Republican Bidens and the Failure of the Democratic Party
- Thread starter NinjaCow64
- Start date
Removing the personal attachment, and because we have an RD thread for that tangent, abstracting it a bit.
It's very easy to see a clear line between "supporting a law that has consequences" and "supporting those consequences".
Or at the very least, considering those consequences "necessary".
To bring this back to Biden, it's therefore not people "abandoning" him or his platform, it's because they can see that line, between law and consequence, and the acceptable limits the party accepts. Even if it's better than the alternative.
It's very easy to see a clear line between "supporting a law that has consequences" and "supporting those consequences".
Or at the very least, considering those consequences "necessary".
To bring this back to Biden, it's therefore not people "abandoning" him or his platform, it's because they can see that line, between law and consequence, and the acceptable limits the party accepts. Even if it's better than the alternative.
Senethro
Overlord
Brother, its very tiring to put up with your accusations of mass slaughter, and to watch you claim extra virtue points for "choosing" not to take proportionate action.
Edit: Apologies, missed J's text bottom of last page.
Akka
Moody old mage.
First, my dig was very explicitely about the hyprocisy of trying to lecture on a moral point while supporting exactly the same when convenient. I even said it twice.
Second, no we don't all do.
Maybe the rest of your post would explain why you make such an absurd claim, but it's again completely incomprehensible to me and feels like random conclusions are attached to random affirmations, so the argument is lost on me.
Narz
keeping it real
You're more optimistic than me, that's good
No worries, I did my best. You disagree that we all do, from there I understand the rest.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,851
Yes, then.
You really don’t see how Trump winning caused the right to be bolder and aim higher?
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,851
If you actually believe that Crezth believes that then you have not understood a single one of her posts.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
- Messages
- 8,851
(real)
Akka
Moody old mage.
Nah you're right, the systematic support of authoritarian, genocidal governments and constant defense against criticism toward them is actually a sign of supporting justice
GoodEnoughForMe
n.m.s.s.
Sure he was/is an escalation, that I don’t disagree, but the escalation had started previously. The Tea Party was in 2008. The Bush administration avoided EPA regulations on greenhouse gasses by not opening an email from them about the rule for over 7 months, which is so dumb it almost seems impossible. At the state level, authoritarianism was already in play. Trump definitely helped to finish off the business wing class, and elevated conspiracy in the annals of conservatism, but his playbook wasn’t so far out there that it wasn’t comparable to other conservatives and white nationalists.
Senethro
Overlord
It seems very difficult to win, win within the system, and win without damaging or degrading the system.
Doubly so against an opponent who doesn't restrict themselves that way.
Never mind that the system is also garbage.
Doubly so against an opponent who doesn't restrict themselves that way.
Never mind that the system is also garbage.
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,798
I will break my leave from CFC to say this.
If a dear leader is not set to defend a woman's right to their own body, set guards for the liberties of LBGT+ folk and counter the ongoing Covid outbreaks which threaten the more vulnerable members of the populace but is willing to move heaven and earth to engage in harsher bordering policies, whilist at the same time providing arms to the Netanyahun regime that is currently conducting genocide against Palestienians (by consequence this means that less arms is being sent to Ukrain to defend from Putin's aggression), then it is clear the dear leader only defends the interest of power for power sake, not too different from the despot wannabe.
What happens in America will influence elsewhere and neither of the outcomes are going to be positive; that joke that the Dems are the party of no ideas and the GOP as party of bad ideas becomes a horror when one remembers the impact of it all upon the world... and that is if... lets just say vigillance is needed in case of another Jan 6th attempt, with the note that second coups have bigger chance of getting what they want from experience.
At this point the key advice would be for Americans to organise themselves for whatever comes, whether the elected monarch be the one who appears unable to act on guarding rights but is prepared to act to uphold draconian activities or the one is will be willing to dress the despot part. In the end rights cannot be guarded by the state but instead by the people and must mean defiance against the state, whether it decorates itself in colours of blue or red. One cannot predict what will happen in 2025 but trade unions, grassroot rights orgs and others need to be prepared. Most important mutual aid needs to be strengthened; survival is a key that must be upholded.
If a dear leader is not set to defend a woman's right to their own body, set guards for the liberties of LBGT+ folk and counter the ongoing Covid outbreaks which threaten the more vulnerable members of the populace but is willing to move heaven and earth to engage in harsher bordering policies, whilist at the same time providing arms to the Netanyahun regime that is currently conducting genocide against Palestienians (by consequence this means that less arms is being sent to Ukrain to defend from Putin's aggression), then it is clear the dear leader only defends the interest of power for power sake, not too different from the despot wannabe.
What happens in America will influence elsewhere and neither of the outcomes are going to be positive; that joke that the Dems are the party of no ideas and the GOP as party of bad ideas becomes a horror when one remembers the impact of it all upon the world... and that is if... lets just say vigillance is needed in case of another Jan 6th attempt, with the note that second coups have bigger chance of getting what they want from experience.
At this point the key advice would be for Americans to organise themselves for whatever comes, whether the elected monarch be the one who appears unable to act on guarding rights but is prepared to act to uphold draconian activities or the one is will be willing to dress the despot part. In the end rights cannot be guarded by the state but instead by the people and must mean defiance against the state, whether it decorates itself in colours of blue or red. One cannot predict what will happen in 2025 but trade unions, grassroot rights orgs and others need to be prepared. Most important mutual aid needs to be strengthened; survival is a key that must be upholded.
Sorry @NinjaCow64 for taking so long to respond to your thoughtful post. I was not ignoring you and meant no offense:
Second, your premise is flawed. McCain's brand/appeal was not at all like Biden. McCain's whole deal was that he was a "maverick", ie he was promising to buck the Republican establishment and deliver change, immigration policy being one prominent example. Palin as his running mate was an extension of this as she would have been the first woman to be VPOTUS, and she had cultivated a "maverick" reputation herself. In fact it was McCain's divergence from the party line that made many Republicans unenthusiastic about him. He didn't hate illegal immigrants enough and he was too civil/gracious towards Obama for example.
In any case, I think some of your point(s) have merit. Romney was certainly a consensus candidate that Republicans weren't as enthusiastic about, similar to Biden on the Democratic side... but consider that Romney lost that election, whereas as @Lexicus points out, Biden won. So the point you seem to be making does not seem to stand up. A better analogy I think would be Hillary, who was certainly the non-negotiable establishment candidate, somewhat similar to Romney in that regard, and she lost to the "change" messiah Trump. Remember that Hillary also lost to Obama in 2008.
Its also the case that both McCain and Romney received substantially less votes than Baby Bush in 2004, still enough to beat Kerry, but not Obama. Its also worth noting that Hillary got less votes in 2016 than Obama in 2012. I think what all that points to, is more about the strength of Obama as a candidate than the weakness of McCain, Romney or Hillary, especially since Hillary actually got more votes than Trump (5th most in US history) despite her losing in the EC. Trump got the second highest vote total in US history in 2020, second only to Biden's vote total in 2020 so again, the elections seem to be more about the strength of the candidates than the weakness, ie "establishment" nature, of the opponent.
One of the criticisms of Democrats that I've heard IIRC recently from @Gorbles , is that (paraphrasing) Democrats should stop over-promising. But there is tension between that, and what you seem to be, correctly IMO, identifying, specifically, that part of what made Obama such a strong candidate was all that soaring pie-in-the-sky that he was promising, but ultimately, failed to deliver on. Do you see the catch-22? Anyway, the bottom line is... the Democrats don't lose based on whether they run establishment candidates. They lose based on whether their voters turn out and vote or not. They've won with "establishment"/consensus candidates and they've won with "change" candidates.
If the Democratic party is failing, its the fault of Democrats. "The Democratic Party machine" is just a bogeyman. Its a way of shifting blame from Democrats, ie the Democratic voters, to some faceless "they", in order to absolve the voters of any responsibility.
Multiple things wrong here. First, you seem to be contradicting yourself here. On the one hand you are saying that the Republicans lost because they ran Biden-like candidates, then you are saying that they lost because the Democrats ran a Trump like candidate. Which is it? Did Republicans snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by running establishment candidates, or did they get steamrolled by an unbeatable generational messiah candidate? While its certainly possible to say both factors contributed, to make a valid argument here, you've got to take a position on which factor was the most important.
Second, your premise is flawed. McCain's brand/appeal was not at all like Biden. McCain's whole deal was that he was a "maverick", ie he was promising to buck the Republican establishment and deliver change, immigration policy being one prominent example. Palin as his running mate was an extension of this as she would have been the first woman to be VPOTUS, and she had cultivated a "maverick" reputation herself. In fact it was McCain's divergence from the party line that made many Republicans unenthusiastic about him. He didn't hate illegal immigrants enough and he was too civil/gracious towards Obama for example.
In any case, I think some of your point(s) have merit. Romney was certainly a consensus candidate that Republicans weren't as enthusiastic about, similar to Biden on the Democratic side... but consider that Romney lost that election, whereas as @Lexicus points out, Biden won. So the point you seem to be making does not seem to stand up. A better analogy I think would be Hillary, who was certainly the non-negotiable establishment candidate, somewhat similar to Romney in that regard, and she lost to the "change" messiah Trump. Remember that Hillary also lost to Obama in 2008.
Its also the case that both McCain and Romney received substantially less votes than Baby Bush in 2004, still enough to beat Kerry, but not Obama. Its also worth noting that Hillary got less votes in 2016 than Obama in 2012. I think what all that points to, is more about the strength of Obama as a candidate than the weakness of McCain, Romney or Hillary, especially since Hillary actually got more votes than Trump (5th most in US history) despite her losing in the EC. Trump got the second highest vote total in US history in 2020, second only to Biden's vote total in 2020 so again, the elections seem to be more about the strength of the candidates than the weakness, ie "establishment" nature, of the opponent.
One of the criticisms of Democrats that I've heard IIRC recently from @Gorbles , is that (paraphrasing) Democrats should stop over-promising. But there is tension between that, and what you seem to be, correctly IMO, identifying, specifically, that part of what made Obama such a strong candidate was all that soaring pie-in-the-sky that he was promising, but ultimately, failed to deliver on. Do you see the catch-22? Anyway, the bottom line is... the Democrats don't lose based on whether they run establishment candidates. They lose based on whether their voters turn out and vote or not. They've won with "establishment"/consensus candidates and they've won with "change" candidates.
This is objectively untrue. However, I am fully aware that folks are mentally and emotionally committed to this narrative and its not a hill that I'm inclined to die on.
Maybe Obama would not have won if it weren't for the mortgage meltdown. Maybe Carter would not have won if it wasn't for Watergate. Maybe Reagan would not have won if it was not for the oil embargo. Maybe Baby Bush would not have won if it wasn't for Monica Lewinsky. Maybe Trump would not have won if it wasn't for Comey. Maybe Clinton would not have won if it wasn't for Ross Perot. My point obviously, is that there is always some factor going on that has a major influence on the outcome of the election. 2020/Covid was not unique in that regard.
Again, this is manifestly incorrect, since the Democrats already won with Biden. Also, if the only way the Democrats can win is with a candidate on the level of Obama to motivate their voters to be bothered to vote, then the Democrats don't have what it takes to win.
Correct, but I will reiterate that "the Democratic Party" is comprised of the voters. So ultimately, that is where the "fault" lies.
Senethro
Overlord
Wow, you really believe in the system huh?
And therein lies the problem.
