2020 US Election (Part One)

[Gori the Grey]

What I object to is the elevation of qualifications and expertise into good-in-itself, as a sort of substitute for politics.

Where do you feel Clinton did such a thing? Presented her qualifications as a good-in-itself? Rather than as a grounds to vote for her over the idiot who had no qualifications?

How does one run a presidential campaign under your paradigm? Where qualifications = elitism = non-representation? How does the candidate make his or her pitch to be president?

I'm trying to get at what part of Hillary's campaign nauseated you. Her "deplorables" comment sent that message, I guess, maybe, and I faulted her as much for that as anyone here.

But I just don't know how one runs for president in a world where "qualifications" are held to be a negative.

 

[Lexicus]

Where do you feel Clinton did such a thing? Presented her qualifications as a good-in-itself? Rather than as a grounds to vote for her over the idiot who had no qualifications?

The bolded is an example of what I'm talking about. The reason to vote for her is not because she is "more qualified" than the other guy but because her political program was markedly superior to Trump's, which as we know was kleptocracy, greater application of state violence against people of color, etc.

If there was a place for emphasizing her qualifications, it was to say how those would make her better at pursuing her political program. "I am qualified, my opponent isn't" is not a political argument that would normally be made in a democratic polity. It is the kind of argument that two bureaucrats vying for the same post would make to the Emperor.

 

[Gori the Grey]

No, she was more qualified, too. And you absolutely can make that argument in a democratic polity. Along with your program. It's not an either/or.

Clinton reads more. She listens to people better. She has broader and more precise knowledge of, and direct acquaintance with, how our governmental systems work on paper and in fact. She's sharper. She's faster. Her brain handles complexities better. I could keep adding to the list. Of course it's not a high bar. All of these are qualifications, independent of her political program.

One could have two candidates with essentially the same political program and still make an assessment that one of them would be better at the whole presidenting thing than the other.

 

[Lexicus]

Well sure, you can make it...and I can make the argument that making that argument reflects a dangerous strain of anti-democratic politics (and this is to say nothing of its actual effectiveness at persuading people, which, well...)

 

[Traitorfish]

What if the Democratic party explicitly positioned itself as the party for people with "one mortgage or fewer"? That describes most laborers, but most technocrats, too. Most people who must work to earn an income, rather than being able to rely on investments for income. I'm trying to get a catchy way to name that group and give them a sense of shared identity.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well sure, you can make it...and I can make the argument that making that argument reflects a dangerous strain of anti-democratic politics

No, you can make it and it's not the tiniest bit undemocratic or anti-democratic. Why can't the demos be allowed to assess a candidate's capacities as well as his or her program, and vote for that as well as the other? What's undemocratic about that?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well sure, you can make it...and I can make the argument that making that argument reflects a dangerous strain of anti-democratic politics (and this is to say nothing of its actual effectiveness at persuading people, which, well...)

It was an argument that needed to be made though. Waaaaaaay back in the day, when the disastrous fall of Richard Nixon was still fresh in people's minds, a large part of what turned the direction of this country so firmly onto what has proven to be a very bad path was "better a smart crook than an honest boob." The Democrats had a real opportunity to grab the reins of leadership and get the country onto a good path with a presidential election that they genuinely could not lose, and they chose Jimmy Carter, who in terms of character and integrity is without question the best president of my lifetime...and I wouldn't hire the man to organize a sock drawer.

I agree that we shouldn't have to argue about competency, because neither party should be nominating incompetent boobs. But when one does we have to punish them for it, because ideology aside managing the federal government as chief executive is a job, and we all need it done with at least a reasonable degree of competence.

 

[rah]

Agreed that touting qualifications is not undemocratic. And agreed on Jimmy. A great boob.

 

[Lexicus]

Why can't the demos be allowed to assess a candidate's capacities as well as his or her program, and vote for that as well as the other? What's undemocratic about that?

There is nothing antidemocratic about it per se. As I said I believe it reflects an underlying hostility to democracy which in turn can be summed up as "capitalism and democracy are in constant tension and some people choose capitalism"

It was an argument that needed to be made though.

It was an argument that didn't persuade enough voters to elect Hillary President. Enough said.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It was an argument that didn't persuade enough voters to elect Hillary President. Enough said.

But it will have the lingering effects. Not just Reagan ran on "look what happened when the Democrats pushed an incompetent into the white house." That was a selling point of the GOP for a generation, at least. Heck, my main grounds for campaigning for McCain thirty years later was that the country needed someone competent and Obama may or may not be. Obama turned out to be far more competent than I expected and that turned me around generally, but that serves as an example of how important it was, and is, to stress the point.

 

[metalhead]

There is nothing antidemocratic about it per se. As I said I believe it reflects an underlying hostility to democracy which in turn can be summed up as "capitalism and democracy are in constant tension and some people choose capitalism"

She gave whole speeches about how she would use her expertise to make the country better for people of color, for the disabled, for the sick. They were drowned out by a constant stream of propaganda, lies, and media coverage more interested in benign emails and email servers.

I'm not convinced she didn't actually win, and the win was overturned by tampering. I'm also not convinced that in an inclusive democracy, she wouldn't have won in a landslide. We already know she would have won in an actual democracy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The battle lines are pretty clearly laid down. This is the public's eye view on the border wall: "Support for President Trump's border wall hit a record high in a new Quinnipiac University poll Tuesday, but a majority of Americans still oppose the project, saying it’s a waste that isn’t needed to improve border security." That's undoubtedly the most biased poll tilting for the GOP, and they still couldn't skew a result better than 54 to 43 opposed.

All the senate has to do is not pass the house amended cave in bill and let Trump shut the government down over his unmet demand for an unpopular boondoggle, and it takes eight Democrats to pass a spending bill in the senate. Then the incoming house can just keep sending spending bills to the senate to reopen the government without funding Trump's wall. If the senate won't pass them, fine, then Trump's crisis continues to grow. When the senate finally caves in Trump can veto it and let his crisis grow some more. Eventually congressional Republicans will have to get on board and override the veto to reopen the government, and that will be that for the GOP.

 

[Farm Boy]

You spend way too much time reading boobs, Tim. He'll grab an out sooner.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You spend way too much time reading boobs, Tim. He'll grab an out sooner.

Why? His base, the only thing he responds to, is firmly on the "yeah yeah yeah, shut it down, way to go Trump" bandwagon. Why would he back down just to save the GOP?

 

[Farm Boy]

I simply reiterate.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Too old, and not worthy of being the 21st century avatar of American socialism.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 2020?

(Btw she is a gamer, too.)

 

[Berzerker]

The reason to vote for her is not because she is "more qualified" than the other guy but because her political program was markedly superior to Trump's, which as we know was kleptocracy, greater application of state violence against people of color, etc.

We're finally getting criminal justice reform under Trump, Hillary would have passed on it for fear of appearing soft on crime

same with foreign policy

Hillary would have us stuck in the ME for fear of appearing soft on terrorism

Trump's major failing was enabling the Saudi war on Yemen

 

[sophie]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 2020?

(Btw she is a gamer, too.)

Too young. Like actually, legally.

 

[JollyRoger]

And too old to be the 4th Lady

 

[Sommerswerd]

damn, Biden is leading in polls among Democrats

another warmongering prohibitionist

Biden would lose to Trump. Biden has all the "establishment" baggage that Hillary did, the appeal that Biden brings, is redundant with Trump's appeal and the majority of folks who Biden appeals to (besides reliable Democrats), are already irrevocably Trump supporters.