What can the Democrats do?

[Ajidica]

There is still precedent for governments that do respond aggressively enough to major crises getting re-elected, i.e. FDR in 1936. The fact remains that an institutionalist like Biden was not up to the task of making the needed fundamental changes.

I disagree with that.
From an economic perspective, our institutions worked. Operation Warp Speed on a vaccine was genuinely a modern-day Manhattan Project, Congress and the state apparatus did a quite good job on disbursing Covid relief measures and managing shocks.
What failed was the political response in 2021 onward - first from people like Sinema in the Democratic Party and then from Biden in 2024.

 

[innonimatu]

Eh, no. The warp speed towards a "vaccine" against a virus of a class that cannot be immunized against was an excuse to open everything again, including borders, as fast as consent could be manufactured. The virus fortunately became less virulent instead of worse, the same path and in the same time rougly as the coronavirus epidemic of the 1890s. But it was not thanks to "the vaccine". This reduction of virulence and morbidity happened everywhere in the world at about the same time, gradually.
And it was not big state investment. Not in the US at least: the whole thing was outsourced, and to just a few companies that were then granted monopolies irrespective fo achieving the original golas of what a vaccine was supposed to do. The real goal was providing cover to declare the pandemic finished. As a «n effort it was as badly run and innefective as the later subsidizing of semi-conductor companies.

People were lied to about vaccines ending the pandemic, even told inicitally, before it became impossible to keep lying, that it would "protect them against infection". The vaccine effort in fact indirectly killed a lot of people through premature loosening of infection controls. Compare China's death toll to the US's for the hasty loosening of controls with the vaccine excuse versus the controls until the virus ceased causing critical damage, in two big countries. Comparing countries with reliabe statistics, and thgere's also Oceania, for the death rate over the epidemic shows that what made a difference were the infection control efforts, not vaccinations.

 

[Ajidica]

I like you inno, but I don't trust you on medical advice.

 

[Sommerswerd]

RCP has some polls up including an Emerson poll showing Vance up on AOC, 44% to 41% as well as one showing a 44% to 44% Tie with Newsom and another that has Vance up 45% to 42% versus Newsom. There is also a Yahoo News poll that has Newsom up on Vance, 49% to 41%.

I think that AOC and Newsom are the most likely Democratic nominees at this point, but of course so much can and will change between now and 2027-2028 election season.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2028/vance-vs-ocasio-cortez
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2028/vance-vs-newsom

 

[Evie]

Okay, so you're of the same opinion as Zard, then.

My point was that as President, Biden had certain options and did not necessarily choose to use all of them. Mentioning FDR was a matter of showing that it is possible to for an administration to survive in crisis.

I'm not interested in a discussion based on your premise. Obviously he didn't use every option possible; no one ever does and no one ever can. One can debate specifics of whether some options should have been used over others, but "did he use every obsession possible" is a question without merit.

 

[Zardnaar]

RCP has some polls up including an Emerson poll showing Vance up on AOC, 44% to 41% as well as one showing a 44% to 44% Tie with Newsom and another that has Vance up 45% to 42% versus Newsom. There is also a Yahoo News poll that has Newsom up on Vance, 49% to 41%.

I think that AOC and Newsom are the most likely Democratic nominees at this point, but of course so much can and will change between now and 2027-2028 election season.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2028/vance-vs-ocasio-cortez
https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2028/vance-vs-newsom

Think I agree. AoC at least has a clue as she did that tour with Bernie.

She actually talked with people who voted for Trump in her district to figure out why.

Smart women.

 

[amadeus]

RCP has some polls up including an Emerson poll showing Vance up on AOC, 44% to 41% as well as one showing a 44% to 44% Tie with Newsom and another that has Vance up 45% to 42% versus Newsom. There is also a Yahoo News poll that has Newsom up on Vance, 49% to 41%.

There are too many unknowns out there to say with confidence that these polls reflect anything that could happen in 2028. As an exercise, it’s interesting, but I find by and large when people are given abstract choices like this (what do we know about their platforms, what will they focus on, etc.) people I think project what they want to think when answering these polls—I do not exclude myself from this group.

If anyone remembers this two and a half years from now, I will go out on my stellar track record of getting things really, really wrong and say neither of them (from the Democrats) will be the candidate or even come second.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Think I agree. AoC at least has a clue as she did that tour with Bernie.

She actually talked with people who voted for Trump in her district to figure out why.

One of the things I am curious about with AOC is how much she will moderate/soften/refine her messaging to achieve greater mainstream appeal. Part of what makes her an attractive candidate is her reputation as a strong/activist-ish progressive. However, as of late, she has been trying to balance this with the increase in party visibility and media stature she has gained. I wonder if she gets too "establishment" to retain the affection of her current fanbase in the classic quest to attract "moderates".

There are too many unknowns out there to say with confidence that these polls reflect anything that could happen in 2028.

Sure, but in that case, your answer to the question the thread poses seems to be... "there are too many unknowns to say"... lets just say that observation/statement is not particularly profound...

As an exercise, it’s interesting, but I find by and large when people are given abstract choices like this (what do we know about their platforms, what will they focus on, etc.) people I think project what they want to think when answering these polls—I do not exclude myself from this group.

If anyone remembers this two and a half years from now, I will go out on my stellar track record of getting things really, really wrong and say neither of them (from the Democrats) will be the candidate or even come second.

"Weasel City" indeed lol

Given the two obvious big-picture, abstract tracks the Democrats seem to have available... 1) run a "moderate"; or 2) run a "progressive", my instinct at the moment is that the Democrats need a young, (physically/aesthetically) attractive, progressive candidate, sort of a progressive firebrand to at least energize the primary. Whether a charismatic moderate would then emerge to scoop the nomination from them would remain to be seen, but my take is that without a strong progressive in the race, the Democrats won't be able to build the necessary buzz to overcome enough voter apathy to contest Vance's incumbency boost.

 

[amadeus]

"Weasel City" indeed lol

That was from when I had called myself the Bishop of Bio-Dome, I think—rhymes with Rome, so probably. Anyway, Pauly Shore was the Weasel, so it fit at the time. 99% of the time I’m on my phone posting here so I never remember to change the city.

 

[danjuno]

I'm not interested in a discussion based on your premise. Obviously he didn't use every option possible; no one ever does and no one ever can. One can debate specifics of whether some options should have been used over others, but "did he use every obsession possible" is a question without merit.

Then why did you respond to me criticizing Biden in the first place?
I responded to the following Conversation:

So. There's an answer to the thread title: run a Republican.

The obvious joke being that the Democrats basically did that by running Biden... as in they compromised by running such an old school, establishment, centrist, "neoliberal", etc., Democrat, that he was virtually indistinguishable from the modern Republicans just a couple decades ago.

He won. Option B was Trump.

Sapphire blue Dems need to get out more and you know win a nomination then win general. Until they can do that.....

I responded:

He did nothing and Trump got back in as a result.

Good job, centrists!

After another round of back and forth with Zard, you jumped in to defend Biden.

My point is Biden, as a Centrist and Institutionalist, did not do enough.

 

[Evie]

Because you're conflating your original point ("Biden didn't do enough") with your later attempt to back up that point ("So you're telling me Biden did everything he could do with the powers invested in him as President, powers which are substantially larger than in FDR's time?"

The first, I consider a very valid emotional response, though tempered by the observation as a non-navel-gazing American that pretty much nobody was perceived as "doing enough" in the early 2020s.

The second is a transparent attempt to shift the goalpost from "did Biden do enough" or "Could Biden have done enough into "Did Biden do absolutely every little thing imaginable he could have done." Which is both an asburd standard (being that you're basically asking for perfect use of his every power), and an obvious trap question where no matter what I say you'd turn it to prove your point.

I reject both the absurd standard and the obvious trap.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Well, considering every time he tried to do something, the Supreme court was ready to jump in and say no-no! Potus can't do that. Now they say Potus is basically king and can do whatever he wants. Once a Dem gets back in they will go back to blocking everything they do.

 

[Gori the Grey]

To give the man credit, it really was impressive how hard he kept trying to get some form of student loan relief despite court-ruling after court-ruling against the various things he tried.

Now, whether that was the best place to expend whatever political capital he might have had is a different question.

But no, he had nothing like the levers of power that FDR had at his disposal.

 

[Zardnaar]

Then why did you respond to me criticizing Biden in the first place?
I responded to the following Conversation:



I responded:

After another round of back and forth with Zard, you jumped in to defend Biden.

My point is Biden, as a Centrist and Institutionalist, did not do enough.

That's in your opinion. If everyone agreed with you Trump wouldn't have won. And he got the popular vote as well.

Option B is Trump. Im voting Hilary, Biden, AoC, Bernie, Harris whoever for the most part.

If you want to purity testing go ahead I suggest you do that once you win or can beat the GoP senseless for 20 years in a row like FDR and successors.

 

[danjuno]

Because you're conflating your original point ("Biden didn't do enough") with your later attempt to back up that point ("So you're telling me Biden did everything he could do with the powers invested in him as President, powers which are substantially larger than in FDR's time?"

The first, I consider a very valid emotional response, though tempered by the observation as a non-navel-gazing American that pretty much nobody was perceived as "doing enough" in the early 2020s.

The second is a transparent attempt to shift the goalpost from "did Biden do enough" or "Could Biden have done enough into "Did Biden do absolutely every little thing imaginable he could have done." Which is both an asburd standard (being that you're basically asking for perfect use of his every power), and an obvious trap question where no matter what I say you'd turn it to prove your point.

I reject both the absurd standard and the obvious trap.

The latter was a rhetorical question: Obviously Biden didn't, therefore, there is plenty of room to discuss whether he did enough. I do not believe that he did, even in terms of just Presidential powers, hence why I said margin doesn't matter.

That's in your opinion. If everyone agreed with you Trump wouldn't have won. And he got the popular vote as well.

If Biden was doing enough, people wouldn't have voted for Trump.

If you want to purity testing go ahead I suggest you do that once you win or can beat the GoP senseless for 20 years in a row like FDR and successors.

Not nominating an Octogenarian with neither the inclination or ability to push for a major course correction in a crisis is a pretty low bar to clear, if that's purity testing, then the only way to avoid it is to just nominate the first person who raises their hand, no questions asked.

 

[Zardnaar]

The latter was a rhetorical question: Obviously Biden didn't, therefore, there is plenty of room to discuss whether he did enough. I do not believe that he did, even in terms of just Presidential powers, hence why I said margin doesn't matter.

If Biden was doing enough, people wouldn't have voted for Trump.

Not nominating an Octogenarian with neither the inclination or ability to push for a major course correction in a crisis is a pretty low bar to clear, if that's purity testing, then the only way to avoid it is to just nominate the first person who raises their hand, no questions asked.

Something similar happens here and around the world.

Centre's left party trends towards the center. Democrats are essentially a coalition of the progressive left through to center right.

You cant push left wing policies in USA tgat hard. Or UK. They're more conservative than other anglosphere nations.

If USA had proportional representation the democrats woukd solut into 3 or 4 parties.

Outright progressives would be less than 20%. Hell maybe under 10%.

Rage all you want youre not a majority in USA youre not even a majority of the Democratic party. Around 1 in 3 Americans vote Democratic and thats including center right types.

Some policies are more popular but everyone likes free stuff. Turning that into policy and electoral success (and who pays for it) is another matter.

Option B is Trump. Trumps more popular (until he's elected)

 

[danjuno]

Outright progressives would be less than 20%. Hell maybe under 10%.

More Zard math. You throw out all these guesstimates without anything to back it up. As you admit further down, progressives policies are indeed reasonably popular.

Rage all you want youre not a majority in USA youre not even a majority of the Democratic party.

Trying responding to what I actually said. I never said leftists were the majority, I said calling not wanting Biden as nominee "purity testing" is ridiculous.

Some policies are more popular but everyone likes free stuff. Turning that into policy and electoral success (and who pays for it) is another matter.

Then maybe stop crying "purity testing!" whenever someone suggests running a candidate who can do so.

 

[Zardnaar]

More Zard math. You throw out all these guesstimates without anything to back it up. As you admit further down, progressives policies are indeed reasonably popular.

Trying responding to what I actually said. I never said leftists were the majority, I said calling not wanting Biden as nominee "purity testing" is ridiculous.

Then maybe stop crying "purity testing!" whenever someone suggests running a candidate who can do so.

Guesstimate? Trump won the popular vote.

Democrats big problem is mostly two factions. They're both idiotic and out of touch. Theres ya problem.

You've got corporate empty suits and preachy teeth itching purity testers. Both bad in their own way.

You need someone with some charisma and a brain. Its probably AoC but Murica.

 

[danjuno]

Guesstimate? Trump won the popular vote

That has nothing to with you just making up random numbers of how many progressives there are without a source.

Actually, it's better than that because Trump beating the centrist incumbent's VP calls into question the whole "electable centrist" meme to begin with.

preachy teeth itching purity testers.

Are you even speaking English at this point?

 

[EnglishEdward]

There is a 2023 poll here:

How Americans label their own political identities | YouGov

Are Americans liberal or conservative? Moderate or radical? Libertarian or nationalist? A new YouGov survey finds that the answer for some is none of the above — and for others, all of the above.

today.yougov.com

18% say progressive describes them well

1% say anarchist describes them well