1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

2020 US Election (Part Two)

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Lexicus, Mar 11, 2020.

  1. Sommerswerd

    Sommerswerd I never yielded

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Messages:
    17,671
    Location:
    Wakanda Forever
    I thoght she was a lock after she flipped and turned her campaign apparatus over to Biden right before the MN primary, but it now seems to me that Harris is the most likely candidate... which I don't know... I mean I'm voting for Biden regardless at this point, but I don't know if Harris accomplishes for him what he wants, which is to drive up black and female turnout. I almost wish he'd just pick AOC and go with "Don't worry, If I die Nancy will be POTUS"
    Putting aside our disagreements about Warren and AOC... my reading of lot of the arguments you've made has led me to conclude that the position that you are taking (and attributing to TF) is essentially that Bernie lost because he didn't get enough support from Democrats.

    If that is your position, I agree, but I think that is more a feature, rather than a bug, with elections. "Bernie lost cause Democrats didn't support him" is at the very core of what a Democratic (both big "D" and small "d") primary is supposed to be about. "Bernie would have won if more Democrats supported him"... well... yeah... he would have... more specifically, if most Democrats supported him he would have won... but most Democrats didn't support him, so he lost.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
  2. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    23,740
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    I agree completely.
     
    Sommerswerd likes this.
  3. Ironsided

    Ironsided Flower of happiness

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,128
    Nancy, what a joke.

    There’s a race war brewing and Americans have two racists to chose from. 40 million have lost their jobs and most of them their health insurance during a pandemic. None of the political options want to remedy this fact. They want to sling mud at each other. Tear up papers, pull cheap shots and virtue signal but ultimately do nothing.

    If the infernally incompetent Dem leadership (only ever historically surpassed in ineptitude by the current Rep Trump adm) actually wanted to win the next election in these circumstances all they have to do is provide a believable alternative. They can’t even do that – in a crisis, against Trump. Pelosi push a SALT cap reduction in taxes on her wealthy donors in CA and NY and a damn bailout for lobbyist firms and hand 5 Tn bailout for corporations to Mnuchin without oversight. But she can’t get in a government wage guarantee for furlough workers like the rest of the developed world or even a temporary UBI. Completely useless opposition is what the Dems are. Holders of the house with people on their side. Nothing. Useless.

    If Dems wanted to win they could secure that November victory in two red seconds. Just put Bernies Medicare for all plan on top of their program and appoint Bernie to oversee it. M4A in one way or another has over 70% support now - and Bernie’s plan is most popular with over 55% support. It’s a guaranteed win for the dems and a less expensive option for all. But the dems, and Biden in particular, is/are corruptly more beholden to the insurance industry and big pharma than the American people they are semi-democratically put on societal pedestals to represent.

    I see a movement again to push Ventura to take reigns of the green party. That would be good and he’d get at least 10% for them even with the might of the Dem base and media voter shaming green voters to oblivion. It would still be preferred because this corrupt mess must change at some point. It could have changed much less painfully with a Sanders win in 2016 or a Sanders nom now but the Dems wanted continued corruption and here we are.
     
    haroon, Socrates99 and cardgame like this.
  4. cardgame

    cardgame Obsessively Opposed to the Typical

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    14,256
    Location:
    Misery
    it's because democrats don't want to win, they have more to gain from Trump winning and enhancing their status as brave #resistance heroes
     
    Imaus likes this.
  5. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,839
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    Missed my point. Getting a "nice guy" like Biden who we cross our fingers and hope won't do anything regressive is a placebo. It allows the media to go back to pretending there's nothing to see here while dem politicians go corrupt. That's why Obama's super majority was so short lived.

    Lefties screaming bloody murder about Trump regained control of the House and is poised to retake the Senate. Screaming bloody murder motivates people. Pretending everything is fine because we have a steady hand does not.
     
    cardgame likes this.
  6. Imaus

    Imaus King

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2016
    Messages:
    636
    Location:
    NYC
    Yea, motivates them to vote Trump out of office. There is no further benefit in keeping Trump in the oval office, even if the House and Senate is against him. We've already seen what happens when there's a President of one party and a Legislature of another. It ******* sucks, and Obama at least pretended to be civil and restrained, Trump will use everything he can to push his own agenda. And pray tell, are the Dems expected to keep their power for four years in those seats? Assassinations, deaths, replacements, attacks from his base or Rep leaning local judges means that the Dems can be whittled down by his midterm and there he goes again with a Republican house or Senate.

    The Dems have something to keep them in check - a active, engaged progressive wing that points the target on the mainline dems just as much as the reps. And if that wing evaporates because the Dems win in 2020, that is their own damn fault, not the fault of not having a ******* idiot in power. If you're so uncertain that the Progressive wing can stay coherent after a Democratic victory, that means you need to clean up house and keep that wing energized, not pine for the bogeyman to keep us in check like children. That would be yearning for the easy way, but it is never easy.
     
  7. Arwon

    Arwon

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Messages:
    18,398
    Location:
    Canberra
    This calculus depends what state someone is in. Same goes for congressional district votes.
     
  8. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    10,100
    Location:
    Chicago
    If nothing else, we need Trump gone just to stop the ridiculous executive orders.
     
  9. Cloud_Strife

    Cloud_Strife Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2018
    Messages:
    3,131
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Midgar
    And then what? Go back to voting GOP like normal and assume trump is an outlier? The party is rotten from the head down.
     
    Lexicus likes this.
  10. rah

    rah Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    10,100
    Location:
    Chicago
    Unfortunately Trump has become the norm. It will be quite a while before the party is viable enough to want to support.
    I'll probably be dead before the next big shift happens.
     
  11. adcarrymaokai

    adcarrymaokai Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,495
    What a curious twist. :mischief:
    And of course, my all time favorite:
     
  12. caketastydelish

    caketastydelish Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    8,887
    Gender:
    Male
    Check the olive branch thread.
     
    Lexicus likes this.
  13. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    6,430
    So, if Trump is on the ropes (we can only hope) and does get defeated in 2020, is the U.S. Nation and the Biden Administration prepared to deal with the REAL underlying issue at stake here? The reason Trump was electable in 2016 in the first place. The long-festering socio-political disease and divide that Trump and the "Trumpists," are merely a symptom of, not nearly the creators or innovators of in any way, shape, or form. The utterly toxic cesspool of socio-political beliefs, vicious confrontations, unwinnable and irreconcilable conflicts, bizarre and extreme turns of the "culture war," and, most importantly, the toxic, fire-spitting media machine - a cesspool both sides of the political divide are responsible war starting and exacerbating - the very same cesspool that Trump opportunistically rode the crest of while creating nothing of his own ideologically - only a signature campaigning, public appearance, declaration, and reaction style - which is, at heart, all "Trumpsim," really is. @Cloud_Strife's quote I quoted here is partially, right, except that the rot is not just in the Republican Party, but it's spread a LOT thicker on the ground, and the U.S. media - both with a "right-and-left-wing," bias are among the most rotten. Highbrow, professional journalism with any integrity in the U.S. pretty much died when Walter Cronkite retired. Because, as horrid and monstrous as he is, Donald Trump is NOT final boss fight, and it won't be over - and Democrats and Third Party/Independent voters also should look in the mirror at their part in the creating this fertile ground for such a monster to rise - or there will be WORSE monsters down the line, and probably not too far down...
     
    haroon and Socrates99 like this.
  14. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    32,362
    Location:
    Scotland
    As I've observed, people don't cast their votes based on their evaluation of the policies in isolation, they do so on the basis of considerations such as how serious they think the candidate is about those policies, about how likely the candidate is to implement those policies, and how about well they well implement those policies. Very few Americans actually think "free healthcare and free college" is a bad idea in and of itself, but they may be sceptical as to its feasibility, and of the ability of any given candidate to implement it. Votes do not clearly translate into policy-preferences, especially not in the absence of a transferable vote system.

    Aside from Biden, Sanders and Warren, there were twenty-six other candidates in the race at various times, the great majority of whom offered very moderate platforms; of the eight who made it to the primaries, all were moderates except maybe Yang. Does that prove that the voters hate moderate platforms? All were emphatically rejected by voters. Does that prove that moderate policies don't win votes? Your reasoning seems to dictate that they must, that Biden was simply the candidate to whose policy the voters objected least. Is that a useful way to look at the elections?

    Taking in account what has been said since this post, I think we are getting side-tracked arguing about what constitutes "support".

    My claim is that Sanders most likely prospect of securing the nomination was obtaining the support of important Democratic Party leaders.

    I have contended that Sanders' greatest obstacle to victory was that he was perceived as being at-odds with the Democratic Party. Voters who were sympathetic to his policies and to him personally remained sceptical that he would win the election, not simply because they assumed that non-committed voters would swing to the Democrats, but because they believed that he would struggle to rally the Democratic Party in a general election campaign. They further perceived that, even if he did win the general, he would struggle to maintain the support of Democratic legislators in office.

    Sympathetic Democratic voters were sceptical towards the Sanders campaign not simply because they assume that white moderates would recoil from "Crazy Bernie", but because they perceived, and to a very great extent correctly perceived, that he would struggle to assemble the sort of campaign infrastructure which is necessary to win in a general election. He was perceived as a divisive candidate who, whatever his personal strengths and virtues, would inhibit the ability of the Democratic Party to run a credible general challenge as a party.

    For Sanders to overcome this obstacle, it would be necessary for some part of the Democratic Party leadership to recognise him as a viable general candidate, and for this to credible, it would require them to explicitly voice support for his candidacy. This would have established that Sanders could overcome the perceived distance between his campaign in the party, and that he would be able to call upon the support the party in the election and in government. It would legitimise Sanders as a potential Democratic Party candidate in the eyes of sympathetic but sceptical voters, as somebody whom serious party loyalists perceived as both credible and reliable.

    Elizabeth Warren may have played such a role if she had remained a bystander, but by entering the primary with the platform she put forward, she placed herself outside of the mainstream of Democratic policies. Even if she had endorsed Sanders, this would have appeared as a failed candidate endorsing whatever rival was most similar to them in policy terms, not as a vote of confidence from a party insider. It would not have lent Sanders the sort of legitimacy I am describing.

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is very much not a leading member of the Democratic Party; she is a nationally-recognised figure, but she is a first-term legislator with very little in the way of institutional sway, and her national recognition is attributable to her outsider-status within the party. I have a lot of respect for AOC, but she would only have legitimised Sanders in the eyes of people for whom he was already legitimate. Her endorsement was the very definition of preaching to the choir.

    My claim is not that not enough people said enough nice things about Sanders, and that if more people had said enough nice things about him, he would have won. I'm saying that that the perceived distance between Sanders and the Democratic Party was his primarily obstacle to securing the nomination, and that for him to secure the nomination meant closing that distance. In part this mean that the Sanders would need to make conciliatory gestures towards the Democratic Party (and it is my belief that he pursued this as far as he could while maintaining his credibility as a critic of the political and economic system status quo), but he could never close the distance unless some part of the Democratic Party leadership were prepared to meet him in the middle. This doesn't mean that they would have to sign on to every aspect of his platform without qualification- despite overwhelming weight of accepted wisdom, it is possible to compromise to the left, and not only to the right- only that they were prepared to assert without ambiguity that they thought Sanders was the best candidate to win the 2020 presidential election.

    I think that, my reputation as basically this skeleton is leading people to interpret my comments in an ultra-left frame, that the the party should have capitulated utterly to Glorious Comrade Sanders, but what I'm really arguing for is really the sort of sell-out capitulation that would get me exiled from any self-respecting socialist organisation: that for Sanders to win the general election, he had to stop being Bernie Sanders the independent socialist and become Bernie Sanders the Democrat.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
    Samson, cardgame, Gorbles and 2 others like this.
  15. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    6,430
    Bernie Sanders as the Independent Socialist who twice sought the Democratic Party nomination for U.S. President can't help but remind me of William Jennings Bryan, the insurgent agrarian People's (or Populist) Party candidate who did win thrice win the Democratic Party nomination for U.S. President, in a way...
     
  16. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    6,430
    In regards to SPEFICALLY Kamala Harris, HERSELF, I have to agree. It would be in bad faith for Biden to select an African-American woman as a running mate who was specifically one known for being strongly in cahoots with the prison-industrial complex, corrupt "prosecutorial quotas," and "strong law-and-order," policies that disproportionately negatively affect the African-American community.
     
    Narz likes this.
  17. cardgame

    cardgame Obsessively Opposed to the Typical

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    14,256
    Location:
    Misery
    That works for the Klob too.
     
    Narz and Old Hippy like this.
  18. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    38,426
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    I'd like to see Biden go public on who he would put in his cabinet. I think if he negotiated some of those now it could help his campaign. Would Bernie accept one? Andrew Yang? It's an opportunity to add some of those to his campaign team.
     
  19. cardgame

    cardgame Obsessively Opposed to the Typical

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    14,256
    Location:
    Misery
    Bernie might be more useful as a senator. How much individual power does a cabinet member have, exactly? They do serve at the pleasure of the president so they can be kicked out pretty easily...
     
  20. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    6,430
    Chief managing bureaucrat or civil servant of one whole Department of Federal Government. I don't BELIEVE any BINDING power in establishing policy, but advisory power to the U.S. President and Congressional leaders, I'm pretty sure.
     

Share This Page