Joe Money, Joe Problems: the November 2021 U.S. Politics Thread

Veering into total speculation, if the midterms are as bad as they will probably be, or even leading up to them, I wonder if there won't be growing chatter (stoked by Politico et al) about Democrats thinking Biden should decide not to run for re-election for health reasons. Or even step down and let Harris run as an incumbent.

Harris would not have a chance

Yeah, the Dems won't do that, passing the baton to Harris guarantees the GOP win in '24.

Also, I don't actually disagree with Haley about cognitive tests. I'd be in favor of an upper age limit to run for federal office period.

so many political institutions are dominated by old corpses of overly bearded 1880s men, reclining in cobwebs. the next generation of american political leaders is 60 years old right now. do we expect them to vote against their own interests as soon-to-be Ancient Leaders? after waiting their turn all their lives, waiting to become so old that they no longer recognize anything that their constituents are doing, that they don't even understand how the economy works, or what kinds of jobs people do, harboring bitter resentments against people 50 years younger than them trying to moderate their language and accusing them of inherent racism? after doing all of that, they're not going to accept their rightful place at the top of the political system that rewards those who have the most faith in the ideas of the 1930s and 1980s?

no way. the only time a politician votes against their own interests is when they screw their own constituents. they don't do it to themselves. there's a whole class of politicians that are about to collect their reward for being a total dick for the past 60 years. they're not going to vote to put a limit on that, just before its their own time.

signed, the most ageist jerk on the internet, who will definitely die before he gets old, probably, please,

I don’t disagree and wish she weren’t the fallback. But man I really don’t know if another Biden run is going to be sustainable. It was held together with duct tape last time, and it won’t just be easy to paint him as doddering and incapacitated, it will be hard to paint him as anything but. At least if he were out of the picture it would open up the possibility for a Democratic primary. Not that there are great obvious options on the bench either.

(That was xpost to Harris posts)

Oh to be clear, I don't think Biden is going to be sustainable either. I'm hoping (most likely in vain, I know) they are working behind the scenes to have someone actually electable as a Plan B.

the Senate is likely to remain more in play than the House, last thing you want is to kill the filibuster and then have the Democrats take back the Senate

Show your work. It's always been my understanding that the Senate is not so slowly slipping out of Democrats' grasp and that once it's gone it'll be gone basically forever because the solid R states are wastelands with fewer people in 'em than the town I live in.

Thank god the important work is still getting done.

NEW: Biden is selling Saudi Arabia $650 million in missiles, calls the move "fully consistent" with ending the war in Yemen. pic.twitter.com/UPBwEpMYtz

— Akbar Shahid Ahmed (@AkbarSAhmed) November 4, 2021

i was worried

Show your work. It's always been my understanding that the Senate is not so slowly slipping out of Democrats' grasp and that once it's gone it'll be gone basically forever because the solid R states are wastelands with fewer people in 'em than the town I live in.

That's certainly the argument here: https://www.vox.com/2021/10/18/22724808/democrats-senate-disadvantage-shor-klein

I just think that once redistricting is done, the likelihood of winning a House majority again this decade shrinks considerably. Whereas the Senate is more susceptible to, say, a terrible candidate winning a Republican primary in a relatively close state. You can't gerrymander the Senate any more than it already effectively is gerrymandered, so the Republicans have to actually win statewide elections.

But yeah, the reality is that none of the scenarios look promising for Democrats.

As with climate change, I'm moving into a how-to-cope-with-impending-disaster mindset. If we assume complete GOP control of the federal and a majority of state governments through (at a minimum) the back half of the 2020s, where are the vulnerabilities going to be, what are going to be the effective pressure points. We know for sure that they will fuck up all sorts of things (because they're crooks who are not good at governing), so how can those fuck-ups be leveraged when they inevitably happen? I think that's how progressive interest groups and alliances should be thinking. Prepare for long-term guerrilla politics, basically.

the cultural politics of the republican party are basically anathema to the urban centers of the US, which is where financial and cultural power are concentrated. if they really do "rig" the rules to establish a permanent majority, i can't imagine that would go over quietly.

Businesses have awakened to the profit-making opportunities of #woke so long as they also benefit from GOP-friendly state legislatures. Look at my state.

these fuckers really love commenting on stacks of paper

2,145 pages. Every Democrat should answer a simple question before they vote for this Socialist Spending Scam:

Have you even read the bill? pic.twitter.com/Oaks4lrmX4

— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) November 5, 2021

there is always money for corporate tax cuts though

Businesses have awakened to the profit-making opportunities of #woke so long as they also benefit from GOP-friendly state legislatures. Look at my state.

― So who you gonna call? The martini police (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, November 5, 2021 1:15 PM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i mean, the ultra-rich seem willing to let the country rot. they need to wise up, though. their wealth means nothing if the united states collapses, which is what will happen if inequality continues rising at this rate...

not to mention climate change.

it's a complete fantasy that "the good life" can be maintained in lieu of a functioning society.

did u guys read that terrible editorial in the nytimes today

I'm approaching the age when I need to protect my vision.

the ultra-rich can afford to move and set up their new castle wherever they want, even if it's on a sea of rotting carcasses

goooood mooooourning!

that's what they think.

treeship otm

yea I agree with treeship too, if things really start getting bad it doesn't seem like there will be a shortage of people willing to make every aspect of their lives uncomfortable

also money would lose its value.

the cultural politics of the republican party are basically anathema to the urban centers of the US, which is where financial and cultural power are concentrated.

I think about this a lot, especially being in one of the many blue-dot red states. GOP legislatures like to wage war on liberal-bastion cities, but there is (or should be) a legitimate goose-golden egg concern there. My guess is you can only go so far in establishing a completely hostile atmosphere toward any kind of progressive thought before it hurts your economy. I don't know where that line is, though.

i don't think this is a a controp, but i think rich people will be fine. they will flee to the most livable areas in a world that is burning, they will gather together and have their own private militia/guard, and they will hide behind walls and multiple layers of security access. it will be worse than before for them, but not nearly as bad as it will be for everyone else.

or hell, maybe they'll just be on the space station

What’s the scenario where money has no value though? Extinction-level apocalypse?

Short of that, a slide into a completely undemocratic authoritarian state leaves the wealthy protected in every way.

"is that the eastern seaboard on fire down there, dear?"
"why, it certainly is! do you think it's the summer fires or the 6th civil war?"
"oh, who can tell the difference any more, i just hate how the smoke clouds our view!"
"robot! i'm going to go have sex in the matrix now!"
"coooooompliance!"

undemocratic, authoritarian states are far less stable than regimes that the public view as "legitimate." in addition, economies where workers have few opportunities for advancement or stability are less productive. it doesn't pay to be the king of the ashes, you know.

they'll be "better off" than the rest of us, true. but i still think our "ruling class" is terribly misguided in their decision to act as such poor stewards of our economy, government, and planet.

it's hard to overstate how completely the function of the parties is to create the illusion of meaningful choice. if a person doesn't see that i don't know what to tell them.

it doesn't pay to be the king of the ashes, you know.

https://i.imgur.com/Ul7Uk5B.jpg

undemocratic, authoritarian states are far less stable than regimes that the public view as "legitimate."

… citation needed. Liberal democratic states are the historical anomaly here. (Including in the US, which has functionally had sort-of liberal democracy for all of 57 years.)

The Mumbai zillionaire whose high-rise house butts up against slums probably doesn’t feel real sad about his position in the world.

And you can always just look at the European aristocracy and trace wealth and power that has weathered centuries of civil wars and revolutions.

https://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/

Being King of the Ashes is, in fact, pretty tight.

Which is all to say that the rich have no reason to be invested in what any of us would describe as a functioning society or state. They’ll be fine anyway.

yeah then at least then you don't have the pseudo-rich hanging around your spots making it uncool

And the poors can’t yell at you on your yacht without being shot by your Pinkerton detail.

The New Deal was a historical anomaly. We're living on the fumes. Can't wait to see how much chipping the Fourteenth Amendment can take!

I'd say liberal democratic states are more stable in the ways rich people care most about, which is the assurance that the government will not seize all your assets and throw you in prison. (See any number of uncooperative Russian oligarchs, e.g.) Being rich is a much better hedge against poverty and imprisonment in the United States than it is in Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, etc etc.

And for all the private militia talk, I just don't know how many billionaires really want to maintain an entire feudal state on their own. They want to be be able to go to the Met gala, not just sit on a private island. (Any of them who want the private-island option can have that too, obv.)

But also no, I'm not counting on millionaires and billionaires to save us. I just think there are pragmatic reasons for them not to be too enthusiastic about a MAGA state. Look at how Trump jerked around companies and CEOs who he didn't think paid him sufficient respect. To map's point, the 1 percent want a government they can reliably buy, and the two-party system has been pretty amenable to that.

And for all the private militia talk, I just don't know how many billionaires really want to maintain an entire feudal state on their own. They want to be be able to go to the Met gala, not just sit on a private island. (Any of them who want the private-island option can have that too, obv.)

well said. this is basically my point.

maybe the private island is the USA

I think the private militia stuff is about the super rich worrying about climate-change related societal breakdown. I heard something about billionaires worrying about how to keep their bodyguards loyal in the case of a revolution

The Roman Empire provides a good example of what happens when you don't pay the guards enough

and when you don't provide national health insurance #lead

They don’t have to maintain a private militia, that’s why we have cops and the US military.

They just get the option to kill the poors for sport because even the fantasy of the rule of law melts away.

The only way they have to become private island warlords is the complete collapse of society, which… we have like 3500 nukes. That collapse doesn’t come without those getting launched and making all questions moot.

my uncle is the only super rich person i know. he's a big fucking asshole. he built out most of his basement (which is, by itself, larger than my people's homes) so it's a survivor compound, complete with a fully stocked wine bar (whine bar). maybe all the other rich people are not as fucking crazy and selfish as he is, but he seems to have a lot of friends and colleagues that are also rich, and also gigantic assholes, so i imagine either he's rubbing off on them or the other way around. if nothing else, there will be at least a sizable majority of super-rich that really will retreat to their floating fortresses. but maybe all the rest will be like warren buffett or bill gates, your classic good guy rich guy

oof, i just shared a juicy anecdote about a super-rich person and then deleted it. such is life! such are non-disclosure agreements!

they are naive as fuck though. i don't think they have what it takes to maintain their position in a world where all the old systems of value fall apart. however, i could be wrong.

yeah, i'm just talking out of my ass, anyway. i was trained from birth to believe the world is about to end, it's hard to de-condition