2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Zardnaar]

I'll disagree with you on the people bailing out, at least some of it seems to have been directed in favour of Biden (by Obama, or whomever. I'm not claiming conspiracy, I'm just saying there was a directed choice, and in my opinion before things had actually settled yet), but that point is still in the past regardless. There's definitely an establishment bias against a candidate like Sanders, for his policies or general track record, I don't know (or care at this point) - I just hope they see the popular support for his policies and do something about that.

That said, the current ongoing crisis could shift public opinion on social welfare and health services regardless of Sanders or Biden (or anyone else), so I can't make any predictions. It would be nice, at least. I'm hoping for something similar here in the UK.

No conspiracy required though.

Sanders campaigned on burning the house down so it's not to surprising the house rallied around Biden.

Tim didn't go pro Biden until Sanders started to lose, he predicted the results better than anyone else.

I didn't expect Sanders to win but thought he would do better.

 

[Lexicus]

I'll disagree with you on the people bailing out, at least some of it seems to have been directed in favour of Biden (by Obama, or whomever. I'm not claiming conspiracy, I'm just saying there was a directed choice, and in my opinion before things had actually settled yet), but that point is still in the past regardless. There's definitely an establishment bias against a candidate like Sanders, for his policies or general track record, I don't know (or care at this point) - I just hope they see the popular support for his policies and do something about that.

Yeah, but there's no foul play there. It's not somehow undemocratic or a conspiracy for candidates to recognize they cannot win, and recognize that their staying in the race may lead to an outcome further from what they ultimately want than dropping out and endorsing a candidate who's closer to them ideologically. Which Bernie Sanders supporters are perfectly aware of given that many were, not very nicely, calling for Warren to drop out and endorse Bernie.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'll disagree with you on the people bailing out, at least some of it seems to have been directed in favour of Biden (by Obama, or whomever. I'm not claiming conspiracy, I'm just saying there was a directed choice, and in my opinion before things had actually settled yet), but that point is still in the past regardless. There's definitely an establishment bias against a candidate like Sanders, for his policies or general track record, I don't know (or care at this point) - I just hope they see the popular support for his policies and do something about that.

That said, the current ongoing crisis could shift public opinion on social welfare and health services regardless of Sanders or Biden (or anyone else), so I can't make any predictions. It would be nice, at least. I'm hoping for something similar here in the UK.

Oh, there's no question that they bailed out in favor of Biden. There's also very little doubt though that they were mostly taking votes away from Biden. The ones who had their own money on the line weren't going to keep flushing it down a losing campaign chute, and the ones who didn't have the money had no alternative even if they really wanted to get drubbed. Everybody makes a calculation based on who among the probable continuing candidates really best represents them and who is actually most likely to win in the end. Warren is stuck because the two answers differ, but for everyone else whether they understood it themselves or Jimmy Carter pointed it out to them (lookin' at you Mayor Pete) the choice was pretty easy.

 

[Gorbles]

No conspiracy required though.

I explicitly said "I'm not claiming conspiracy".

Yeah, but there's no foul play there. It's not somehow undemocratic or a conspiracy for candidates to recognize they cannot win, and recognize that their staying in the race may lead to an outcome further from what they ultimately want than dropping out and endorsing a candidate who's closer to them ideologically. Which Bernie Sanders supporters are perfectly aware of given that many were, not very nicely, calling for Warren to drop out and endorse Bernie.

I didn't say it was foul play, either. It doesn't sit right with me, but that's about as useful as saying cheese is nice. It's factually correct in every universe in the multiverse, but it's not useful at all

 

[Lexicus]

I didn't say it was foul play, either. It doesn't sit right with me, but that's about as useful as saying cheese is nice. It's factually correct in every universe in the multiverse, but it's not useful at all

Why doesn't it sit right with you?

 

[Gorbles]

Why doesn't it sit right with you?

Because I believe (now moreso ever with the coronavirus rampant) that we need more leftwing influence in politics, and Biden is the opposite of that. I know it comes down to electability, but the safe candidate was played in 2016, in my opinion. If people think repeating that is going to help, fine. I just don't think it will. I also genuinely believe Sanders will struggle to run in four more years time, and there's nobody else at the level who could pick up that kind of a policy platform. Maybe Warren?

We're heading into territory which is exposing the flaws of "austerity" politics, of "trickle-down" economics, and everything inbetween, at a rate and scale faster than I even thought possible (again: the virus - not helping. But structurally, before that also). Obama could've put his weight behind Sanders. A ridiculous idea perhaps, especially given his political past with Biden, but he could've done. A lot of votes are won and lost on messaging (and a bunch aren't, I get that - some people will vote for the safe option regardless), and I've seen way too much stigma around anything left-of-centre in the past four years alone - in both the US and the UK - to have time for it anymore. Additionally, the Democrats could've spent four years changing the message, however slightly, on more leftist (for America, which isn't saying much) policy. They didn't. The best we got were people like AOC (who are excellent, but also singled out for abuse and ridicule, in addition to being junior members of the party - without much actual support from mainstream elements of the party).

Labour in the UK at least tried this, and fought an openly-hostile press (amongst whatever mistakes they made themselves) as well as opposing parties. I guess I just wish the (mainstream) Democrats had remotely that kind of backbone. I don't see them beating Trump at this game the Republicans have gotten down pat. Maybe they wouldn't have with Sanders either. We're at the point now where it's pretty much "wait and see".

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, but there's no foul play there. It's not somehow undemocratic or a conspiracy for candidates to recognize they cannot win, and recognize that their staying in the race may lead to an outcome further from what they ultimately want than dropping out and endorsing a candidate who's closer to them ideologically. Which Bernie Sanders supporters are perfectly aware of given that many were, not very nicely, calling for Warren to drop out and endorse Bernie.

The accusations of foul play emerge because it is not entirely clear that each candidate dropping out was a choice as that they, as rational actors, made in isolation. There was very likely to have been pressure exerted by the Democratic Party leadership to engineer a consensus around Biden.

If it doesn't smack of ruthless conspiracy, it's only because the Democratic Party leadership as bad at smoky room shenanigans as they are at every other part of the political game, which is why their last best hope to save democracy is a senile racist.

 

[innonimatu]

Yes that is why he's been winning against Trump by a wider margin in polls than any other candidate and has roflstomped Bernie. I get it you don't like him. I'm not a fan either. That doesn't mean he is guaranteed to lose.

You didn't learn anything from 2016?

And you want a repeat of the UK 2019 election result, I gather? Corbyn and Sanders are not dissimilar, nor are Johnson and Trump.

Corbyn lost only because he betrayed many of his supporters on brexit. Or rather, allowed the party he was running to betray them, which amounts to the same.

As for Trump, he will wipe the floor with Biden. I'm starting to think that even after mishandling the coronavirus response he will manage to survive politically. There's a lot he can do to outmaneuver a democratic candidate, especially one who isn't at all convincing and has no proposals of his own, just more of the same.

 

[Patine]

And yet, still better than Donald Trump.

This is an election that really needs, and screams out for, viable candidates NOT nominated by the two major parties...

 

[Patine]

OK. So what do you want/expect us to do about it? It really seems like you're trying to convince folks of something or to take some action, but I can't figure out what that might be. What is your goal here? Is it just to vent your displeasure at Biden being the frontrunner or to mock him for a bit of personal catharsis? Or maybe you want to get your prediction that Biden will lose on the record for bragging rights/I-told-you-so's later?

Any or all of those are fine by me BTW... although I will say that in terms of getting your prediction on the record for bragging rights... you've certainly already done that plenty. I don't think that anyone is going to claim later that you didn't say it. So I'm thinking there has to be some other reason for you to keep repeating it. Again, I'm not trying to discourage you from stating your opinions, I'm honestly just curious about what your thought process is here. I'm 100% clear that you don't think Biden can win, but I'm not as clear whether you're trying to convince others... and toward what end... or if you have some other motivation?

Vote BOTH parties out of office in the SAME election? You might be surprised to know it's NOT a criminal offense in the U.S.

 

[Patine]

I'm not really sitting on a particular position here, but as a Brit, the UK 2019 election result featured prominent scaremongering and an anti-Labour media (studies were done on negative articles per party - Labour came out way on top). This comparison isn't as helpful as you think it are.

There are a lot of factors at play here. Biden might be the only candidate going now, but that doesn't mean people can't be critical or even hostile. I don't get the pervasive opinion here (not directed at you Igloo, more in general) that's incredibly bullish or outright dismissive of any criticism of Biden, or the platform that seems keen to run him. It's part of why I haven't bothered talking much, not least because we all have worse problems going on too. Just spectating, mostly.

Biden would be much more of a Liberal Democrat, ideologically, than Labour, in the UK.

 

[Zardnaar]

Vote BOTH parties out of office in the SAME election? You might be surprised to know it's NOT a criminal offense in the U.S.

Reality is 30-40% will stick with Trump. That will just split the vote helping Trump.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is an election that really needs, and screams out for, viable candidates NOT nominated by the two major parties...

Vote BOTH parties out of office in the SAME election? You might be surprised to know it's NOT a criminal offense in the U.S.

It might be such a time, but there is no candidate who could garner enough votes to do that. The only person I see who would be capable of that is Oprah and she isn't running.

Even if there were such a candidate to win the Presidency, the congress would still be in party hands. It's kinda like saying "If we had a sure fire vaccine for the corona virus now, it would be great." It would be, but we don't. Move on.

 

[Patine]

Replace that with Bernie's pro-Communist history and I submit that it is indeed a helpful comparison.

The key there is it's his HISTORY. There's no indication he's pushing or supporting outright, full Communism now. After all, look at Reagan in the '70's and '80's, and then compare that to his radio political endorsement ads as an actor in 1948. Or the fact that Trump was a Democrat until 1999, then a member of Perot's Reform Party from 1999 until a few years before he threw his hat in the ring in 2015. Judging older politicians by their ideological "history," in the way your talking about is foolhardy at best.

 

[innonimatu]

There are only so many ways I can say, "I don't like Biden but...". I have not seen full stop support for Biden from anyone here. It's always deeply qualified support or hyper-contextual to the actual arguments being made rather than general support for the guy.

The only reason Biden is even running is that the party and the media have proclaimed him "the electable one" just because they want it so, it is supposed to be so. But even if they indeed manage to influence some of "their" voters, a tiny minority of the population, they are not managing to influence the majority. The reality distortion field only works on those already predisposed to believe... that is, has always been, the dirty trick of looking like a winner in politics or in business: winning where it is easy: knowing when such an opportunity exists and grabbing it. Thing is, Trump is though.

 

[Ajidica]

The accusations of foul play emerge because it is not entirely clear that each candidate dropping out was a choice as that they, as rational actors, made in isolation. There was very likely to have been pressure exerted by the Democratic Party leadership to engineer a consensus around Biden.

Isn't that sort of the point of a political party? To select the candidate most likely to win and advance policies desired by the members of a political party? A political party isn't a debating society.

 

[Patine]

The only reason Biden is even running is that the party and the media have proclaimed him "the electable one" just because they want it so, it is supposed to be so. But even if they indeed manage to influence some of "their" voters, a tiny minority of the population, they are not managing to influence the majority. The reality distortion field only works on those already predisposed to believe... that is, has always been, the dirty trick of looking like a winner in politics or in business: winning where it is easy: knowing when such an opportunity exists and grabbing it. Thing is, Trump is though.

The Republicans were fully convinced, from nomination to election night, that Romney was a shoe-in in 2012. They were certain he could not lose. The rabid and harsh rhetoric coming out of GOP talking points at that time portrayed Obama in just as negative a light as Democrats now paint Trump.

 

[Patine]

Isn't that sort of the point of a political party? To select the candidate most likely to win and advance policies desired by the members of a political party? A political party isn't a debating society.

Yes, but it works a Hell of a lot better when you have a multi-party level of choice, not the wretched Duopoly...

 

[Sommerswerd]

The ignorance is genuine. I try to be (genuine, hahaha, not ignorant), in general. Not saying I'm some perfect being, I will happily throw digs every so often, but when I'm trying for a longer-form post, this is me and I'm acting as sincerely as I can.

I appreciate the explanation. Just trying to get a sounding board on how possible it was, that's all. Was more interested in the delegates rather than technicalities about him dying But it's handy, because this kind of immediate snark is exactly what I was highlighting to hobbs and Igloo. There's being defensive, and there's been immediately disposed to treating these kinds of questions in bad faith. It's not great, yeah?

To the extent that you took my joke about Biden dropping out (which I readily preemptively disclaimed as friendly turnabout sarcasm) as "snark", please note that I did expressly state that I regarded your question as sarcastic, ie rhetorical... as in, you knew damn well that Biden didn't yet have enough delegates to be the official "winner" yet, and that was your passive-aggressive way of pointing it out... "Oh I'm just silly Brit who doesn't understand your wacky US delegate maths but it seems to me that Biden hasn't actually won yet...correct me if I'm wrong... I'm just a silly Brit afterall "

Kind of like when people say "Hey I'm no mathematician, but..." and then point out that someone's numbers don't seem to add up in a very obvious way. I took it as a sarcastic/passive aggressive, roundabut way of pointing out that Biden hadn't technically won yet, so I responded in kind, which seemed appropriate. Not "defensive", least of all not of Biden, just giving as good as I was getting in general. Now you're saying that you didn't mean it that way, and I will take you at your word so sorry for being snarky.

The real point as @Timsup2nothin outlined, is that the delegate math is pretty difficult for Sanders, not technically impossible, but not within any realistic hope at this point.

 

[Patine]

The ones who had their own money on the line weren't going to keep flushing it down a losing campaign chute, and the ones who didn't have the money had no alternative even if they really wanted to get drubbed

So, you pretty much confirm here that the plutocrats are biggest enemy of a functional electoral system where the will of the voters actually matters?