2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Zardnaar]

The problem is if he turns out to be right, we all lose a lot.

But that of course may also happen with Sanders as the nominee and the democratic decision of the Democratic Primary is quite clear, so the party has to (!) go with Biden, because that is what a (admittedly flawed) process decided on - or will when the primaries get taken up again. You can‘t change mid-stream, that‘s a founding principle of Democracy.

But I have to agree with one point: Biden really doesn‘t inspire enthusiasm. So it would be interesting if - like with the midterms - it is some congressional, senatorial and gubernatorial candidates that take the center stage and campaign hard and harshly. Maybe that‘s a tactic against Trump: Don‘t attack him, but make the Republican candidates defend him?

That and in 2018 they pushed healthcare.

 

[mitsho]

Trump didn’t run against Obama. Trump had a message, a movement and a vision (terrible but still). He ran against Clinton who had nothing but smug “not-Trump” rhetoric and lost as well.

To be fair though, Hillary Clinton didn‘t have a more pronounced message since she (and everyone else) thought she‘d already won the election and was planning forward to the governing part prematurely. Any promises she couldn‘t keep would restrict her (already thin with her name and a republican senate) governing power. So it‘s not like she didn‘t have a message, she just chose not to publicize it widely... whatever you can make of that

@Zardnaar And yes, topical content of where Republicans have actively hurt loved ones (aka healthcare) could be a big one. But again, Biden isn‘t the right person for that message. The election however will certainly be an interesting one for future political scientists to study...

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Donald Trump ran on being anti-Obama (explicitly espoused birtherism) and anti-Clinton (need I quote examples?). amadeus, a poster here, has said he voted for Trump just to say ‘screw you, Obama’.

It's all about malice and hate with these people.

 

[Samson]

Is anyone surprised that the only person here believing Dingbat Don and the drug therapy claims is @onejayhawk? Stay away from the aquarium Jay.

If anyone is interested in the claims about the chloroquine/azithromycin combination treatment that I think is the one Trump is keen on, Science has an article that is quite critical of the study. If anyone is tempted to try it, it is important to note the chloroquine has a therapeutic index of only about 4 so it is really easy to kill yourself with it while trying to help.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The problem is if he turns out to be right, we all lose a lot.

But that of course may also happen with Sanders as the nominee and the democratic decision of the Democratic Primary is quite clear, so the party has to (!) go with Biden, because that is what a (admittedly flawed) process decided on - or will when the primaries get taken up again. You can‘t change mid-stream, that‘s a founding principle of Democracy.

But I have to agree with one point: Biden really doesn‘t inspire enthusiasm. So it would be interesting if - like with the midterms - it is some congressional, senatorial and gubernatorial candidates that take the center stage and campaign hard and harshly. Maybe that‘s a tactic against Trump: Don‘t attack him, but make the Republican candidates defend him?

Oh, that is definitely the strategy in congressional races.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nah that doesn't work because this is a democratic-republic, not a dictatorship, at least not yet...

And excusing the wickedness and stupidity of people on the grounds that they don't have as many cookies as someone else is just the other side of the coin of "the poors are too dumb to have any rights."

The existence of an electoral system, even a relatively fair and transparent one, does not imply an equitable (let alone equal) distribution of economic, cultural or political power. Even in Western liberal democracies, the great majority of people are more or less disenfranchised. They can vote, but that is very generally the extent of their political participation, because the dominant institutions are not designed to encourage mass political engagement. If they make bad voting choices, they are doing so within the terms of a system which doesn't empower them to make good choices. I'm reluctant to tell them that this is their own fault.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Had Trump ran against Bernie – Bernie would have likely won against Trump, and ....

Wishful thinking. With this assumption, some of what you wrote might have followed, but this assumption has no basis in actual reality. It is a nice dream though.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The existence of an electoral system, even a relatively fair and transparent one, does not imply an equitable (let alone equal) distribution of economic, cultural or political power. Even in Western liberal democracies, the great majority of people are more or less disenfranchised. They can vote, but that is very generally the extent of their political participation, because the dominant institutions are not designed to encourage mass political engagement. If they make bad voting choices, they are doing so within the terms of a system which doesn't empower them to make good choices. I'm reluctant to tell them that this is their own fault.

Honest question...is there any way to design a system that does successfully cause mass political engagement? My cynical view of people is that one of their primary motives in forming a government is to avoid having to contribute to governing themselves.

 

[Traitorfish]

Wishful thinking. With this assumption, some of what you wrote might have followed, but this assumption has no basis in actual reality. It is a nice dream though.

The official narrative is that Clinton only lost because of disaffected blue collar workers in the Midwest, who were drawn to Trump's populism and who disliked Clinton personally. On both counts, Sanders would have appear to represent a more competitive candidate for those voters specifically.

This would not hold true if we believe that Sanders would have lost a strategically significant portion of Clinton voters to Trump, or to abstention. Is there reason to believe this may have been the case?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Honest question...is there any way to design a system that does successfully cause mass political engagement? My cynical view of people is that one of their primary motives in forming a government is to avoid having to contribute to governing themselves.

Yes, passing the hard work of being responsible to others. For most it is a good plan.

If you want participation, you need to reward people quickly and in a way that is meaningful to them. First you figure out what participation means, what you actually want them to do. Then you make it as easy as possible to do that and give them a reward for doing so.
For voting:

• A crisp $50
• Choice of gift cards
• 5% off your property taxes
• Chance to win a new pick up truck
• 10 $100 scratchers

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The official narrative is that Clinton only lost because of disaffected blue collar workers in the Midwest, who were drawn to Trump's populism and who disliked Clinton personally. On both counts, Sanders would have appear to represent a more competitive candidate for those voters specifically.

This would not hold true if we believe that Sanders would have lost a strategically significant portion of Clinton voters to Trump, or to abstention. Is there reason to believe this may have been the case?

Sanders was susceptible to campaign tactics that Clinton was not, just like Clinton was susceptible to tactics that Sanders would not have been. Since they weren't tested it is mere hopefulness to assume that those tactics wouldn't have worked. Not saying whether I think they would have or not myself, because it doesn't really matter at this point, but I'm not buying into the "of course Sanders would have won" theory that his faithful are so adamant about.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If some of the drug therapies work out, the death toll may be another order of magnitude lower. Trump can truthfully claim his January travel ban gained the time we needed to do the research.

You're going to get a two-limerick fusillade, one for each half of this piece of silliness. Here's the first:

"If some of the drug therapies work out"

As useful as blubber to Jonah,
Sleeping potions to maids of Verona,
You're out of your mind.
We're not likely to find
Trump Kool-Aid a cure for Corona.


"his January travel ban gained the time we needed"

Quick-thinking Trump's travel bans
Won us time for the many demands
That this Covid-thing poses,
Then his grand plan discloses:
To promptly go sit on his hands.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Gori the Grey Excellent work! Hooray Hooray Hooray!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

To make fun of Trump with a limerick
Is an obvious really good trick
But I'm lazy you know
And it's work even, so
I guess I'll just call him a

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yeah, I can work it out.

 

[Birdjaguar]

A talking a$$hole
Deadly aerosols abound
November's coming

 

[Sommerswerd]

The existence of an electoral system, even a relatively fair and transparent one, does not imply an equitable (let alone equal) distribution of economic, cultural or political power. Even in Western liberal democracies, the great majority of people are more or less disenfranchised. They can vote, but that is very generally the extent of their political participation, because the dominant institutions are not designed to encourage mass political engagement. If they make bad voting choices, they are doing so within the terms of a system which doesn't empower them to make good choices. I'm reluctant to tell them that this is their own fault.

And the existence of inequity in the distribution of power does not negate the fact that regular voters do in-fact wield political power, particularly in a collective sense... which is the only sense that really makes sense measuring the power in, because that is how we vote. This isn't a Pirate Brethren Council where every person votes for themselves. There are an extremely limited number of potentially viable candidates and so we vote, or don't vote for them collectively. I never said or implied that the political power of any individual voter was equivalent to the political power of someone serving in elected office. Its not even a meaningful comparison to try to make. The point is that the politicians reflect the voters so I'm not inclined to ignore that and place all the blame on the politicians.

Also, what is the alternative, if the people can't possibly be expected to exercise any meaningful collective political power? Just take it out of the people's hands and leave it to a wise benevolent dictator?

 

[Samson]

Also, what is the alternative, if the people can't possibly be expected to exercise any meaningful collective political power? Just take it out of the people's hands and leave it to a wise benevolent dictator?

There are many things we can do to increase the meaningfulness of the contribution we can make. Multi-party democracy with a sensible voting system helps. Being able to vote without taking a day off really helps. Non-gerrymandered districts helps. Good education for all helps. I do not know what is really what makes the difference, but I stand by what I said earlier, Americans are not different enough to others to explain it all, there really are things we can change that make a difference.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The official narrative is that Clinton only lost because of disaffected blue collar workers in the Midwest, who were drawn to Trump's populism and who disliked Clinton personally. On both counts, Sanders would have appear to represent a more competitive candidate for those voters specifically.

I disagree with your characterization of "the official narrative" I feel like "Russian Interference" is another thing that mixed in there for example. But even putting that aside... That's only in your subjective view, which is predisposed/biased towards seeing it this way, because of your deep preference for Sanders.

This would not hold true if we believe that Sanders would have lost a strategically significant portion of Clinton voters to Trump, or to abstention. Is there reason to believe this may have been the case?

Yes. He lost and has all but lost again to Biden. What better proof are you looking for? I can believe with all my heart that my favourite ball club is the greatest team that god ever gave man, but my belief will not deliver them to victory. If the other team is better, they will lose. My response shouldn't be to claim that their loss proves that the game is flawed, rather than considering that my team just wasn't as good as I thought.

Tying this particular gripe to the discussion about political power smacks hard of sour grapes. In other words, when Sanders is viable, and his winning seems possible, we're attending rallies and advocating that people vote for him within the existing system and talking about how he's such a great candidate because all the young people and/or all the hardworking, blue-collar, Midwest etc., folks would exercise their immense power within the current system to carry him to victory... but then when he loses, the argument becomes that the people never had any such power in the first place and were essentially completely disenfranchised... the whole process was impossible from the beginning and you never wanted any part of it anyway.

Sanders supporter: "Exercise your political power and Vote for Bernie!"
Voter: "No"
Sanders supporter: "You obviously never had any political power, you're disenfranchised"

If everyone is disenfranchised, then why the heck is Sanders running? Why not go straight to the armed revolution?

 

[Sommerswerd]

There are many things we can do to increase the meaningfulness of the contribution we can make. Multi-party democracy with a sensible voting system helps.

Meh... UK has that and they still have BoJo the Clown as PM ... and a Queen... so...