Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic Party

[Sommerswerd]

I'll just bring it back to myself. It comes back to why O'Donnell's thesis resonates with me. It resonates in psychological terms. Why would we not expect people who believe in change, who like change, who think that one the whole change tends to be positive, who desperately need society to change in particular ways to be more disappointed with politicians who fail to deliver on their promised changes than people who don't like change, tend to think change is a negative, etc. are when the people they elect fail to deliver on their promises?

This was a great insight that I didn't want to miss complimenting you on, or forget to circle back to. If I may rephrase... The folks who want change are more likely to be dissatisfied with their politicians who fail to deliver change they promised, than the folks who want things to stay the same. The folks who want things to stay the same will more easily forgive their politicians who fail to deliver the change they promised (ostensibly, in the case of Conservatives, to put things back how they "used to be"), because at least things stayed the same, which they are more or less fine with.

As an aside, I'd also expect that principle to work on an individual basis, across party lines... which, thinking about it some more, I think goes back to some of the points that @NinjaCow64 was making about "change" candidates versus "establishment" candidates.

 

[Gorbles]

I've pretty much concluded a while back that you are strawmanning, whether you realize it or not, and you are refusing to accept anything less than me (or someone else) taking up the strawman that you are determined to argue against.

Your conclusion suggests discussion is kinda fruitless, and that your words about not being upset are just that - words. All in bad faith, all performance for people who you want to read this positively.

If you dont want to discuss something with me, say so. This is yet another post where you don't answer a straightforward question, and I'm hoping that's as clear to others as it is to me.

This phrase belies exactly what I am stating above... you have a position that you are projecting onto me and trying to get me to take, so you can argue against it... ie strawmanning.

No, I've given you the option of choosing between yes and no. You can call this a forced dichotomy, or whatever other phrase you want to adopt from my posts, if you'd like. All I'm asking is a simple agree or disagree to: are you blaming progressives for Republican policy choices in the event progressives do not vote for Biden, nomatter their reasoning?

And I've given you the choice ever since you blamed progressives for Republican policy. At this point it's on you for not answering any form of it. Again, I'm hoping this is obvious for other readers.

It's not a "strawman". I'm calling you on something I think you did, and I've laid out multiple posts of reasoning supporting it. The best others have is "I don't think he meant it like that". I think you do. None of that is a "strawman", to the extent it seems like you don't even know what the word means, you just know it's a good way of browbeating someone to drop the argument.

 

[Zardnaar]

This was a great insight that I didn't want to miss complimenting you on, or forget to circle back to. If I may rephrase... The folks who want change are more likely to be dissatisfied with their politicians who fail to deliver change they promised, than the folks who want things to stay the same. The folks who want things to stay the same will more easily forgive their politicians who fail to deliver the change they promised (ostensibly, in the case of Conservatives, to put things back how they "used to be"), because at least things stayed the same, which they are more or less fine with.

As an aside, I'd also expect that principle to work on an individual basis, across party lines... which, thinking about it some more, I think goes back to some of the points that @NinjaCow64 was making about "change" candidates versus "establishment" candidates.

On thing is if you campaign on "hope and change" people xan project all sorts of things onto you.

Which inevitably leads to disappointment.

Here our "hope and change" candidate over promised on specifics then had to coalition a centre right party.

Catch 22 go into opposition or coalition a party that only signs off on some of your policies.

And the ones you try to do collide with reality. Money was there specialists were not.

 

[Gori the Grey]

On thing is if you campaign on "hope and change" people xan project all sorts of things onto you.

Obama was pre-Trump in that way: devised a slogan that anyone could read whatever they wanted into.

Disappointing to Democrats. Whereas, Trumpers absolutely believe that he "Made America Great Again."

One of the new campaign slogans I've seen around for Trump this time out is "Save America Again."

So America was Unsaved under Obama. Then it was Saved for four years. Now it's Unsaved again. But it could be Saved yet again.

Some saving that first time!

"Save" (religiously super-charged word) means nothing more than "my favored guy is in office." Or, to put it another way, my guy just being in office is as significant a thing as salvation itself!

Just being in office, to repeat O'Donnell's thesis. Pretty much independently of achieving anything in particular. (How's that wall coming?)

 

[Sommerswerd]

Your conclusion suggests discussion is kinda fruitless

As I've said, I don't regard this discussion as fruitless at all. You might find it fruitless, possibly because, as I've said, you aren't getting the result that you want. But once again, I'm not trying to convince you to vote for/support etc., Biden/Democrats. I'm not after the result that you've been characterizing me as being after, rather I've had other goals for the discussion, so no, the discussion hasn't been fruitless. One of the things I am doing is trying to explore the motivations and mindsets of voters as discussed in the O'Donnell segment and hear others' analysis of those topics along with the logic and reasoning behind their positions.

No, I've given you the option of choosing between yes and no. You can call this a forced dichotomy, or whatever other phrase you want to adopt from my posts, if you'd like.

Right, but I'm under no obligation to accept this "dichotomy" as you describe it. You are trying to frame the issue in a certain way and I reject this framing, so I can decline your invitation "choose" the options you are offering. What you are doing here is trying to get me to take on the role of the Democrat trying to convince people to vote for Democrats based on the "lesser-of-two-evils" argument. Your "question" isn't really a question at all, its completely rhetorical, especially, since you've stated repeatedly that you've already decided the answer. Rather your rhetorical "question" is an obvious attempt to try and force me into taking the position you want to oppose. I'm not doing that. That's why my responses aren't satisfactory to you.

All I'm asking is a simple agree or disagree to: are you blaming progressives for Republican policy choices in the event progressives do not vote for Biden, nomatter their reasoning?

I understand your question, but I reject the form of it, because its just a tool to try and force me into making a "lesser-of-two-evils" appeal, that I've said I'm not interested in doing in this discussion. As I've said previously, I understand that people who might otherwise be more inclined to vote for Democrats have legitimate reasons to choose not to vote for Biden/Democrats.

 

[Gori the Grey]

What you are doing here is trying to get me to take on the role of the Democrat trying to convince people to vote for Democrats based on the "lesser-of-two-evils" argument.

And you got me for that, Gorbles! I don't have Sommer's reservation on that matter. Vote Blue No Matter Who!

 

[Gorbles]

But once again, I'm not trying to convince you to vote for/support etc., Biden/Democrats.

And I'm not saying you are.

One of the things I am doing is trying to explore the motivations and mindsets of voters as discussed in the O'Donnell segment and hear others' analysis of those topics along with the logic and reasoning behind their positions.

And yet, you're not listening to mine, presumably because it argues against the pet theory you've decided makes sense, and you don't want someone raining on that parade.

Or maybe there's another reason. It's impossible to tell because you decided however long ago to respond to the caricature you have of me (or my argument) that exists in your head, instead of the guy trying to talk to you here, however frustrated I may be.

What you are doing here is trying to get me to take on the role of the Democrat trying to convince people to vote for Democrats based on the "lesser-of-two-evils" argument.

No, I'm not. But me saying that is pointless because you admitted that you've arrived at that conclusion irrespective of what I say!

I understand your question, but I reject the form of it, because its just a tool to try and force me into making a "lesser-of-two-evils" appeal, that I've said I'm not interested in doing in this discussion. As I've said previously, I understand that people who might otherwise be more inclined to vote for Democrats have legitimate reasons to choose not to vote for Biden/Democrats.

And yet, you seemingly blamed them for a whole range of consequences, both real and imagined. Do I need to point you back at the exact post where you did so?

Like, that's all I'm trying to "force" you into. You said some junk about an "#AbandonBiden" hashtag r.e. single issue voters and said that that was why Republicans were getting the wins they were getting (and wins they've yet to get). It read very clearly as blaming people for their vote.

That's not "understanding". That's not considering peoples' reasoning as "legitimate". That's blaming people for enabling Republican policy. Irrespective of trying to get anyone to vote a particular way or not, which is completely irrelevant to my point.

edit - it would be very nice if my phone's autocorrect could stop getting worse every bleeding time I get a new phone, because it makes me have to edit posts a lot more than I'd like!

 

[Sommerswerd]

Obama was pre-Trump in that way: devised a slogan that anyone could read whatever they wanted into.

Disappointing to Democrats. Whereas, Trumpers absolutely believe that he "Made America Great Again."

One of the new campaign slogans I've seen around for Trump this time out is "Save America Again."

So America was Unsaved under Obama. Then it was Saved for four years. Now it's Unsaved again. But it could be Saved yet again.

Some saving that first time!

"Save" (religiously charged word) means nothing more than "my favored guy is in office." Or, to put it another way, my guy just being in office is as significant a thing as salvation itself!

Worth noting, that contrary to how they are (often derisively) lumped together as "Hope and Change", it was actually two distinct slogans, "Hope" and "Change". We've discussed this before... why "Hope" and "Change" were such great slogans for people to project whatever they wanted into them, but you just pointed out something similar about Trump's slogan that was similar in a way that I had not really connected previously to a characteristic of Obama's slogan(s).

Something I've mentioned previously on these threads, was that Obama delivered on both "Hope" and "Change" because one of the things that the slogans screamed for folks to project onto them... one of the most "on-the-nose" things about the slogans was about Obama being the first Black major party candidate and then the first Black POTUS. Conventional wisdom had previously been that America would never elect a Black POTUS because the racism/prejudice factors present were too strong to overcome. So the "hope" was that we hoped America actually could elect a Black POTUS... and the "change" was that America had never had a Black POTUS before but we were going to change that.

So in that way, Obama's election immediately delivered on the twin slogans of "Hope" and "Change" for many voters folks who had viewed the slogans in that way. But I didn't really connect, until you just pointed it out that Trump's MAGA slogan could similarly have been delivered upon in the same way for his voters. "Make America Great Again" could have felt as simple and straightforward in some voters minds as "by electing Trump" or "by electing a Republican" or "by taking back the Presidency from the Democrats".

Some political comedians, The Daily Show, for example ran some segments where they would ask Trump supporters who claimed they supported Trump's claim that he wanted to "make America great... again"... when was America last great? The interviewees they showed would then of course hilariously fall into the trap of naming some period in American history where there was slavery, segregation, or women couldn't vote., and so on... and then have to eat their words, or get a deer in headlights look. But as you've identified... the correct answer, at least what was probably the answer which best reflected the real sentiment of Trump supporters, was that America was great until the Republicans lost the White House. Part of what made Trump a "change" candidate from a Conservative standpoint, is that his election promised to change things... back to the way they were before.

 

[Gori the Grey]

"Make America Great Again" could have felt as simple and straightforward in some voters minds as "by electing Trump" or "by electing a Republican" or "by taking back the Presidency from the Democrats".

And, sadly, just "by getting that Black dude out of the Oval Office."

And here:

what was probably the answer which best reflected the real sentiment of Trump supporters, was that America was great until the Republicans lost the White House in 2008.

until White people did.

 

[Sommerswerd]

And yet, you're not listening to mine, presumably because it argues against the pet theory you've decided makes sense, and you don't want someone raining on that parade.

Well...Look at what I said:

One of the things I am doing is trying to explore the motivations and mindsets of voters as discussed in the O'Donnell segment

As you stated repeatedly, at the beginning of the discussion, when you were absolutely chastising me for not making convincing arguments to sway Democratic voters, you're not a voter in the US elections, because you are in the UK... So can you see both the humor and the irony in you responding to the above with this:

And yet, you're not listening to mine

Humorous... because "voters as discussed in the O'Donnell segment" obviously means US voters, which you are not... and ironic, because you obviously weren't listening to me when I said "voters as discussed in the O'Donnell segment", because despite not being one, you immediately complained about me not listening to you.

Putting all the above aside, I can still appreciate your perspective on the motivations of US voters and why they may not want to vote for Biden/Democrats, so fire away with those. All I'm saying is I'm not going to go along with being cast in this discussion as the "browbeating" Democrat that is trying to convince people to vote for Biden/Democrats so you can then chastise me for "actively hindering" peoples' vote with my misguided/ineffective convincing technique.

 

[Gorbles]

Humorous... because "voters as discussed in the O'Donnell segment" obviously means US voters, which you are not... and ironic, because you obviously weren't listening to me when I said "voters as discussed in the O'Donnell segment", because despite not being one, you immediately complained about me not listening to you.

And I'm telling you as a progressive voters repeatedly blamed for "letting the bad guys win" (despite tactically voting pretty much all of the time) that the country is irrelevant. The theory is junk, not least because "single issue voters" are rarely if ever just that.

Putting all the above aside, I can still appreciate your perspective on the motivations of US voters and why they may not want to vote for Biden/Democrats, so fire away with those. All I'm saying is I'm not going to go along with being cast in this discussion as the "browbeating" Democrat that is trying to convince people to vote for Biden/Democrats so you can then chastise me for "actively hindering" peoples' vote with my misguided/ineffective convincing technique.

And once again, I didn't say you were trying to convince people one way or the other. I don't think you're trying to.

The "hindering" comment was one (part of one) post out of many, you can ignore it if you want! You certainly did at the time when you called it poppycock or whatever

What I'm saying is that you are not understanding what you claim to understand. I'm saying that you're browbeating progressives for not falling in line and voting. None of that has anything to do with trying to do anything. I fully believe that you're not trying to change the votes you're ultimately criticising (by blaming them for Republican actions).

(if you dont care and refuse to own the consequences - intended or not - that's entirely separate)

The fact you can't even answer a single question ain't helping. Make whatever excuse you want - it doesn't change anything. You want a group to blame, instead of blaming the party for its failures. I'm not sure there's any appreciation you can do that bridges that gap in understanding (that you claim you understand).

 

[Sommerswerd]

The "hindering" comment was one (part of one) post out of many, you can ignore it if you want! You certainly did at the time when you called it poppycock or whatever

Here you're doing exactly what you keep accusing me of ... you are ignoring the post(s) you made which clearly demonstrates that you are trying to criticize me for not properly convincing people to vote for Biden/Democrats. Its what you actually said... multiple times... but then when I point it out... you say "oh just ignore that" because... it "was one part of one post out of many"... what?? What does that even mean?

You insisted that I was doing a poor job and following a losing strategy/tactic and so on... of trying to convince people to vote for Biden/Democrats... multiple times, despite me repeatedly telling you that I was not interested in doing that in this discussion. I called you out on that and then you start denying, falsely, that you were in fact doing that... instead of just admitting that you were, in-fact, accusing me of trying to convince people to vote for Biden/Democrats... but now you realize that you were wrong and you are trying to change your position/argument to another topic.

You were wrong and you can't admit/accept it. You just want to try to sweep it under the rug, saying "ignore it". I'm not ignoring it. Yes, I can certainly choose for myself what I want to ignore and what I don't. I can choose to ignore your rhetorical question, and choose not to let you off the hook for wrongly accusing me of trying to convince people to vote for Biden/Democrats. Of course you want me to accept and respond to the self-serving framing of the discussion that suits your preferred narrative and "ignore" the flaws in your reasoning/argument. Instead, you want me to "ignore" what you've accused me of, but don't ignore what you're "trying to get me to say".

And I'm telling you as a progressive voters repeatedly blamed for "letting the bad guys win"

You really don't see the projection/strawmanning here?? You're hard-signaling the opponents you want to argue with, for the issue you want to argue about... ie the people in the UK who "blame progressive voters" and then insisting, demanding, almost begging at this point... that I put that cap on for you, so you can have the argument you want... Once again... not interested. If you want to opine about why Democratic-inclined US voters don't want to vote for Biden/Democrats, I'm all ears.

if you dont care and refuse to own the consequences - intended or not - that's entirely separate

This comment is particularly ironic for numerous reasons... one of which is that you seem to be doing exactly what you seem to be accusing me of, "blaming" people for "consequences"... Do you see that?

In other words... you are once again engaged in projection. You are projecting your own sentiments/reasoning onto me... then criticizing me for... apparently thinking how you think.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't blame progressive voters to much unless they don't vote in sufficient numbers.

2016 was mostly a crap candidate in Zards ideal world I wouldn't run Hilary (or any other Clinton).

The sapphire blue holier than though types can be annoying and I suspect their puriy tests and zeal alienate centre/right of centre voters which you need to win.

 

[Narz]

In other words... you are once again engaged in projection. You are projecting your own sentiments/reasoning onto me... then criticizing me for... apparently thinking how you think.

This is the way some people use the internet

 

[Sommerswerd]

And, sadly, just "by getting that Black dude out of the Oval Office."

And here:

until White people did.

That would be the dogwhistle part of the slogan's appeal... and that was intentional... again the idea is to let everyone... whether supporter or opponent, read a broad range of things into the slogan.

 

[Gorbles]

Here you're doing exactly what you keep accusing me of ... you are ignoring the post(s) you made which clearly demonstrates that you are trying to criticize me for not properly convincing people to vote for Biden/Democrats. Its what you actually said... multiple times... but then when I point it out... you say "oh just ignore that" because... it "was one part of one post out of many"... what?? What does that even mean?

No, I made one part of this multi-page discussion about your online tactic on how to browbeat progressive voters for a non-Biden vote (as being responsible for Republican policy). Because it does, it hinders people voting for Democrats - however unintentionally.

You might not be trying to convince people to vote a specific way, but that doesn't mean that your words won't push them one way or another. You rejected this ownership of this consequence already, however. I thought we'd moved on from it. But apparently you think it constitutes proof that I'm accusing you of trying to do something?

Nah, you're either just getting confused, or intentionally weaponising my points by twisting them into something they're not. I choose the former, mainly because this has been going on forever and I'm not inserting as many post links as I normally do because most of this has been from my phone.

You insisted that I was doing a poor job and following a losing strategy/tactic and so on

I did. I tried a range of ways to show you how blaming progressives for Republican policy is wrong. This was one of those ways.

of trying to convince people to vote for Biden/Democrats

I didn't say you were trying to do this at all, however.

despite me repeatedly telling you that I was not interested in doing that in this discussion.

And me repeatedly telling you that I'm not accusing you of trying to do that. C'est la vie.

but now you realize that you were wrong and you are trying to change your position/argument to another topic.

No, I'm not wrong, and I've been remarkably consistent throughout (I usually get distracted in long-running discussions to be honest).

You were wrong and you can't admit/accept it.

I'm not. Would you like me to quote your post that started all this?

I can choose to ignore your rhetorical question, and choose not to let you off the hook for wrongly accusing me of trying to convince people to vote for Biden/Democrats.

Which I'm not doing. But it doesn't matter that I say that, because you've decided that nomatter what I say, that I'm accusing you of it.

I'm not. I'm accusing you of blaming progressive voters for Republican policies.

You really don't see the projection/strawmanning here??

No, I don't. I'm saying that the thing you laid at the feet of progressives has no specific bind to being in the US, and that my experience provides a comparable anecdote.

I understand why it benefits you to call it projection, but as it's nothing but wordplay, I'm free to reject it. Just as you say you're free to reject this made-up argument of mine that lives in your head.

This comment is particularly ironic for numerous reasons... one of which is that you seem to be doing exactly what you seem to be accusing me of, "blaming" people for "consequences"... Do you see that?

You literally said in at least one post, if not more, that you aren't responsible for how others vote. How is that anything but rejecting consequences for your actions here in this thread?

How am I being ironic for restating your own position - that you stated - back at you? I guess you just don't want to look wrong

 

[banzay13]

Obama was pre-Trump in that way: devised a slogan that anyone could read whatever they wanted into.

Disappointing to Democrats. Whereas, Trumpers absolutely believe that he "Made America Great Again."

One of the new campaign slogans I've seen around for Trump this time out is "Save America Again."

So America was Unsaved under Obama. Then it was Saved for four years. Now it's Unsaved again. But it could be Saved yet again.

Some saving that first time!

"Save" (religiously super-charged word) means nothing more than "my favored guy is in office." Or, to put it another way, my guy just being in office is as significant a thing as salvation itself!

Just being in office, to repeat O'Donnell's thesis. Pretty much independently of achieving anything in particular. (How's that wall coming?)

Someone should invent Save/Load button for America

 

[Gori the Grey]

Someone should invent Save/Load button for America

I almost added a "Save your work often" joke to my post!

That would be the dogwhistle part of the slogan's appeal... and that was intentional... again the idea is to let everyone... whether supporter or opponent, read a broad range of things into the slogan.

Oh, of course. I'm just offering it as a continuation of our analysis as to why Trump (both Trump and Obama, as you nicely lay out) were instantly regarded as successful by their supporters, altogether independently of any policy successes they may, or may not, have had.

And look, the president is a figurehead, is mostly an image of how we want to think ourselves as a nation--and so is successful (at that) the moment he is elected. The Constitution gives the position little power. How well our country fares is far more a function of our legislature. But our minds need a single-person focus for all of that, so we pour all of our concern into our presidential choice.

 

[Sommerswerd]

the country is irrelevant

I don't think this is sound reasoning. There are profound differences and nuances, social, sociological, political, geopolitical, etc., between the US and other countries around the globe. Trump isn't running in the UK for just one, simple example. Folks have discussed and debated many times on these threads that political concepts like "liberal", "conservative", "progressive", "socialist" and so on, have different meanings/connotations depending on the country... and don't match up one-to-one, with their meanings for US purposes. So no, I don't agree that "the country is irrelevant".

I'm saying that the thing you laid at the feet of progressives has no specific bind to being in the US, and that my experience provides a comparable anecdote.

What you are saying makes no sense. Roe v. Wade most certainly has a "specific bind" to the US. The Voting Rights Act certainly has a "specific bind" to the US. The POTUS election of Trump v. Biden most certainly has a "specific bind" to the US. The title of this thread is "Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic party"... that certainly is "specifically bound" to the US.

Again, as I outlined above, I reject your self-serving attempt to blur all the different countries of the world into one politically so you can project your UK political grievance at me. Once again, you're taking your UK based beef, projecting it onto me, trying to get me to play the role of the folks in the UK that you disagree with and then getting "frustrated" in your words, that I'm refusing to accept that role for you.

Because it does, it hinders people voting for Democrats - however unintentionally.

Here you are again... doing exactly what you just claimed you weren't doing. Also, once again... this claim is complete poppycock.

How am I being ironic for restating your own position - that you stated - back at you?

It's your position and you are strawmanning me with it, then criticizing me for the position/outlook that you hold... ie projection.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't think this is sound reasoning. There are profound differences and nuances, sociological, geopolitical, etc., between the US and other countries around the globe. Trump isn't running in the UK for just one, simple example. Folks have discussed and debated many times on these threads that political concepts like "liberal", "conservative", "progressive", "socialist" and so on, have different connotations depending on the country... and don't match up one-to-one, with their meanings for US purposes. So no, I don't agree that "the country is irrelevant".

I agree in general terms r.e. political concepts, but this is CFC OT, and much like how half the posters in the UK politics thread are often not from the UK, this nuance is not invisible to people outside of the US, nor is it lost on us.

But more than that, as I mention below, the actual consequences are irrelevant. What's important is that they're "bad" consequences. A vote a specific way, in your eyes, has a bad consequence. I believe that you are blaming the wrong people (the voter) for the bad consequence, and that this compounds your lack of understanding about why they vote the way they do in the first place.

What you are saying makes no sense. Roe v. Wade most certainly has a "specific bind to the US". The POTUS election of Trump v. Biden most certainly has a "specific bind to the US". The title of this thread is "Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic party"... that certainly is "specifically bound" to the US.

Because the consequences are immaterial. They're relevant when discussing the US, but in the UK it might be same-sex spaces or whatever. The point is blaming a progressive voting bloc for right-wing policies enacted by a right-wing government (real or imagined). I feel like that's abstract while still retaining discussion value.

Here, specifically, it's a hypothetical US election between Biden and Trump, with progressive voters hypothetically voting a specific way. It's also a past election, a real one that actually happened, that ended up with Roe vs. Wade being repealed. Both the concrete past and the hypothetical future are being blamed on people, essentially, not voting the "correct" way.

Here you are again... doing exactly what you just claimed you weren't doing. Also, once again... this claim is complete poppycock.

Saying something is poppycock doesn't make it so. Your opinion has been noted, and I disagree with it all the same. We disagree - it happens.

As for what I claimed I wasn't doing, no. Again, this is pretty basic so I don't know how to make it clearer, but there's a difference between you trying to do something, and me pointing out a comparable side-effect (to a different thing that you are doing).

It's not my position... its your position and you are strawmanning me with it, then criticizing me for the position/outlook that you hold... ie projection.

You literally told me that you refuse to accept responsibility for anyone voting any way that they do. Would you like me to dig up the post?