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I think there's a real difference between the process requirements to get on the ballot -- filing fees, number of signatures -- and a requirement that goes to the substance of how citizens make the decision about whom to vote for. No one thinks that the filing fee or signatures are going to be material to a voter's decision. The point of the tax-return requirement is precisely that California thinks it should be material to a voter's decision about whom to elect. And the Constitution does not say that.

That is definitely a distinction. But "the Constitution does not say that" means very little in Constitutional law, I've discovered. Hell, people are still losing their minds over substantive due process.

You choose to focus on whether the requirement affects a voter's decision. That standard is one you made up completely (and it's not in the Constitution). My just-as-made-up standard focuses on whether the requirement constitutes a possible bar for citizens. Or, in other words, if such requirement actually runs afoul of the actual Constitutional text.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

That is definitely a distinction. But "the Constitution does not say that" means very little in Constitutional law, I've discovered. Hell, people are still losing their minds over substantive due process.

You choose to focus on whether the requirement affects a voter's decision. That standard is one you made up completely (and it's not in the Constitution). My just-as-made-up standard focuses on whether the requirement constitutes a possible bar for citizens. Or, in other words, if such requirement actually runs afoul of the actual Constitutional text.

TM

The stuff you're talking about is actually intended as a bar- they're trying to control the number of names on the ballot- maybe there is a legit state interest in doing that that doesn't exist for "must produce tax returns?"

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

You won't be surprised that I think there definitely is. He's an old white dude. The stuff is under there somewhere.

Yes. Unconscious bias is in us all. But let me ask you a serious question: Do you think his overwhelming support with black voters is because we all just can't see what you see?

https://gen.medium.com/dont-blame-bl...n-efd652a928ac

Originally Posted by Adder

But no, he is not a racist in any way that Sebby would recognize, and when he realizes that his thinking might be less than equitable, I think he cares and tries to change it.

I don't think you understand that this is exactly what black people are hoping for when it comes to everyone. Would we rather have a black woman in office? Some would. Some think her position as a prosecutor is disqualifying. But there is one truth we seem to understand better than you. And that's white people. White people aren't going to vote for a fucking black woman not named Michelle Obama or Beyoncé.* At least they're not in the places we need them to and in the numbers required to flip the Senate. Perform this analysis with all the other (legitimate) contenders to whatever degree you need.

Originally Posted by Adder

Right. Stuff like this just makes you wonder whether he has enough left in the tank.

This is a legitimate question. I think it's a bit unfair that none of us were given any of the rest of the substance of his remarks and that quotation was the only thing splashed everyfuckingwhere. But, he needs to tighten it the fuck up.

TM

*Okay, it's a sign of real power when you can make all text software bow down to the spelling of your name with an automatic accent mark whenever it's typed.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The stuff you're talking about is actually intended as a bar- they're trying to control the number of names on the ballot- maybe there is a legit state interest in doing that that doesn't exist for "must produce tax returns?"

Again, you have succeeded in pointing out a distinction. Congratulations. I am not arguing whether or not limiting the number of people who can run by requiring them to show broad support is Constitutional. I suppose any such requirement survives even strict scrutiny. I am arguing that requiring tax returns is not a bar to anyone at all. Since it does not, the level of review should be very low.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yes. Unconscious bias is in us all. But let me ask you a serious question: Do you think his overwhelming support with black voters is because we all just can't see what you see?

https://gen.medium.com/dont-blame-bl...n-efd652a928ac

I don't think you understand that this is exactly what black people are hoping for when it comes to everyone.

Right. Those parts were not intended as criticism of Biden.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

Right. Those parts were not intended as criticism of Biden.

Capehart:

'One aunt said something my mother said to me nearly a year ago. That it’s going to take a white man to straighten out the mess we’re in. “The way the system is set up now, there is so much racism that it’s going to have to be an old white person to go after an old white person,” my aunt told me. “Old-school against old-school.” She talked further about what this meant for younger candidates such as Buttigieg. “The whole world is in a crazy state, and somebody’s gotta put it back in order. And I think a lot of the young people who want to put it back in order, want to change it completely,” she continued. “But first, you’ve got to put it back in order before you can start changing it.”'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...orth-carolina/

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

That is definitely a distinction. But "the Constitution does not say that" means very little in Constitutional law, I've discovered. Hell, people are still losing their minds over substantive due process.

You choose to focus on whether the requirement affects a voter's decision. That standard is one you made up completely (and it's not in the Constitution). My just-as-made-up standard focuses on whether the requirement constitutes a possible bar for citizens. Or, in other words, if such requirement actually runs afoul of the actual Constitutional text.

TM

Everything you say is fair. My focus, though, ties to a question of federalism. The President is the head of the federal government. If a state can impose a ballot-access requirement so long as it is not precluded by the Constitution, there's a lot that states can do to govern federal elections. I see that as inconsistent with the spirit of the Supremacy Clause, and generally problematic. I agree that what I am saying is not in the text of the Constitution itself, but I think I am arguing from a position of fidelity to important constitutional principles, and I don't see the important principle on the other side, unless it's something about states' rights.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I don't think you understand that this is exactly what black people are hoping for when it comes to everyone. Would we rather have a black woman in office? Some would. Some think her position as a prosecutor is disqualifying. But there is one truth we seem to understand better than you. And that's white people. White people aren't going to vote for a fucking black woman not named Michelle Obama or Beyoncé.* At least they're not in the places we need them to and in the numbers required to flip the Senate. Perform this analysis with all the other (legitimate) contenders to whatever degree you need.

It depends.*

The example I'd give you is Antonio Delgado in NY 19, the district I grew up in.

I mean, the guy is Jewish. Hispanic. And Black. And he's a Harvard Law graduating Rhodes scholar. I will tell you I have heard plenty of anti-Semitic and racist slurs in that district. And plenty of anti-egghead sentiment as well. There are open bigots there who feel they can speak freely and expect their bigotry to be accepted by many of the people present. And, the district traditionally votes Republican.

But he won. Because he's a really good candidate, the kind of guy people want to talk with and are willing to listen to, and sufficiently down to earth so it formed a real contrast against the in-the-tank Republican he was running against.

He's going to have some tough sledding the next cycle or two, but I think he's capable of holding that seat long term.

To do this, Kamala has to not just be as good as the other candidates; she has to be significantly better. We'll see what she can do, but I'm not ruling her out.

* Maybe this should go without saying, since we're lawyers, and "it depends" is the universal mantra of our profession.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The President is the head of the federal government. If a state can impose a ballot-access requirement so long as it is not precluded by the Constitution, there's a lot that states can do to govern federal elections.

To some extent, I'd say the right answer to this question is "of course". If you look at the history of the early Republic, there were elections by state legislature, there were elections with very limited electorates, there were all sorts of ways in which individual states used their electors and their electoral position as bargaining chips. That's how you ended up with situations where there were four major candidates in some races, or where favorite sons tried to walk in with a group of controlled votes to the electoral college negotiations (generally not successfully), or where the top two candidates were from the same party. In the 1860 election, Lincoln won despite not even being on the ballot in 9 of the 32 states that had popular elections (South Carolina did not).

There may be an argument that the 14th and/or 15th amendment changes things, but I think the idea of states setting up rules that limit Presidential election choices is inherent in the concept of an electoral college with electors chosen under state law election procedures.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Capehart:

'One aunt said something my mother said to me nearly a year ago. That it’s going to take a white man to straighten out the mess we’re in. “The way the system is set up now, there is so much racism that it’s going to have to be an old white person to go after an old white person,” my aunt told me. “Old-school against old-school.” She talked further about what this meant for younger candidates such as Buttigieg. “The whole world is in a crazy state, and somebody’s gotta put it back in order. And I think a lot of the young people who want to put it back in order, want to change it completely,” she continued. “But first, you’ve got to put it back in order before you can start changing it.”'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...orth-carolina/

TM

It's a lot more than just here. The disarray is global. We're having a trade war with China. That's significant, but it's largely economic. The real cultural unwinding of globalism is taking place in Western and Eastern Europe.

I'm not sure that Trump is such a phenomenon. Brexit seems much larger in impact, as its spawned similar reactions in Italy and France. And if you read the press carefully, Germany. Poland is already right wing.

The populist genie doesn't go back in the bottle because of the actions of any old white guy over here. It screws with supply chains and markets all over the place.

Capehart is correct to note someone needs to put things back in order before progress can be made. But putting things back in order isn't just reweaving the tears in our social fabric caused by Donald Trump. Putting things back in order is engaging the conversation Andrew Yang is the only candidate raising:

"How do we deliver for the many - to at least some extent that allows them to live dignified lives - in what's increasingly an extreme winner take all global economy?"

Raj Chetty, perhaps the brightest economist assessing inequality today, has stated that the typical Democrat answer - more robust safety nets - is palliative, but does not cure the resentments of the masses that fuel populism. Which in turn fuels racism and xenophobia.

To try to fix the ugliness Trump has brought by addressing that surface ugliness, without seriously raising things like UBI and a New New Deal tackling infrastructure, is fiddling at the margins.

In this regard, while an old white guy may be the answer in the immediate, he also might prove to be too little, too late... and too focused on what Trump wrought, rather that the underlying forces that caused Trump.

ETA: Scarmucci nailed this in an interview last week. He said the power balance between labor and capital in Britain moved from 50/50 to 56/44 in favor of capital over the past couple decades. Brexit followed like clockwork. The US capital/labor power dynamic is 60/40 and has been for some time. Populism is not tempered by redistribution. It's tempered by restructuring the economy so labor has greater leverage. (Even UBI, which I like, is really just morphine for the patient.)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

ETA: Scarmucci nailed this in an interview last week. He said the power balance between labor and capital in Britain moved from 50/50 to 56/44 in favor of capital over the past couple decades. Brexit followed like clockwork. The US capital/labor power dynamic is 60/40 and has been for some time. Populism is not tempered by redistribution. It's tempered by restructuring the economy so labor has greater leverage. (Even UBI, which I like, is really just morphine for the patient.)

It's almost like an international cabal of billionaire oligarchs have waged a multi-decade push to have government serve them and only them...

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Everything you say is fair. My focus, though, ties to a question of federalism. The President is the head of the federal government. If a state can impose a ballot-access requirement so long as it is not precluded by the Constitution, there's a lot that states can do to govern federal elections. I see that as inconsistent with the spirit of the Supremacy Clause, and generally problematic. I agree that what I am saying is not in the text of the Constitution itself, but I think I am arguing from a position of fidelity to important constitutional principles, and I don't see the important principle on the other side, unless it's something about states' rights.

Fair enough.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It depends.*

The example I'd give you is Antonio Delgado in NY 19, the district I grew up in.

I mean, the guy is Jewish. Hispanic. And Black. And he's a Harvard Law graduating Rhodes scholar. I will tell you I have heard plenty of anti-Semitic and racist slurs in that district. And plenty of anti-egghead sentiment as well. There are open bigots there who feel they can speak freely and expect their bigotry to be accepted by many of the people present. And, the district traditionally votes Republican.

But he won. Because he's a really good candidate, the kind of guy people want to talk with and are willing to listen to, and sufficiently down to earth so it formed a real contrast against the in-the-tank Republican he was running against.

He's going to have some tough sledding the next cycle or two, but I think he's capable of holding that seat long term.

To do this, Kamala has to not just be as good as the other candidates; she has to be significantly better. We'll see what she can do, but I'm not ruling her out.

Dude, I like Kamala. I'd rather have her than Biden. I'm not even arguing that she can't win.

But if you think she's Obama-level charismatic (and remember, he was all things to all people while basically admitting every time he was asked a question that he was center-left), you are delusional.

This election needs to be huge. If Kamala (or whoever) wins a squeaker, it won't matter how great her progressive ideas are. We need to win by huge margins just to undo the fuckery that Trump and McConnell have implemented. We need the Senate and the House and the Presidency. And we need as many votes in Congress as possible. If we win the Presidency and don't win the Senate, I suppose that's something. But it is not enough.

Biden isn't the most progressive person running, sure. But what difference does it make how progressive you are if you can't get anything even up for a fucking vote? Do you think Biden sits in office vetoing progressive legislation that a Dem House and Senate put on his desk? Do you think President Harris is ever presented with progressive legislation to sign if we don't have the Senate?

TM