2020 US Election (Part One)

[Kyriakos]

You believe a Sanders administration would stay committed to civil rights - I respect that. I do. All I want for you to consider, in this thread, when Rogan's endorsements aren't even votes yet (it's a completely theoretical positive at this stage), is the possibility that it might not, and that might be because of the influence of bringing people who think bigotry is okay, or somehow related to "cancel culture", or whatever generic anti-leftist point Zardnaar was trying to make was.

I don't think this is realistic. CNN and co do try to paint such a picture, but they are glaringly hypocritic. Besides, so-called "independents" surely are a group to try to get to vote for you, and the only difference there between Bern and the other candidates in the party is that the others (apart from Tulsi and Yang) just don't appeal to independents.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Can all the hand wringers in here answer me just one simple question?

How can you build a durable, labor-based coalition that is capable of winning multiple elections in the US that doesn't court the votes of people who have some type of prejudice?

This is realpolitik, not an ethics exam. Winning matters. Go look at the 2016 electoral map. The Dems need to flip back some Midwestern states and that's not happening without engaging and mobilizing more than a few people who might have some less than ideal views on race, gender, etc.

If Bernie doesn't compromise on civil rights while in office getting bigots to vote for him is a massive coup and any attempt to do so should be applauded. I watched Bernie's appearance on Rogan's show and it's not like they were cutting up about trans people. Bernie got an almost uninterrupted hour to discuss his platform with an audience that Dems have ignored for a long time and it's why they keep losing heart-breakers like 2000, 2010, and 2016.

Winning matters, I agree, however, I believe that the counterpoint is that the approach that you're implying Democrats and/or Bernie should adopt trends toward what eventually became know as the "Southern Strategy". I guess the point is that if you focus so much on "winning" that you fundamentally change what your party is about in the process... what did you win?

I'm certainly much more in the "unite behind the nominee regardless" / "lesser of two evils" camp, but to me there have to be limits... so I try to be respectful of other people's limits too.

 

[amadeus]

There is a trade-off in electoral politics, and that is whether you would rather have 70% of what you want or maybe 5% of what you want.

I wasn’t fully behind Trump in the beginning, but I’ll take the 30% or so bad if I can get 70% of the good that I want.

I voted for GOP candidates against Obama not because I was fully what they were for, but a strategic choice in trying to prevent more of what I didn’t want than what I did.

The trade-off for Sanders doesn’t mean having to accept David Duke at his speeches, or some other thing Democrats would find abhorrent. But mainstream Democrats need to find a way to bring back the Trump coalition into their field rather than writing them off as illiterate, racist hillbillies.

I feel safe in giving this free advice because I don’t think anyone in the party would ever accept it.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't think this is realistic. CNN and co do try to paint such a picture, but they are glaringly hypocritic. Besides, so-called "independents" surely are a group to try to get to vote for you, and the only difference there between Bern and the other candidates in the party is that the others (apart from Tulsi and Yang) just don't appeal to independents.

Mainstream coverage of Sanders at this point is just . . . well, the bar is low, right? I have no expectations there.

I don't even know what's realistic yet. This could go amazingly for Sanders, assuming he gets the nomination and the party actually supports him. I've just trying to illustrate that every political choice (and actively amplifying Rogan's endorsement, when they could've just ignored it) has good and bad sides to it.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I also think we can't overlook the fact that the bigots right now have an outsized voice in national politics. I wouldn't meddle with the Senate, I do think the "tyranny of the majority" is a thing we need our government to be on the lookout for, and everyday, well-meaning people on the coasts and in cities will overlook rural areas and farm country just because we're myopic and self-absorbed (people in rural areas will overlook the concerns of people in cities, too, it's just that they're smaller in number, so the "tyranny of the majority" isn't how you'd characterize that problem). But at the same time I think we need to unsubtly kick the Electoral College to the curb. Just burn it down. It isn't a quirk of history that our last two Republican Presidents didn't even win a plurality of the votes, our system for electing a President is f'ed up. I also think you can court people who bear prejudices without courting their prejudices. The Republican Party, now more than ever it seems, actively encourages ignorance and prejudice and actively works to suppress voter turnout among people of color. I'm sure we all remember John McCain almost literally face-palming a couple of times while talking to his constituents while campaigning against Barack Obama (the woman who wanted government to keep its hands off her Medicare, and the woman who thought Obama was Muslim), and Republicans have worked hard to throw up roadblocks in Florida after the people of Florida voted to return voting rights to felons who'd served their sentences. The Democrats don't have to compromise a danged thing, they already have the popular position, they just have to learn how to play the game, and it's not going to make a danged bit of difference who their candidate is next November if they don't.

 

[Narz]

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Context is required when posting videos in a non-video thread, otherwise they will be treated as spam. ~ Arakhor

 

[Socrates99]

I can because its relevant. I wish Zizek spoke more clearly because what he says is often brilliant.

Bernie's not compromising his values even when he attracts disaffected Trump voters or people like Rogan who have said dumb things in the past. Many of his supporters in Vermont are rural farmers who would likely fall into Trump's demographic. It's sort of what Amadeus was saying, people will vote for someone who most agrees with them even if it's not 100%. Bernie energizes a real left coalition of both urban and rural people. Maybe some of them have wrong beliefs but it doesn't matter because Bernie's beliefs aren't determined by his supporters. It's why his consistency is such a big deal.

ie Rogan's comments on transsexuals being allowed to fight in women's mma. Bernie Sanders obviously doesn't oppose trans people doing anything or participating in any sport or whatever. He's supported the LGBTQ community longer than most Democrats have even realized it existed. Rogan supports him because of his honesty and because he believes Bernie will do the most good.

He energizes voters that haven't voted democrat in decades. If the establishment accepted him and the "squad" and used their popularity the Democrats would do really well.

He also points out something I and others have repeatedly said. Bernie's policies aren't extreme. They're pretty normal in Europe. The US is an outlier, not the norm.

This is more of a problem on the left than on the right. The left wants 100% out of both candidates and their supporters while the right is willing to accept Christians, racists, gun nuts, bigots, etc even when those subgroups conflict. A vote's a vote no matter who it comes from. If David Duke thought we needed universal healthcare and endorsed Bernie because of that would we assume Bernie is a racist? No.

I remember this criticism coming out in 2018 when Bernie endorsed a pro life candidate in Nebraska. If you're running in the bible belt you kind of have to be pro life. Tbh I've often thought pro life and progressive policies work better together than pro life and conservative policies. If you want the child to be born you should also want the child clothed, fed and educated as well. Programs that ensure children will be taken care of no matter what coincide with a prolife stance even if Bernie happens to be pro-choice.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Tbh I've often thought pro life and progressive policies work better together than pro life and conservative policies. If you want the child to be born you should also want the child clothed, fed and educated as well. Programs that ensure children will be taken care of no matter what coincide with a prolife stance even if Bernie happens to be pro-choice.

Its not always about wanting children to be born though. Its often more about wanting abortion to be banned. And in turn, wanting aborting to be banned is often about wanting to discourage extramarital sex by making the potential consequences more harsh... as well as reasserting the primary role of women as child-bearers. And in the context of the 2020 election, even if one side gives you 80% of what you want... having to support those positions may still be a bridge too far. The gun issue is good example of an issue that is a make-or-break thing for some voters regardless of any other issue.

I will also acknowledge that we aren't really supposed to talk about abortion at all, on any thread, regardless of context, so that will likely be the last I say about that for a while.

 

[Socrates99]

Its not always about wanting children to be born though. Its often more about wanting abortion to be banned. And in turn, wanting aborting to be banned is often about wanting to discourage extramarital sex by making the potential consequences more harsh... as well as reasserting the primary role of women as child-bearers. And in the context of the 2020 election, even if one side gives you 80% of what you want... having to support those positions may still be a bridge too far. The gun issue is good example of an issue that is a make-or-break thing for some voters regardless of any other issue.

I will also acknowledge that we aren't really supposed to talk about abortion at all, on any thread, regardless of context, so that will likely be the last I say about that for a while.

I have a lot of prolife family members and it's not about punishment of women for them. Many of them truly conflate it with murder. The disagreement is mostly about where life (and for the religious where the soul) begins. As far as punishment is concerned the majority of Christians believe that happens after you die. We want to protect women's rights, they believe the zygote has rights too.

 

[Tristan_C]

I have a lot of prolife family members and it's not about punishment of women for them. Many of them truly conflate it with murder. The disagreement is mostly about where life (and for the religious where the soul) begins. As far as punishment is concerned the majority of Christians believe that happens after you die. We want to protect women's rights, they believe the zygote has rights too.

Yeah, they genuinely believe it's murder. There is no logical common ground between pro-life and pro-choice. It has ruined the judicial branch. Did you know that Supreme Court judges used to be selected based on their qualifications and their perspective on a variety of constitutional issues?

 

[Zardnaar]

I can because its relevant. I wish Zizek spoke more clearly because what he says is often brilliant.

Bernie's not compromising his values even when he attracts disaffected Trump voters or people like Rogan who have said dumb things in the past. Many of his supporters in Vermont are rural farmers who would likely fall into Trump's demographic. It's sort of what Amadeus was saying, people will vote for someone who most agrees with them even if it's not 100%. Bernie energizes a real left coalition of both urban and rural people. Maybe some of them have wrong beliefs but it doesn't matter because Bernie's beliefs aren't determined by his supporters. It's why his consistency is such a big deal.

ie Rogan's comments on transsexuals being allowed to fight in women's mma. Bernie Sanders obviously doesn't oppose trans people doing anything or participating in any sport or whatever. He's supported the LGBTQ community longer than most Democrats have even realized it existed. Rogan supports him because of his honesty and because he believes Bernie will do the most good.

He energizes voters that haven't voted democrat in decades. If the establishment accepted him and the "squad" and used their popularity the Democrats would do really well.

He also points out something I and others have repeatedly said. Bernie's policies aren't extreme. They're pretty normal in Europe. The US is an outlier, not the norm.

This is more of a problem on the left than on the right. The left wants 100% out of both candidates and their supporters while the right is willing to accept Christians, racists, gun nuts, bigots, etc even when those subgroups conflict. A vote's a vote no matter who it comes from. If David Duke thought we needed universal healthcare and endorsed Bernie because of that would we assume Bernie is a racist? No.

I remember this criticism coming out in 2018 when Bernie endorsed a pro life candidate in Nebraska. If you're running in the bible belt you kind of have to be pro life. Tbh I've often thought pro life and progressive policies work better together than pro life and conservative policies. If you want the child to be born you should also want the child clothed, fed and educated as well. Programs that ensure children will be taken care of no matter what coincide with a prolife stance even if Bernie happens to be pro-choice.

Option B is the GoP pro life variant who's worse in every way. Unless you run a paedophile a liberal won't win in some states.

 

[Takhisis]

Judging by theses DNC nominations (and the last 30 years prior) “moderate” democrats don’t want democrats (or even liberals) - they want the old republican party back.

It reminds me of a phenomenon with the Catholic Church in some countries. ‘Reborn/renewed/reestablished/re-whatever’ Protestant churches drive their church rightwing on issues such as same-sex marriage, whether divorce is allowed or not, adoptions (let alone abortions!), and so on, so there's always a remainder that joins those who are ideologically similar (i.e., broadly speaking, the Roman Catholic Church) and help pull their new congregation rightwards.

With the Democratic Party of the United States it's the same. A lot of former Republican voters are scared off by fringe nutjobs like Gingrich, Palin, Trump, etc. but they're still to the right of the DNC's centre and since they have the numbers they at least make the DNC not shift left, if not move rightwards outright.

Regardless of intraparty dynamics, Sanders totally lacks the charisma of a Trump and is in my opinion once again headed for a silver medal behind Joe Biden.

Charisma? Trump has intra-party charisma which, together with voter suppression, ballot destruction, gerrymandering and other forms of electoral fraud, translated to a majority in the electoral college. But he's an arse and even a large part of his voters straight up say he's a horrible person and horrible president (as interviewed by the BBC, Al-jazeera and Fox News).
Sanders is far more likeable in general, but not with the party's internal electorate, which might deprive him of the nomination.

 

[Zardnaar]

It reminds me of a phenomenon with the Catholic Church in some countries. ‘Reborn/renewed/reestablished/re-whatever’ Protestant churches drive their church rightwing on issues such as same-sex marriage, whether divorce is allowed or not, adoptions (let alone abortions!), and so on, so there's always a remainder that joins those who are ideologically similar (i.e., broadly speaking, the Roman Catholic Church) and help pull their new congregation rightwards.

With the Democratic Party of the United States it's the same. A lot of former Republican voters are scared off by fringe nutjobs like Gingrich, Palin, Trump, etc. but they're still to the right of the DNC's centre and since they have the numbers they at least make the DNC not shift left, if not move rightwards outright.

Charisma? Trump has intra-party charisma which, together with voter suppression, ballot destruction, gerrymandering and other forms of electoral fraud, translated to a majority in the electoral college. But he's an arse and even a large part of his voters straight up say he's a horrible person and horrible president (as interviewed by the BBC, Al-jazeera and Fox News).
Sanders is far more likeable in general, but not with the party's internal electorate, which might deprive him of the nomination.

Trump had a certain amount of feral charisma in 2016 campaigning.

 

[Takhisis]

Maybe, but even back then there were interviewees saying ‘he's [derogative comment]’ but he's our [derogative comment].

 

[Zardnaar]

Maybe, but even back then there were interviewees saying ‘he's [derogative comment]’ but he's our [derogative comment].

He didn't campaign like the typical Republican. He promised a heap of things often contradictory.

 

[Takhisis]

Promising mutually contradictory policies has been the Republican Party standards since, as has been recently noted (again) the Southern strategy.

 

[Zardnaar]

Promising mutually contradictory policies has been the Republican Party standards since, as has been recently noted (again) the Southern strategy.

Policies don't really matter IMHO.

It's the campaign trail/name recognition/charisma.

Clinton and Obama for example had charisma. Bush to a lesser extent.

And the old candidate I can have a beer with.

 

[Takhisis]

It's the campaign trail/name recognition/charisma.

Oh yes, but it was a dark charisma. ‘He's a [derogative expression], but he's our [derogative expression]’, i.e. he'll be a [derogative expression] to people we don't like so that's fine.’

 

[Zardnaar]

Oh yes, but it was a dark charisma. ‘He's a [derogative expression], but he's our [derogative expression]’, i.e. he'll be a [derogative expression] to people we don't like so that's fine.’

Hence why I said feral charisma.

People don't like Trump but they don't recognise his assets. It's just bad orange man will lose. Oops.