2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Drakle]

Being liberal does little for progressives outside social identity issues like racism and lgbtq, but I know what you mean.

However, Harris is clearly not Bidens VP to please the progressive base. She is in because she is a political animal who ‘understands’ what the bought and sold Democratic leadership are about and that they gave her this position because of that. She will play along and certainly no more vote ‘with Bernie’ if inconvenient for the leadership. Kamala is very much like a younger Biden, a political careerist, with the present added superficial benefits of being of colour and female. They make a solid coherent pairing, just not one that will drive policy on behalf of ordinary people.

And after all, when the corporate Democratic leadership with full MSNBC, CNN, ABC backing whipped Butty, Klobuchar, Bloomberg and even dug up O’Rourke to end their campaigns and endorse and coalesce around Biden that fateful Monday before super Tuesday and every candidate except Warren was out; Biden surely kicked ass by being marginally ahead. And, there was nothing comfortable about Clintons win in 2016 either, if anything, it was even more shady.

DW Nominate scores measure economic Redistributive policies as well.

And yeah, your movement and its explanation for its own loss is so sad. You are basically admitting that you can not win a popular primary majority. You had to rely on the 'establishment' to split their vote, and then browbeat them with a convention. An anti-democratic, and dumb strategy.

Because it forgets that everybody involved, bar Bloomberg is a partisan Democrat. Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Beto, etc. They all want Democrats to win, and they all want a career. Of course, once they are basically a year into the Presidential primary, and gone through 4 contests, and not broken through, they would pack it in. Harris withdrew even earlier once it was clear she couldn't breakthrough.

And Bloomberg stayed in during Super Tuesday, and many of those who dropped out still got a few votes, as they were still on the ballot. Bloomberg and Warren both got over 2 million votes, so it was about even in terms of splitting. Bloomberg dropped after, not before Super Tuesday, and Warren took longer.

Biden in 2020, got 51.46% of the vote while having Bloomberg (6.92%), Pete (2.55%), and Amy (1.47%). Clinton only got 55.23%, in a one on one race.

Bernie plunged from 43.13% of the vote, to 26.63%. Even if you gave him literally every single Warren voter (which doesn't reflect reality, as lots of them wouldn't and didn't go to Bernie), it still doesn't make up for the deficit.

Some key states to illustrate.

In 2016 he got 85.69%/115,900 in his home state of Vermont. In 2020 he got 50.57%/79,921, barely a majority in his home state. Adding Warren doesn't make up his deficit. Biden well over doubled the vote count Clinton got, and nearly got double the percentage.

In 2016, Bernie won Michigan by a very narrow margin. In 2020, Biden won every single county in the state. Similar results happened across the Midwest.

Bernie didn't win a single Midwest state, bar a contested caucus result with Buttigieg in Iowa. You know the critical swing region that was the reason after 2016 for nominating him, according to Bernie supporters. No, across the entire region he plunged badly and his best results were all in safe blue cities and university campuses. Not the rustbelt workers. They had either left the Democratic primary process or voted for Biden, not Bernie. Or the swing suburbs. Biden as well.

None of that is Biden winning a 'marginal result'. He conclusively won a majority and did so even better than Clinton's majority.

Also if you think that, some other hopeless nominees dropping out are dirty tricks that cost you the campaign, how the hell are you supposed to handle Republicans? The masters of dirty tricks. Winning a primary is the easy thing to do. Winning a general is much harder.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I see a lot of posts here that seem to forget that the election of our President is not the end-all and be-all of our entire government. That's not how our government works. Our President is not our Prime Minister. The office sits in a separate branch of government from our Congress, which is our closest equivalent to a Parliament (in that sense, I guess our "Prime Minister" would be the Speaker of the House).

The fact that Bernie Sanders lost to Joe Biden is of course a disappointment to American progressives, and many of us are worried that the Democratic Party is poised to vigorously repeat the mistakes it has made in the past. However, Progressive candidates for Congress have made great gains.

The New York Times, 5 August 2020 - "Progressive victories signal staying power for the movement"

On its own, the outcome of the Democratic presidential primary would point to a party that has rejected left-wing ideals, eschewing “Medicare for all” and its champions in favor of a more moderate candidate, Mr. Biden. But the full scope of this year’s primary season points to a more complicated picture — a party with a fluid identity whose embrace of diverse candidates is clear, but one that has not settled on a dominant ideology.

I also think that even if you are looking exclusively at the Democratic primary, you can't look only at Bernie Sanders as representing the progressive left. The 2020 primary could be viewed as a stronger one for progressives, just because the overall field was so much better than it was in 2016. To be sure, if all progressive voters had lined up behind just one of the candidates, he or she probably still wouldn't have beaten Biden, but anyone saying that 2020 was a decisive blow against progressives isn't seeing the whole picture.

That goes for the progressives who feel like voting for Biden is a surrender to the status quo, as well as the people dancing on what they think are our graves. If you're a fan of American football, conceding even a single yard can feel like a mini-defeat. If you're not moving forward decisively in American football, you're essentially losing. When the situation is dire, even gaining a yard or two on a successful play can feel like a failure. But in global football/soccer, passing the ball backwards or sideways isn't necessarily a throw-up-your-hands, "[Crap], what do we do now?" moment. Sometimes it's a tactical ploy, part of a sequence of moves intended to stretch the defense or lure them out of position, and open a shot on goal. (I could give an MMA analogy too, if anyone wants, but I figured more people know football/soccer. )

 

[Kyriakos]

I see a lot of posts here that seem to forget that the election of our President is not the end-all and be-all of our entire government. That's not how our government works. Our President is not our Prime Minister. The office sits in a separate branch of government from our Congress, which is our closest equivalent to a Parliament (in that sense, I guess our "Prime Minister" would be the Speaker of the House).

The fact that Bernie Sanders lost to Joe Biden is of course a disappointment to American progressives, and many of us are worried that the Democratic Party is poised to vigorously repeat the mistakes it has made in the past. However, Progressive candidates for Congress have made great gains.

The New York Times, 5 August 2020 - "Progressive victories signal staying power for the movement"


I also think that even if you are looking exclusively at the Democratic primary, you can't look only at Bernie Sanders as representing the progressive left. The 2020 primary could be viewed as a stronger one for progressives, just because the overall field was so much better than it was in 2016. To be sure, if all progressive voters had lined up behind just one of the candidates, he or she probably still wouldn't have beaten Biden, but anyone saying that 2020 was a decisive blow against progressives isn't seeing the whole picture.

That goes for the progressives who feel like voting for Biden is a surrender to the status quo, as well as the people dancing on what they think are our graves. If you're a fan of American football, conceding even a single yard can feel like a mini-defeat. If you're not moving forward decisively in American football, you're essentially losing. When the situation is dire, even gaining a yard or two on a successful play can feel like a failure. But in global football/soccer, passing the ball backwards or sideways isn't necessarily a throw-up-your-hands, "[Crap], what do we do now?" moment. Sometimes it's a tactical ploy, part of a sequence of moves intended to stretch the defense or lure them out of position, and open a shot on goal. (I could give an MMA analogy too, if anyone wants, but I figured more people know football/soccer. )

If only there was something Biden could have done to make the progressives feel included. It's too bad there is no position like a vice leader or vice president or something like that to give to them
Instead he did as his handlers commanded, and resurrected one of the most thoroughly defeated candidates of the primaries. Which does beg the question: what was the point of having the primaries in the first place, if it doesn't matter if next to no one votes for you (Kamala) and now you may even end up being the potus?

 

[Drakle]

I prefaced my point with how I voted, to point out that I'm not some conservative.

But I have found online American leftists to be some of the most annoying people out there, and absurdly ill sighted, particularly considering 2000, and 2016, and the Republican Presidents that resulted.

The fundamental goal of 2020 should be, fixing American Democracy. It is far too broken, to embark on any grand legislative program, when Manchin is the swing vote, from a state that Trump won by a landslide. The average Senate seat is biased massively Republican.

But many people that voted Biden, are not opposed to progressive goals, they just trust Biden to do it better. There was a point someone made on another forum that Biden won Lipinski's district solidly, even as that district kicked him out in favour of Newman. Other progressive house primary candidates also outperformed Bernie. Those Biden-Newman style voters are a large part of where any future movement would be built.

If only there was something Biden could have done to make the progressives feel included. It's too bad there is no position like a vice leader or vice president or something like that to give to them
Instead he did as his handlers commanded, and resurrected one of the most thoroughly defeated candidates of the primaries.

When the second most Liberal/Left Senator isn't 'progressive' enough.

When self-proclaimed 'progressive' fence themselves off into a tiny sliver of the electorate and political space, of course, those 'progressives' won't get what they want.

Biden needed someone younger to take over. Bernie is ancient, and even Warren is old. And over half the online leftists would be calling her a snake for doing so, so you can't say she would have pleased them.

He could have easily picked Rice or Whitmer. He likely would have gotten along better with either one of them.

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, I suppose it is too much to ask that actual voting matters, right Drakle? You seem to not mind at all that Kamala was a massively unpopular candidate in the primaries. Let's reward the public not wanting her by possibly giving her the position of president.

 

[EgonSpengler]

If only there was something Biden could have done to make the progressives feel included. It's too bad there is no position like a vice leader or vice president or something like that to give to them
Instead he did as his handlers commanded, and resurrected one of the most thoroughly defeated candidates of the primaries.

If progressives feel excluded or defeated simply because of who the VP is (likewise, if they believed it would have been some kind of great victory) I think they're being myopic and I would ask them to kindly please stop.

 

[Kyriakos]

If progressives feel excluded or defeated simply because of who the VP is (likewise, if they believed it would have been some kind of great victory) I think they're being myopic and I would ask them to kindly please stop.

Like I said, for foreign policy reasons I do hope Biden will win. But the sad reality is he is a very weak candidate, and he is struggling to defeat an utter clown involved in criminal activities: Trump.
If Biden manages to lose, you don't need another "What happened" book to tell you why.

 

[really]

Steve Bannon has been arrested and charged with fraud relating to fundraising for the Wall.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Well, I suppose it is too much to ask that actual voting matters, right Drakle? You seem to not mind at all that Kamala was a massively unpopular candidate in the primaries. Let's reward the public not wanting her by possibly giving her the position of president.

I'm honestly not quite sure how to interpret the primaries. Beforehand, there was a whole lot of trying to figure out who other people might vote for. The lack of votes for Harris might indicate that many Americans think many other Americans are itinerant misogynists and racists who will only ever vote for an old, white guy. I hate that, and I wanted everyone to vote for the candidate they liked, but I'm not honestly sure they're wrong, either.

 

[Drakle]

Well, I suppose it is too much to ask that actual voting matters, right Drakle? You seem to not mind at all that Kamala was a massively unpopular candidate in the primaries. Let's reward the public not wanting her by possibly giving her the position of president.

Breaking through in a primary of like 30 people, when the first states are lily white Iowa and New Hampshire is different from being the VP. Americans approve of Harris as VP, by 53 to 29, and most of that 29 are Republicans who would be down on literally any choice.

Like I said, for foreign policy reasons I do hope Biden will win. But the sad reality is he is a very weak candidate, and he is struggling to defeat an utter clown involved in criminal activities: Trump.
If Biden manages to lose, you don't need another "What happened" book to tell you why.

Yes, Biden is sooo weak that he ... leads Trump by nearly 10 points, and led Trump by the largest margin of all Democratic Primary candidates.

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm honestly not quite sure how to interpret the primaries. Beforehand, there was a whole lot of trying to figure out who other people might vote for. The lack of votes for Harris might indicate that many Americans think many other Americans are itinerant misogynists and racists who will only ever vote for an old, white guy. I hate that, and I wanted everyone to vote for the candidate they liked, but I'm not honestly sure they're wrong, either.

She got 6% or less. You cannot be seriously claiming she is a popular candidate.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Like I said, for foreign policy reasons I do hope Biden will win. But the sad reality is he is a very weak candidate, and he is struggling to defeat an utter clown involved in criminal activities: Trump.
If Biden manages to lose, you don't need another "What happened" book to tell you why.

Like I said, the Democrats seem poised to make many of the same mistakes. They tried to ram Hilary Clinton down our throats for 15-16 years. Her loss to Trump was her second defeat. She was "supposed" to be the nominee in 2008, but Barack Obama jumped the line.

 

[Kyriakos]

Like I said, the Democrats seem poised to make many of the same mistakes. They tried to ram Hilary Clinton down our throats for 15-16 years. Her loss to Trump was her second defeat. She was "supposed" to be the nominee in 2008, but Barack Obama jumped the line.

I think it is very alarming that people in the dem party see Trump as some kind of force. What would have happened if the republican nomination was someone who had reach in the center? I hope Biden will win, but he is another lame candidate who risks losing to a ridiculously stupid and corrupt nomination/potus.

That said, it is of course hugely more alarming that something like Trump managed to get enough votes to even become potus. But that also had to do with the bad dem nomination.

 

[Drakle]

I think it is very alarming that people in the dem party see Trump as some kind of force. What would have happened if the republican nomination was someone who had reach in the center? I hope Biden will win, but he is another lame candidate who risks losing to a ridiculously stupid and corrupt nomination/potus.

Trump did have reach in the centre. In 2016, he was regarded as the least conservative Republican nominee for decades.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/2/20677656/donald-trump-moderate-extremism-penalty

Remember he won the Republican primary by rejecting austerity, Medicare and SS cuts, along with all the other stuff.

Against Rubio or Cruz, Clinton would have had a much easier time. They have actual records to hit them for, while Trump didn't have one. And they were not willing to reject unpopular Republican economic orthodoxy.

 

[EgonSpengler]

What would have happened if the republican nomination was someone who had reach in the center?

Spoiler :

 

[Farm Boy]

What would have happened if the republican nomination was someone who had reach in the center?

They'd win. But now we see if the killbots have it.

 

[Kyriakos]

@Drakle
^I am not sure if the people didn't see what Trump was in 2016. It's kind of hard to miss when he opens his mouth.
I suppose Johnie Rotten missed it, but he is like 2000 years old himself
Trump has to go. I just fear that Biden-co may mess this up, which I would hate.

@EgonSpengler exactly.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Trump did have reach in the centre. In 2016, he was regarded as the least conservative Republican nominee for decades.

Remember he won the Republican primary by rejecting austerity, Medicare and SS cuts, along with all the other stuff.

Against Rubio or Cruz, Clinton would have had a much easier time. They have actual records to hit them for, while Trump didn't have one. And they were not willing to reject unpopular Republican economic orthodoxy.

I'm not sure we can assume that "Establishment" = "Conservative." The 2016 election(s) was a warning shot across the bow of both parties (and it wasn't the first such warning shot, either - both parties are amazingly oblivious). That's why I think it's a reasonable hypothesis that Sanders might have done better in the general against Trump than Clinton did.

 

[Drakle]

I'm not sure we can assume that "Establishment" = "Conservative." The 2016 election(s) was a warning shot across the bow of both parties (and it wasn't the first such warning shot, either - both parties are amazingly oblivious). That's why I think it's a reasonable hypothesis that Sanders might have done better in the general against Trump than Clinton did.

Elections are more than immigration and rhetoric towards the national organisations. Trump in 2016 was incoherent but did stop saying all the dumb economic rhetoric that costs Republicans votes. Of course, once he took office, he didn't actually care and let Paul Ryan and Pence run the show. Which is why he is seen as much more conservative.

Anyway, Sanders was a cipher to the general electorate in 2016. A lot of his primary vote was clearly anti-Clinton, and most never actually thought he had a chance. He didn't think he had a chance at first and was just running as an issue candidate. The general between Trump Vs Sanders almost certainly would lead to a third-party run, like Bloomberg which is an added chaos factor. But while Trump picked up some former Obama voters, Clinton also picked up a lot of former Romney voters. Sanders would not have received those votes and would have lost their more Democratic ilks. He also had a lot of negatives not seriously examined in the primary.


And I still find people saying that this is weak, is absurd.

 

[Lexicus]

Online leftists I know aren't saying that at all. It's a funny ol' situation out there.

Do you run in any explicitly Anarchist or Marxist circles online? If you do, I'm skeptical that you haven't seen anyone saying something like this. If not, then it isn't so surprising.

And yeah, your movement and its explanation for its own loss is so sad. You are basically admitting that you can not win a popular primary majority. You had to rely on the 'establishment' to split their vote, and then browbeat them with a convention. An anti-democratic, and dumb strategy.

I don't agree that it is anti-democratic to win an election against a split opposition. Perhaps it was a dumb strategy, since it obviously failed, but hardly anti-democratic.

The fundamental goal of 2020 should be, fixing American Democracy. It is far too broken, to embark on any grand legislative program, when Manchin is the swing vote, from a state that Trump won by a landslide. The average Senate seat is biased massively Republican.

This is a self-contradiction. The only way to "fix American Democracy" is to make substantial constitutional changes which will be far more difficult to enact than any mere "grand legislative program."

But many people that voted Biden, are not opposed to progressive goals, they just trust Biden to do it better.

Not to put too fine a point on it, anyone who trusts Biden to carry out any progressive goals is a fool. How many Republicans telling you that Biden wasn't going to do anything progressive do you need before you conclude that Biden isn't going to do anything progressive?

When the second most Liberal/Left Senator isn't 'progressive' enough.

Uh, hello? Yes, the country where Trump is President and you yourself claim that our politics are too broken to actually "embark on any grand legislative program" (this is a euphemism for ensuring we have a livable planet for the next generation, among many other absolutely necessary things) is the same country where the "second most Liberal/Left Senator" isn't nearly progressive enough.

That Kamala Harris is the second-most Liberal/Left Senator (I actually would dispute that characterization but whatever) is the problem we need to fix, not the reality we need to take as given and unchangeable.