a third of germans voted for hitler because they were broke and desperate.

Hence Trump's insincere effort to up the amount of the stimulus cheques.

a third of germans voted for hitler because they were broke and desperate.

JL

1/3 of the electorate voted for Hitler for the same reasons, wounded pride and a sense of victimhood. Substitute anti-Jewish with anti-Black, and anti-Communism with anti-Liberal (or Libtard as they like to use) and do you really have anything different? Are Nazis and KKK the types you can have a reasonable political discourse with? Granted that's a broad brush, and not all people are like that. But then, aren't you also what you tolerate and associate with? Such as Kelly Loeffler with her KKK and QAnon ties?

rubio, definitely. sanders, not so much. but i think a lot of senator warren's pandering has flown under the radar precisely because she DOES have detailed and coherent plans, any of which would probably be helpful if successfully implemented. maybe it's the staff more than the candidate, but to me it seemed like every time in the campaign season some issue got on the news, up pops a "plan for that," which makes me go, where was that particular plan two days ago?

as it happens, i agree with pretty much all of senator warren's political stances, i just scratch my head at the timing of them.

JL

"as i see it, that's probably the main reason trump was elected in the first place, and was very nearly elected to a second term. many people wanted the whole system pulverized, no matter how awful the one doing the pulverizing. i'd say most trump voters are fully aware who he is, don't particularly like it, and vote for him anyway because of how deeply they distrust the traditional political class."

The MAJOR problem with this is that these very SAME people would do away with democracy all together! They would happily vote FOR dictatorship as long as it was of the partisan strip that they like. This is NO solution and they must be fought at every turn.

"i'd also say that part of biden's success this cycle (and part of his failure in previous cycles) came from his unwillingness to do as much of the empty pandering that most candidates traditionally do - liz warren especially comes to mind on that front."

I'd hardly call either Warren or Sanders laying out detailed plans of beliefs that they have held for years and would like to see implemented as "pandering." To me pandering is when you only adopt a position because it is currently the flavor of the month with a majority in opinion polls, and you flip flop repeatedly. To me the politician that comes to mind is Marco Rubio, not Elizabeth Warren.

don't you think that the 'good faith between honest gentlemen' trope had already failed with the american public? as i see it, that's probably the main reason trump was elected in the first place, and was very nearly elected to a second term. many people wanted the whole system pulverized, no matter how awful the one doing the pulverizing. i'd say most trump voters are fully aware who he is, don't particularly like it, and vote for him anyway because of how deeply they distrust the traditional political class. i'd also say that part of biden's success this cycle (and part of his failure in previous cycles) came from his unwillingness to do as much of the empty pandering that most candidates traditionally do - liz warren especially comes to mind on that front.

biden is still clearly a politician, and still talks in a politician's vague platitudes. but he doesn't come off like he's selling us a bill of goods.

JL

You need to face the fact that your "One Demand" ain't never gonna happen in this world. It's simply unrealistic to even hope for it. The only viable alternative is public-financed election campaigns, with a total ban on even offering, let alone accepting, bribes (aka "campaign donations").

That probably also "ain't never gonna happen", but at least it's a viable option that has the potential to accomplish the objective.

I would agree with Elizabeth that this might not succeed with many of the issues that currently split the country, and a larger or clearer mandate will probably be needed for the Dems to get some real reforms and accomplishments down the road. But I disagree that a bill like you're proposing is too much "at the heart of American democracy" to have a chance of passage this spring. As you say, you're focusing on the nuts and bolts, not on the grand concepts of, respectively, voter suppression and voter encouragement.

Was it you, perhaps, or one of the other astute political bloggers that I follow who wrote last year that this new Congress and administration would be very smart to tighten up, A LOT, the informal rules and procedures by which the Federal government does its Three Branches Waltz?

Presidents should answer subpoenas from Congress without question, not assert executive privilege. Other sanctions besides impeachment are needed to curb executive abuse of power - perhaps strong penalties on the executive staff, depriving a crooked president of his crooked enablers. National defense should not give the president carte blanche to do whatever he wants with the budget, trade, immigration, your odd border walls, etc.

Trump has shown just how much the system has long depended on 'good faith between honest gentlemen' or however else we might characterize basic U.S. constitutional politics from past eras. This recent presidency of 'bad faith conducted by a dishonest rogue' has broken that system completely. So would you guess that the same 10-12 Senators now speaking out against the soft coup against democracy might also vote for Democratic bills that seriously restrict President Biden's - oops, sorry, all future presidents' - powers to do good, or bad, depending on who's calling the game?

Election reforms, it would seem to me, cut at the very heart of American democracy. It sounds wrong, on the face of it, to suggest that these changes can be made without a supermajority, for lack of a better word at the moment, of Democrats and Republicans or be rushed through with simple majorities and/or no Republicans withoug taking the necessary time (two or even four years seems too short a time frame for such a complicated and important change) to explain why the changes should be made and to demonstrate in the clearest and most transparent way why Americans, especially those who are inclined to believe that the 2020 presidential election results can't be trusted, should put their trust in how elections are run.

While this sounds like a very reasonable response to how most reasonable deal with accepting change... let’s face it... we are not dealing with REASONABLE people because no person whose actions and decisions are based on lies and misinformation makes reasonable choices!

This needs to be rammed thru as quickly as possible and then we can all debate how effective the changes are once they take effect. There was no way that continued discussion of “ObamaCare” (the ACA) was going to get the other side to see the wisdom of it. Getting it passed and put it into practice did not stop the debate and changed few peoples minds...except most of those that still oppose “ObamaCare” are fierce proponents of the ACA!

After all, Pelosi needs no Republicans to pass a new Electoral Count Act, so the number of GOP House members participating in the Kabuki on Wednesday is immaterial.

But, how would this outcome on such an important issue lead to a better situation? How would it help to persuade people who think the election was compromised?

And getting some [Republican senators] to work with Democrats on fixing some of the loopholes and glaring contradictions in the Electoral Count Act seems entirely possible. All the Democrats would need would be 10 to 12 of them (depending on Georgia's outcome).

Again, isn't this a recipe for more division among the people, with just minimal bipartisanship in the US senate?

Election reforms, it would seem to me, cut at the very heart of American democracy. It sounds wrong, on the face of it, to suggest that these changes can be made without a supermajority, for lack of a better word at the moment, of Democrats and Republicans or be rushed through with simple majorities and/or no Republicans withoug taking the necessary time (two or even four years seems too short a time frame for such a complicated and important change) to explain why the changes should be made and to demonstrate in the clearest and most transparent way why Americans, especially those who are inclined to believe that the 2020 presidential election results can't be trusted, should put their trust in how elections are run.