2020 Election Thread!!!!!!!!!

[Lexicus]

Was this before or after the party adopted his health care proposal as their own?

"They"? How many Senators have cosigned it now? I was under the impression that it was a minority of Democrats and hardly any senior ones. In any case I don't think it's possible to deny that Bernie is considered persona non grata by most of the Democratic Party's "elites".

The criticisms I hear about the party "not having a message" seem extraordinarily silly. We're a year+ from the next federal election cycle. It is impossible to predict now what the playing field is going to look like - the current economy and perceptions thereabouts are of huge import in crafting a message. We also don't know what, if anything, the Republicans will manage to pass.

"The current economy" in 2018 is going to be one in which the wealthy are capturing almost all of the gains from economic growth. They will do this because the institutions meant to counter their power will continue to wither away or simply to exist in varying states of impotence. My prediction is that the Democrats won't be able to come up with a compelling message because any message that speaks seriously to the concerns of ordinary Americans will alienate their donors, and they can't quite bring themselves to do that yet.

Trump is unpopular. Unpopular presidents tend to see their party get shellacked in midterms. At this point, "Not Trump" is absolutely the best message, and will remain so until pretty close to the election if not all the way through it.

Well, good luck with that. Trump's different from any previous President. His relationship with his party is also different from any previous President's.

Did we really all forget last year that Trump ran on a platform of, "I'm not Hillary Clinton," and became president? That message can get results, man.

Well, if you think that's a good way to run an election, I suppose all I can say is, again, good luck. But I happen to remember that you were confidently writing Trump off days before the election...just hope nothing like that happens next year...

 

[metalhead]

"They"? How many Senators have cosigned it now?

Pretty much all of the ones likely to mount a serious run for president in 2020.

Well, good luck with that. Trump's different from any previous President. His relationship with his party is also different from any previous President's.

Which is a variable whose effect is currently unknown. But they all co-signed for this president. Every last one of them. His relationship is different in that it is confrontational, but most people went to the polls and exhibited the exact same partisan behavior they always have. "It'll be different this time because of X" is a dangerous argument to make; see below:

Well, if you think that's a good way to run an election, I suppose all I can say is, again, good luck. But I happen to remember that you were confidently writing Trump off days before the election...just hope nothing like that happens next year...

Yep, and I made the same mistake you're making - assuming that the large majority of people wouldn't act the way predictions indicate they'll act. It turned out that Republicans showed up and voted for Republicans and were probably going to do so all along. Despite everything that happened, the election went down exactly as you'd expect - the 10% or so malleable voters broke for the party out of power, and everyone else voted their usual partisan way.

If you took the names Clinton and Trump off the ballots and just tried to predict the outcome of 2016 on fundamentals and historical trends, you would have predicted it to happen exactly how it happened. Candidates aren't totally meaningless - you probably wouldn't have predicted the Democrat to win the popular vote - but you would have said the Republican will win.

 

[Lexicus]

If you took the names Clinton and Trump off the ballots and just tried to predict the outcome of 2016 on fundamentals and historical trends,

Well, there are as I see it lots of reasons in this vein to think Democrats won't do well in 2018. Democrats typically don't turn out for midterm elections; Republicans at the state and municipal levels will have had another two years to engage in all sorts of vote suppression tactics.

Yep, and I made the same mistake you're making - assuming that the large majority of people wouldn't act the way predictions indicate they'll act. It turned out that Republicans showed up and voted for Republicans and were probably going to do so all along

This seems more a matter of framing than anything else. There are many ways in which we could frame 2016 as essentially unprecedented, and they would be no more or less right than this.

Now, don't get me wrong. I intend to do everything I can to help the Democrats win the House in 2018, because I honestly think that's our last chance to avoid some sort of horrible apartheid South Africa-esque situation from developing in the US. What I don't want to see is a bunch of complacency similar to what I saw from some quarters in 2016, this sense that just because the other party is so horrible there's no way we can lose.

 

[metalhead]

Democrats didn't turn out in 2014 or 2010, but they turned out in force in 2006. The typical result is that the party out of power does well in the midterms. 2002 is the only recent exception, and there was a new war on at the time. Certainly that's no reason to get complacent, but here's a little something to maybe soothe your nerves a little as it pertains to potential complacency:

Democrats are showing up to run, and people are giving them money to do so at a very, very high rate.

This seems more a matter of framing than anything else. There are many ways in which we could frame 2016 as essentially unprecedented, and they would be no more or less right than this.

The historical patterns all held very close to what you would have expected. Lots of unprecedented things happened, sure, but the historical framing is what it is. Party coalitions have shifted over time, but the behavior of those in each party coalition has not.

 

[Gori the Grey]

And there's the consideration that Bannon may make the Republican primaries yield a slate of misfits, some of whom won't appeal in their generals. And the consideration that at least some Trumpers are just in love with Trump himself, and won't bother, with him not on the ballot, to vote in a midterm election.

Reasons for hope.

 

[Lexicus]

And the consideration that at least some Trumpers are just in love with Trump himself, and won't bother, with him not on the ballot, to vote in a midterm election.

I've been wondering about this myself. If this turns out to be the case the Congressional Republicans could be really screwed.

 

[danjuno]

Pretty much all of the ones likely to mount a serious run for president in 2020.

I'm sorry, who passes legislation again?

 

[metalhead]

Did you miss that time a Democrat won the presidency and then Congress passed his health care policy? It wasn't that long ago.

You'd be very hard-pressed to argue that single payer isn't going to be the rallying cry for Democrats going forward. What the current dinosaurs have to say on the matter doesn't mean a damn thing. What the 2020 presidential candidates are saying will matter a great deal.

 

[tuckerkao]

Did you miss that time a Democrat won the presidency and then Congress passed his health care policy? It wasn't that long ago.

History will give a fair judgement. Former President Barack Obama had benefited many lower income people with the affordable plans. Now, Trump wants them to implode.

 

[Lexicus]

Did you miss that time a Democrat won the presidency and then Congress passed his health care policy? It wasn't that long ago.

You'd be very hard-pressed to argue that single payer isn't going to be the rallying cry for Democrats going forward. What the current dinosaurs have to say on the matter doesn't mean a damn thing. What the 2020 presidential candidates are saying will matter a great deal.

In any case though, the fact that some Democrats are finally realizing that it can be politically advantageous to back policies that seem to enjoy fairly wide popular support doesn't mean they suddenly love Bernie Sanders.

 

[danjuno]

Did you miss that time a Democrat won the presidency and then Congress passed his health care policy? It wasn't that long ago.

You'd be very hard-pressed to argue that single payer isn't going to be the rallying cry for Democrats going forward. What the current dinosaurs have to say on the matter doesn't mean a damn thing. What the 2020 presidential candidates are saying will matter a great deal.

You're seriously trying to compare the ACA to Single Payer? And you damn well know the dinosaurs decide what does and doesn't get through congress.

 

[Lexicus]

You're seriously trying to compare the ACA to Single Payer?

The ACA was a step forward, don't knock it too hard.

 

[danjuno]

The ACA was a step forward, don't knock it too hard.

There's a difference between knocking something and pointing out it's not the same thing.

 

[Hamilton321]

2018 is somewhat unusual because both sides need to win it. The Republicans have very many governorships up for reelection, this election will decide even more about the census than 2020. The Republicans need to take more senate seats to get Trump's agenda through, the democrats need to hold their senate seats and take house seats to stop Trump's agenda, there is also the unusual aspect of Steve Bannon, that either means great success or humiliating failure for the further right wing of the Republicans. The election will have great impact on the politics of the 2020s. In the 2020s we also have the baby boomers becoming much less politically active. Generation Z will also be voting in the 2020s, we'll see if the Dems have the same appeal with them as they had with the Millenials.

 

[Lexicus]

There's a difference between knocking something and pointing out it's not the same thing.

Yes, my comment was preemptive! And not meant in a mean-spirited way at all, if that was unclear. I have many criticisms of the ACA too, but perspective is important.

 

[metalhead]

You're seriously trying to compare the ACA to Single Payer? And you damn well know the dinosaurs decide what does and doesn't get through congress.

The president can force the dinosaurs' hands, particularly if the president is popular and has a clear vision on policy. The point was not that the ACA is similar to single payer, it was merely an illustration of how a president can, if they try hard enough, get Congress to do what they want even if it isn't something Congress would do on its own.

In any case though, the fact that some Democrats are finally realizing that it can be politically advantageous to back policies that seem to enjoy fairly wide popular support doesn't mean they suddenly love Bernie Sanders.

No, and Bernie wants it that way. It's an integral part of his brand, at this point. I mean, the question keeps getting asked - why is the Democratic Party so cool towards a guy with a fundraising list like Bernie has? It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that perhaps the reason is because the guy with the fundraising list wants it that way.

 

[Lexicus]

No, and Bernie wants it that way. It's an integral part of his brand, at this point. I mean, the question keeps getting asked - why is the Democratic Party so cool towards a guy with a fundraising list like Bernie has? It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that perhaps the reason is because the guy with the fundraising list wants it that way.

I think he's sincere when he says that the Democratic Party needs to change. I don't think his antagonism with the party's establishment is some kind of cynical ploy to boost his brand, though surely brand-boosting is part of it.

Democrats have been trying to be more anti-Communist than the Republicans (plus royaliste que le roi) since the 50s. No explanation other than habit is needed for why they don't like Bernard.

 

[danjuno]

The president can force the dinosaurs' hands, particularly if the president is popular and has a clear vision on policy. The point was not that the ACA is similar to single payer, it was merely an illustration of how a president can, if they try hard enough, get Congress to do what they want even if it isn't something Congress would do on its own.

Sure, but those are two big ifs.

Getting back to the main point, just because they find bits and pieces of his agenda useful doesn't mean they don't mistrust and dislike him.

 

[metalhead]

They aren't big ifs for a president in his first year. Aside from the present train wreck, new presidents tend to be pretty popular. And tend to have clear policy goals.

They might dislike and mistrust him, but Lex said he was "sabotaged and ostracized." I don't think you'd see their highest profile Senators adopting his health care platform if that's what was going on. Further, he's not a Democrat; he's pretty clearly set himself apart from the Democratic party; you can't be ostracized from a group you were never a part of. He obviously likes that he's not part of the party, and it serves him to have it around as a punching bag.

 

[danjuno]

but Lex said he was "sabotaged and ostracized."

I'll leave it to Lex to elaborate on then.