Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic Party

[Zardnaar]

There's no way some of the outrage stuff isn't egged on by agent provocateurs. The left willing to admit these types infiltrated say BLM protests but to admit they're in their discord or Facebook groups or WhatsApp chats is a bridge too far. No one wants to believe they're capable of getting mind-f-ed. They want to believe they've assessed the world on their own terms and come to their own decisions.

Left & right laughing at each other's extremists while trying to one-up each other w their own not realizing not only are they performing but some of their comrades are proper actors (as opposed to just what we called posers back in the day).

I suppose the ease of anonymous communication made this inevitable.

Well your most over the top and bad faith actors are the ones who will get attention. And they'll get used on the other sides feeds and memes.

 

[Senethro]

You can keep pondering about how sensible, wise and experienced you are, but if your best idea is Government Like Now But It Works, then you may want to watch your nations demographics for the point when the majority of adults have never lived under a "good" government.

 

[Lexicus]

Americans are blind to what is happening in their own cities. Their major cities are flooded with anything you'd consider bad: illegals, drugs, crime..., the leading cause of death is fentanyl.
(que in some moron who say it's heart disease)

America is a third world country, their leader has no idea what's going on. Their vice-president is even more of a joke.

I live in a major American city and can say with confidence you do not know what the hell you're talking about

 

[Gori the Grey]

The very revealing moment for me recently was when Tuberville faulted Seth Meyers and Joe Biden for going out for ice cream after Biden's appearance on Meyers' show. He posted on a widely-used micro-blogging site:

Hope @JoeBiden enjoyed going out for ice cream in NYC while the rest of the city is afraid of crime and migrants.

I get it that people from smaller towns or more rural areas are frightened by the thought of violence in big cities. I grew up in a smaller city, and when a friend of mine got the opportunity to go to Columbia for graduate school, I was super happy for him, but I marked him off in my head as dead. You get mugged around every corner in New York, after all!

But the revealing thing here is not that Tuberville would feel frightened if if visited New York, but that he thinks that people who choose to live in big cities are somehow terrified of crime in those cities! He seems to be able to imagine that 8 million people every day cower in fear of the very city in which they've chosen to live!

In the immediate aftermath, people pointed out that crime is 3 to 4 times higher, when measured on a per capita basis, in rural Alabama than it is in NYC.

I mean, the same principle is at work in Theov's quote: "Americans are blind to what is happening in their own cities." Does "Americans" include the people who live in those cities and on a daily basis see what is happening in them? Apparently not, given his answer to Bird. And yet someone, somewhere else, can see more accurately not only than American city dwellers but Americans what is going on in those cities.

Apparently the more distant you are from American cities the better you can see what is going on in them.

Either that or the right-wing media has just done an effective job of pounding the meme that big cities are crime-ridden.

I don't know how we'd ever figure out which, but I do know this. Eight million people can't all be wrong.

Edit: Oh, my friend lived. Managed to survive somehow.

 

[Lexicus]

Also in case anyone is wondering fentanyl is not only not the leading cause of death in the US, it's not even in the top ten

 

[lymond]

Also in case anyone is wondering fentanyl is not only not the leading cause of death in the US, it's not even in the top ten

Heart Disease?

 

[Lexicus]

Heart Disease?

Also in case anyone is wondering fentanyl is not only not the leading cause of death in the US, it's not even in the top ten

Mea culpa everyone, the CDC groups drug overdoses under unintentional injuries so where various types of drug overdoses stand is not immediately apparent. It is also difficult to get exact numbers broken down by the type of drug for reasons that seem fairly obvious (can't ask a dead person what they were taking, plus a lot of the time the problem is that they don't know what's in their drugs and that's what kills them). According to google, there were approximately 70,000 synthetic opioid overdoses in 2021, out of a total of 106,000 overdose deaths. I can't find a number for 2023 but we'll make the assumption that it's about 75,000 since the drug overdose total was about 112,000. Assuming all of those synthetic opioid overdoses are fentanyl (most are, but not all) we can say fentanyl is maybe the seventh leading cause of death in 2023.



Now, I can only assume the rebuttal to this will be some variation of "CDC is lying about the numbers to make Biden look good", perhaps with a reference to how no one really died of Covid-19 thrown in.

 

[Lexicus]

Also, insofar as Trump is being tacitly posited as the solution to drug overdose deaths, well...

Trump presided over the largest year-on-year increase in drug overdose deaths, 2019-2020, a jump from 70,000 to 90,000.

 

[Birdjaguar]

yes

And somehow being in Taiwan, you do know more than I do?

 

[Narz]

Heart Disease?

Yeah heart disease #1, still mostly a result of self aided destruction like fentanyl but a socially acceptable one

 

[Gorbles]

still mostly a result of self aided destruction like fentanyl

Source: trust me bro.

 

[Narz]

Source: trust me bro.

You really need a rando in the Internet to explain to you that heart disease is affected by lifestyle or you're just being obtuse like usual?

 

[Gorbles]

You really need a rando in the Internet to explain to you that heart disease is affected by lifestyle or you're just being obtuse like usual?

"lifestyle" isn't the same word as "fentanyl", so I guess once again projection is your game when you suggest I'm the one being obtuse

 

[Arwon]

Of all the very real problems facing the US, and the opiates crisis is a unique problem there for sure.... big city crime rates are just a made up fake problem. Crime had been steady or falling for a long time in the US just like in other rich countries.

 

[Cutlass]

It's not like Republicans have a solution to the drug use problem. They've had many opportunites when they were in complete power to do something, had they known what to do.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's not like Republicans have a solution to the drug use problem. They've had many opportunites when they were in complete power to do something, had they known what to do.

Tax cuts and underfunded social services and opposing ACA absolutely nothing to do with it.

Trump tax cut yay?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Because you seem to be dancing about it a bit.

"Dancing about" what? I told you very directly and explicitly what I meant in the same post that you quoted... so much so that you quoted my exact words and pointed to them as proof of what I was saying! I don't know how I could be any clearer.

I'm saying that words have power, regardless of whatever you think your intent is, and that if you are blaming people for their vote (or lack of one), then that is a dumb thing that isn't going to help you or the voting result you personally desire.

Once again (for like the 5th time) "Isn't going to help me" do what? Once again... despite me telling you, over and over and over again to the contrary, you keep insisting/strawmanning that I am trying to convince people to vote for Biden/Democrats. Once again, I don't gaf whether what I say in this particular discussion hypothetically influences people's vote one way or the other... also, in the first instance, I also reject your contention that my posts have any impact on people's vote anyway. As @Ziggy Stardust says, what we are saying on these threads is quite inconsequential. Furthermore, you aren't in the US, so your position on this issue is going to unavoidably misinformed in terms of perspective right?

As an aside @Ziggy Stardust also points out Biden won the last election, so even the argument you seem to be making (and strawmanning/projecting onto me) seems demonstrably incorrect.

I'm saying you are actively hindering people voting in the way you'd evidently prefer them to

Absolute poppycock. Also, once again, even if this were true, which it absolutely isn't, I don't gaf.

Blaming people for being "responsible" is, well, why I used "browbeating" originally (that he objected to).

"Browbeating"? I made one post... which didn't quote or tag you, which you responded to, starting this back and forth between us. All I am doing is responding to you and you label that as somehow "browbeating"? If anyone is "browbeating" its you... and strawmanning as well. You're browbeating me with your strawmanning. You don't see that by now?

 

[Gorbles]

"Dancing about" what? I told you very directly and explicitly what I meant in the same post that you quoted... so much so that you quoted my exact words and pointed to them as proof of what I was saying! I don't know how I could be any clearer.

Dancing about the thing you once again didn't answer clearly. I asked a simple question. In the interests of ending the tangent, I'll ask it again:

Are you blaming voters for the actions of any future hypothetical Republican government based on the vote they cast?

Absolute poppycock. Also, once again, even if this were true, which it absolutely isn't, I don't gaf.

Yeah, I don't really care that you don't care. That's not the argument.

Not really interested in the tepid attempt at you trying to turn around "browbeating", either. I've said a number of times I'm not strawmanning anything, and you keep telling me I am.

Tagging me has nothing to do with it. I have nothing to do with it. It was you saying that everyone who doesn't vote Democrat is going to lead to all these bad things the Republicans have yet to do. Nah. They're not responsible for that at all.

Especially considering how much you consider yourself not responsible for jack. It's hilarious to see that all of this came out you trying to pin Republican policy on progressive voters. But you're not responsible for anything yourself? Talk about convenience

 

[NinjaCow64]

Sorry @NinjaCow64 for taking so long to respond to your thoughtful post. I was not ignoring you and meant no offense:

No worries! I apologise for the same thing - as I explained I intended to reply to this earlier, but circumstances conspired against me.

Multiple things wrong here. First, you seem to be contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you are saying that the Republicans lost because they ran Biden-like candidates, then you are saying that they lost because the Democrats ran a Trump like candidate. Which is it? Did Republicans snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by running establishment candidates, or did they get steamrolled by an unbeatable generational messiah candidate? While its certainly possible to say both factors contributed, to make a valid argument here, you've got to take a position on which factor was the most important.

I would say that Obama being great at campaigning was probably the more significant factor, but if your narrative of that "Republican voters are willing to vote for whomever because they think it will advance the cause" was true then it would have been a much closer race.

The fact that Obama is considered an unbeatable generational messiah candidate should be a condemnation of the American electoral system. There should be appealing choices every election, not "which geriatric is less genocidal?"

Second, your premise is flawed. McCain's brand/appeal was not at all like Biden. McCain's whole deal was that he was a "maverick", ie he was promising to buck the Republican establishment and deliver change, immigration policy being one prominent example. Palin as his running mate was an extension of this as she would have been the first woman to be VPOTUS, and she had cultivated a "maverick" reputation herself. In fact it was McCain's divergence from the party line that made many Republicans unenthusiastic about him. He didn't hate illegal immigrants enough and he was too civil/gracious towards Obama for example.

That's fair, maybe its inaccurate to classify McCain as a Biden. If your assessment of him is accurate then his problem that he was maverick in the wrong direction.

In any case, I think some of your point(s) have merit. Romney was certainly a consensus candidate that Republicans weren't as enthusiastic about, similar to Biden on the Democratic side... but consider that Romney lost that election, whereas as @Lexicus points out, Biden won. So the point you seem to be making does not seem to stand up. A better analogy I think would be Hillary, who was certainly the non-negotiable establishment candidate, somewhat similar to Romney in that regard, and she lost to the "change" messiah Trump. Remember that Hillary also lost to Obama in 2008.

Yes, because Obama hadn't bungled anything nearly as badly as Trump bungled the Covid response and (more importantly) the resulting economic fallout.

Biden has been so uninspiring as a candidate I have a feeling that people might just forgive Trump for his previous sins.

Its also the case that both McCain and Romney received substantially less votes than Baby Bush in 2004, still enough to beat Kerry, but not Obama. Its also worth noting that Hillary got less votes in 2016 than Obama in 2012. I think what all that points to, is more about the strength of Obama as a candidate than the weakness of McCain, Romney or Hillary, especially since Hillary actually got more votes than Trump (5th most in US history) despite her losing in the EC. Trump got the second highest vote total in US history in 2020, second only to Biden's vote total in 2020 so again, the elections seem to be more about the strength of the candidates than the weakness, ie "establishment" nature, of the opponent.

I am emphasising the weakness of McCain and Romney because it runs contrary to your narrative that the Republicans will vote for whoever because they have faith that the Republicans will get them what they want eventually. This is not supported by the evidence.

The other thing is that in my (incredibly simplistic admittedly) modelling of presidential candidates they are either a weak candidate or a strong candidate. Yes Obama was a fantastic candidate, but if the Republicans hadn't placed their bets losers like McCain and Romney they might have had a chance at beating him. Likewise, Trump was an incredibly strong candidate but Clinton was horrendous and someone who wasn't so hated might have had a chance against him.

One of the criticisms of Democrats that I've heard IIRC recently from @Gorbles , is that (paraphrasing) Democrats should stop over-promising. But there is tension between that, and what you seem to be, correctly IMO, identifying, specifically, that part of what made Obama such a strong candidate was all that soaring pie-in-the-sky that he was promising, but ultimately, failed to deliver on. Do you see the catch-22?

I don't agree with Gorbles on this point. I'll admit I am doing that annoying "here's how I'd win elections if I was a liberal" thing that right wing people do to liberals and the leftists but from the left-wing, regardless - the Democrats would be a lot more popular if they fought in the borderline extralegal ways that the Republicans are willing to fight. Even if they won, they would be able to go back to their base and say "we tried our hardest". The Republicans have accused the Democrats of using "lawfare" to get their way, in typical Republican projection it is the Republicans who have mainly been doing that. If the Democrats were willing to use lawfare to fight for people's rights then they wouldn't be viewed as the useless cowards that they are.

The Democrats really should have taken Eric Holder's advice - when they go low, they should have kicked them.

Anyway, the bottom line is... the Democrats don't lose based on whether they run establishment candidates. They lose based on whether their voters turn out and vote or not. They've won with "establishment"/consensus candidates and they've won with "change" candidates.

Yes, and having candidates that don't suck for the moment is a great way of driving turnout.

Maybe Obama would not have won if it weren't for the mortgage meltdown. Maybe Carter would not have won if it wasn't for Watergate. Maybe Reagan would not have won if it was not for the oil embargo. Maybe Baby Bush would not have won if it wasn't for Monica Lewinsky. Maybe Trump would not have won if it wasn't for Comey. Maybe Clinton would not have won if it wasn't for Ross Perot. My point obviously, is that there is always some factor going on that has a major influence on the outcome of the election. 2020/Covid was not unique in that regard.

Sure. I just wanted to emphasise that I don't think Biden was a strong candidate in 2020 and that they could have run someone as awful as Clinton and likely still won that one.

Again, this is manifestly incorrect, since the Democrats already won with Biden. Also, if the only way the Democrats can win is with a candidate on the level of Obama to motivate their voters to be bothered to vote, then the Democrats don't have what it takes to win.

You're right. The Democrats don't have what it takes to win.

Correct, but I will reiterate that "the Democratic Party" is comprised of the voters. So ultimately, that is where the "fault" lies.

Democratic Party candidates are elected by members of the Democratic party, sure. But even ignoring the massive Democratic Party bureaucracy that disproportionately favours establishment candidates, the average person who votes in a Democratic primary isn't representative of the average voter or the average American.

EDIT: Somehow this quote didn't get added:

This is objectively untrue. However, I am fully aware that folks are mentally and emotionally committed to this narrative and its not a hill that I'm inclined to die on.

I am happy to walk it back to "Biden isn't doing enough". Which is true, he isn't pushing anywhere near as hard as Trump pushed for his policies.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I take the view that the three main parties in the UK and the two main parties in the USA are
owned by big money, one way or the other; rather than being comprised of their voters.

In this circumstance the ordinary voter, who is not a party member; who reluctantly votes
for what they consider the least worst option is scarcely part of any political party.

Edward I don't think I've ever agreed with one of your posts as much as I've agreed with this one lol.

The same is true in Australia. The Greens aren't owned by big money nearly as much as the other two major parties but they barely get over 10% of the vote and some of their policies aren't good enough for me IMO. Also they embarrass themselves quite a lot. I joined them briefly but I decided it wasn't worth my time so I haven't renewed my membership. I don't consider myself a Green and I would vote for a better candidate if one emerged.