The Joe Biden Presidency I :: Hallelujah!

Of course, you'd descent.

 

@American Brummie eluded to the same in another thread. Is there more data available to support the hypothesis?

 

sure, that’s why at the Righties were so happy when Bo Bergdahl was traded for 5 people of color…. cause a white man is worth five POCs

you truly are stuck on stupid

 

Sinema is again, the living embodiment of this Onion article. Either way, I'm skeptical she can win as an independent. Methinks if she stayed as a Dem, she'd fall through the floor in a sense and she knows it.

https://www.theonion.com/area-woman-not-good-enough-artist-to-justify-eccentrici-1819577481

 

I'm not saying she's liked by Dems in AZ. My point is that she is even less liked by Republicans. As a result, in a three way race she is hoping Democrats will think she will be pulling more votes from the Democrat than she will be pulling from the Republican. In a state that is, currently, about as Purple as you can get, it won't take too much for her to swing the election to the Republican.

This is literally her only play to stay in the Senate. As noted pretty much everywhere, she was almost guaranteed to be primaried and, as you noted, she's deeply unpopular among AZ Dems (well, Dems as a whole), so she would more than likely lose that primary.

 

He didn't call it. She's not caucusing with the Republicans.

Ruling: no prize!

 

No way Sinema wins a 3 way. She might not even get double digits. You should look into her favorability numbers with Dems and Rs.

She probably has deluded herself into thinking that she'll appeal to registered independents, but it doesn't take @American Brummie to know that the vast majority of registered independents are hard partisans for one side or the other. All you have to do is look at the tiny, tiny number of ticket splitters there are.

I could do without THAT many tattoos.

I wonder if that's why I watch less live soccer now than a decade ago...everybody is tatted up! (No, it's DC not just sucking but being just as boring as they are bad, and Blackburn's relegation.)

Maybe.

Democrats in Arizona HATE HATE HATE HATE her. It's unbelievable. She'd have a hard time beating genital herpes in a closed primary.

If the GOPs nominate another Masters, and assuming Sinema runs as an I, as I understand it Gallego would have a chance.

Overall, the blogs I got to have had alot of Sinema coverage, and I think posters in this thread don't understand how bombastically unpopular she is in Arizona.

repped. You get it. You're an Itgetter.

This is why I don't put you on ignore. You puncture alot of liberal beliefs that are truthy but not true.

 

i don’t think she wins a three way race as well. But I think she’s either a Dem spoiler or Dems strategically choose not to run against her...in which case she’s the least bad candidate for Dem and moderate voters and she could win.

 

alluded

as to your overall point...is there a particular industry she's been in bed with? She probably thinks she can be their main lobbyist for the next 10 years and get rich.

Successful lobbyists aren't hated by both parties. So if that's her plan, she'd be better off investing in lottery tickets.

She might be a relatively successful weirdo political commentator. Look at how rich Alex Jones got. It doesn't take that many followers to get rich in that field, so long as they're devoted with a capital D. The big money will be when she sells them her line of magic crystals and scented candles and shit.

 

********. Alluded.

 

isn't the issue not that she might not get elected, but that whatev support she does have, she'll drain votes from whatever D does run?

 

I will rein in terror!

At the behest of our dear leader.

HAIL GRIMES!!!

 

None. Lieberdave is just fluffing his crush

 

so what would have been better?

counting the slaves as a whole person and increasing the power of the slaves states and possibly prolonging and expanding slavery?

Not counting the slaves at all and risking the breakup of the union, which would created an entire slave state with no check on future slavery decisions?

or do what was done, odiously count slaves as only 3/5… limiting the power of the slave states and keeping them in the union?

 

That the constitutional provision of counting slaves as 3/5 of a person rather than a whole person was a sop to the South/slaveholding states.

Think about the post that prompted marek's response. What is that poster's belief? That slaves should have been counted as whole persons which would have politically benefited the slaveowning states? I doubt it. But if that's not what he meant, then his post was incoherent.

The 3/5 compromise had basically nothing to do with how the FFs viewed slaves and their humanity. If that were the case, the positions of North and South would have been reversed.

It was about political power.

 

Not counting them at all.

 

Auria has answered this rather well; but it is almost the wrong question even though it is an obvious question-- because it arises from a modern context, a context which arises from the things they got right.

The Revolution and the Articles and then the Constitution were a process of rejection of the central structures of the European legal tradition, which arose from royalty and aristocracy, which in turn arose from tribal power structures. Nations pretty much owned their citizens, and the king owned the nation; there were grades and shades and variations-- it was much better to be a Danish farmer than a Russian one-- but that was an underlying, accepted notion.

The Convention was trying to design a government with entirely different underpinnings-- but its delegates were products of the world they were out to change, many of them educated in the law schools of that world, all of them speaking a language forged in that tradition; the very words they thought in worked against them, often.

And they regarded their states as their nations; they were replacing "Articles of Confederation," not necessarily creating a new nation, in their individual minds. What was crucial to the best of them was to get buy-in from everybody for the protection of everybody. And slavery was just a part of the world they grew up in-- the slave trade was being outlawed piece by piece around Europe, but not slavery itself yet.

Slavery was just part of the world they grew up in. There were far-seeing individuals who saw the contradictions (Hamilton) and demographic groups who were philosophically opposed to the institution (Quakers, Methodists) and these had more than a little influence on the convention, but they were counterbalanced by slaveholders who were outraged by the British failure to return slaves who ran away to accept the British offer of freedom in return for service against the Revolution. The monarchial British felt a need to keep their promise, while a portion of our side felt property rights should trump honor and humanity.

And they wanted to replace the lost slaves.

So mostly what antislavery forces were able to achieve was the establishment of a deadline after which the slave trade could be outlawed-- trade, not slavery itself. It was originally set for 1800 but amended at the last minute to 1808 as a particular sop to Georgia and South Carolina. (There was a body of opinion that the Union might be better off without Georgia and South Carolina, but Georgia was subject to constant border raiding by Spanish forces, and nobody wanted to see those states fall to Spanish rule, moving the threatened area northward.) Georgia threatened to not ratify over restrictions on slavery, and North Carolina as well, and so compromises were in order...

But slavery was just a fact of life, like trade winds and winter and indians and bad roads. Most of them didn't see the conflict with some of their ideals, or not very clearly anyway. They did frequently express the belief and hope that it was about to die out of its own accord-- even slaveholding delegates did. Both slaveholders and abolitionists were worried about the large numbers of black people bring imported and bred here; they were savages after all, and probably dangerous.

And cotton was not yet king-- the cotton gin had not yet appeared, and slaves were useful in the tobacco industry, but not critical to it. Slavery at the time of the CC was not yet the extreme institution it would become when cotton and sugar became major American industries. It was much easier to treat it as a temporary thing, an embarrassment but not a fatal flaw. They were just making stuff up as they went along, and in the process they made up stuff that has served us very well-- and also stuff that has bedeviled us ever since.

 

Oh, how the myth of the FF (founding fathers) and the CC (constitutional convention) have screwed this nation over!