Some political news to discuss this week. There were two impactful Supreme Court cases decided recently. Liberals went 1-1 in these decisions, with some caveats to their "win." In the loss, the court decided a ruling on state-level political gerrymandering was outside their purview, effectively allowing it to continue. In theory, this doesn't privilege any political party over the other. In practice, it is a huge boon to Republicans who are advantaged by gerrymandering much more so than Democrats. In fact, I think that's precisely why the court came down this way. If the situation was flipped, I guarantee you at least one conservative justice would have changed his vote. That's not cynicism; that's reality. It's not an insurmountable obstacle -- and it could have a boomerang effect on Republicans in that it will prompt Democrats to actually show up in state and local elections (they matter) -- but without question it's a blow to our representative democracy.
In the win, the court ruled, for the time being, that the Trump administration cannot include a citizenship question on the 2020 census. The reason this matters is because such a question will undercount undocumented folks, who will (understandably) not want to share their immigration status with an administration who thinks concentration camps are good policy. The census is used to determine the distribution of political weight in our country, and by constitutional directive it is supposed to count all residents of the United States, regardless of immigration status. Leaving out undocumented people would unlawfully disadvantage those areas where they mostly live. These areas are, of course, also where Democrats mostly live.
It's a straight-up power grab by a Republican party who is doing its best to stay in power despite moving further away from the average voter -- democracy be damned. Fortunately, they were too transparent in this gambit. John Roberts, the Bush-appointed chief justice, who is now the closest thing the court has to a swing vote, somewhat surprisingly sided with the liberal justices, saying the administration failed to provide adequate justification for why a citizenship question was warranted. That's heartening, but it still leaves the door open for a future challenge. I think Roberts really, really wanted to side with the Trump administration, but the premise of their case (that it was to support voting rights or something like that) was so obviously bullshit that he just couldn't do it. It's like if you're a bouncer at a bar, and a kid shows up with a piece of notebook paper with a stick figure drawing on it, and says it's his ID. C'mon, kid, at least show me your older brother's ID or something. I think that's what Roberts was saying, and it's slightly nerve-racking, because the Trump administration could come back with a slightly more plausible fake ID -- and then what? Probably they don't have time. Maybe Trump will just distract his base with something more exciting and let this one slip away (as he does sometimes). Maybe this won't even get back to the Supreme Court again. But still, it might not be over.
In other political news, I watched some of the Democratic debates. I liked them more than I thought I would. I don't like the candidates so much, but the debates were fine. My dream candidate is clearly not in this field, but I (obviously) will enthusiastically support any of them in a general election against Trump. Here's my ranking of all 20 debate-qualifying candidates thus far.
1. Kamala Harris: She was lower on my list last night when she said she wanted to abolish private health insurance, but today she said she misunderstood the question. I don't think advocating for the elimination of private health insurance is a practical or smart political move for Democrats. Universal coverage is a good message; protecting existing coverage is a good message; abolishing private health insurance (which a lot of people like) is not. Even if it's what you want (and it might be for Harris, she's very wishy-washy on this issue), I think you need to be more realistic in how you go about it. Slow, incremental change is sometimes the least-worst course of action.
In general, Harris has been less than consistent on several major topics (health care, reparations, voting rights of incarcerated felons), and she needs to get that sorted if she's going to stay at the top of my list. I think she's spending too much effort trying to game out her answers in a way that is maximally politically beneficial, and that's the exact wrong thing to do, in my opinion. It's totally counterproductive because it makes you look phony. She should do and say what she thinks is right and work to make that the politically popular position. People usually respect that even if they disagree with you.
Another big knock against Harris is her aggressiveness, illiberal behavior as a prosecutor. But my feeling on this is if black people -- those most affected by overzealous prosecution -- are willing to support her despite her track record in this area, then so am I. Also, her time as a prosecutor honed her razor-sharp mind and tongue (assets), and if we want to be really cynical, it's possible her problematic past will actually play well with people who are very liberal on most things (gay-rights, abortion, etc.), but more conservative on crime than they are willing to admit. My hunch is that is not an insignificant number of voters.
Lastly, women and people of color, especially women of color, are the base of the Democratic party. So, it makes sense to nominate one. Again, I'm not in love with Harris by any stretch, but she's my number one, right now, if only by default.
2. Joe Biden: Now, for the complete opposite. Yes, I know, he's a gaffe-prone old white guy, drawn to the siren-song of "the good old days" and bipartisanship. He over-the-hill, has little of substance to say, and his only asset is being associated with Obama. But I'm buying into the "he can beat Trump in the Midwest" narrative. Maybe this is foolish, I don't know. But I do know he has as good a chance as anyone to be the nominee, and if he is, all the sane people in this country have to come together and support him. Period.
3. Elizabeth Warren: I like almost all her policies, with a big exception being the aforementioned abolition of private health insurance.
4. Pete Buttigieg: I love how he challenges the right on their religious hypocrisy. I'd rather see him run for a Senate seat than the White House though. I mean, he's younger than me. Why the rush?
5. Julian Castro: I thought he came off the best on immigration in the first debate. This is an issue Dems should go toe-to-toe with Trump on. "Treat human beings like human beings" and "don't criminalize desperation" are winning (and moral) ideas, in my opinion.
6. Andrew Yang: If the only thing the next president does is pass a universal basic income bill (and not be Donald Trump) it won't be a terrible presidency.
7. Jay Inslee: Somebody needs to make climate change their main priority.
8. Corey Booker: I don't really like or dislike anything about him. He's the epitome of generic Democratic candidate.
9. Amy Klobuchar: Moderate Midwestern purple-staters are a big reason the Democrats retook the house last year, and I'm super grateful for that, but they still don't inspire me much. Sorry.
10. Bernie Sanders: A Bernie Bro, I am not. I do like how unapologetic he is on his ideas, however. As I said before, I wish Kamala Harris had more of this in her. In retrospect, I really think Bernie would have beaten Trump in 2016. I don't think he would in 2020. He narrowly missed his lightning-in-a-bottle moment.
11. Kirsten Gillibrand: She's the female Corey Booker, only doing a little bit worse in the polls.
12. Marianne Williamson: Beating Trump with love is a great message at your secular, new age-y church or whatever. It's probably not the best message for a sure-to-be-nasty presidential race. Although... who knows? And she does seem to have a laudable humanitarian track record.
13. Beto O'Rourke: I liked him when he was running against Ted Cruz for a Senate seat, but as a presidential candidate, I feel about him the same way Josh in Big feels about the toy building.
14. -- 18. Tim Ryan, Tulsi Gabbard, John Delaney, Michael Bennett, Eric Swalwell: In no particular order, because I still don't know enough about these people to rank them.
19. John Hickenlooper: A brewer by trade and yet he opposed the legalization of marijuana as governor of Colorado. Then he tried to reference it as an accomplishment on the debate stage. Bruh.
20. Bill de Blasio: Everybody's favorite punching bag, so I'll join the fray. Why is he there?
Sorry not sorry to Steve Bullock, Seth Moulton, and Wayne Messam. You can make my list when you make the debates.
Until next time...
1. Kamala Harris: She was lower on my list last night when she said she wanted to abolish private health insurance, but today she said she misunderstood the question. I don't think advocating for the elimination of private health insurance is a practical or smart political move for Democrats. Universal coverage is a good message; protecting existing coverage is a good message; abolishing private health insurance (which a lot of people like) is not. Even if it's what you want (and it might be for Harris, she's very wishy-washy on this issue), I think you need to be more realistic in how you go about it. Slow, incremental change is sometimes the least-worst course of action.
In general, Harris has been less than consistent on several major topics (health care, reparations, voting rights of incarcerated felons), and she needs to get that sorted if she's going to stay at the top of my list. I think she's spending too much effort trying to game out her answers in a way that is maximally politically beneficial, and that's the exact wrong thing to do, in my opinion. It's totally counterproductive because it makes you look phony. She should do and say what she thinks is right and work to make that the politically popular position. People usually respect that even if they disagree with you.
Another big knock against Harris is her aggressiveness, illiberal behavior as a prosecutor. But my feeling on this is if black people -- those most affected by overzealous prosecution -- are willing to support her despite her track record in this area, then so am I. Also, her time as a prosecutor honed her razor-sharp mind and tongue (assets), and if we want to be really cynical, it's possible her problematic past will actually play well with people who are very liberal on most things (gay-rights, abortion, etc.), but more conservative on crime than they are willing to admit. My hunch is that is not an insignificant number of voters.
Lastly, women and people of color, especially women of color, are the base of the Democratic party. So, it makes sense to nominate one. Again, I'm not in love with Harris by any stretch, but she's my number one, right now, if only by default.
2. Joe Biden: Now, for the complete opposite. Yes, I know, he's a gaffe-prone old white guy, drawn to the siren-song of "the good old days" and bipartisanship. He over-the-hill, has little of substance to say, and his only asset is being associated with Obama. But I'm buying into the "he can beat Trump in the Midwest" narrative. Maybe this is foolish, I don't know. But I do know he has as good a chance as anyone to be the nominee, and if he is, all the sane people in this country have to come together and support him. Period.
3. Elizabeth Warren: I like almost all her policies, with a big exception being the aforementioned abolition of private health insurance.
4. Pete Buttigieg: I love how he challenges the right on their religious hypocrisy. I'd rather see him run for a Senate seat than the White House though. I mean, he's younger than me. Why the rush?
5. Julian Castro: I thought he came off the best on immigration in the first debate. This is an issue Dems should go toe-to-toe with Trump on. "Treat human beings like human beings" and "don't criminalize desperation" are winning (and moral) ideas, in my opinion.
6. Andrew Yang: If the only thing the next president does is pass a universal basic income bill (and not be Donald Trump) it won't be a terrible presidency.
7. Jay Inslee: Somebody needs to make climate change their main priority.
8. Corey Booker: I don't really like or dislike anything about him. He's the epitome of generic Democratic candidate.
9. Amy Klobuchar: Moderate Midwestern purple-staters are a big reason the Democrats retook the house last year, and I'm super grateful for that, but they still don't inspire me much. Sorry.
10. Bernie Sanders: A Bernie Bro, I am not. I do like how unapologetic he is on his ideas, however. As I said before, I wish Kamala Harris had more of this in her. In retrospect, I really think Bernie would have beaten Trump in 2016. I don't think he would in 2020. He narrowly missed his lightning-in-a-bottle moment.
11. Kirsten Gillibrand: She's the female Corey Booker, only doing a little bit worse in the polls.
12. Marianne Williamson: Beating Trump with love is a great message at your secular, new age-y church or whatever. It's probably not the best message for a sure-to-be-nasty presidential race. Although... who knows? And she does seem to have a laudable humanitarian track record.
13. Beto O'Rourke: I liked him when he was running against Ted Cruz for a Senate seat, but as a presidential candidate, I feel about him the same way Josh in Big feels about the toy building.
14. -- 18. Tim Ryan, Tulsi Gabbard, John Delaney, Michael Bennett, Eric Swalwell: In no particular order, because I still don't know enough about these people to rank them.
19. John Hickenlooper: A brewer by trade and yet he opposed the legalization of marijuana as governor of Colorado. Then he tried to reference it as an accomplishment on the debate stage. Bruh.
20. Bill de Blasio: Everybody's favorite punching bag, so I'll join the fray. Why is he there?
Sorry not sorry to Steve Bullock, Seth Moulton, and Wayne Messam. You can make my list when you make the debates.
Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment