Bernie has been insanely influential and important to a whole generation of voters, and I am sure that legacy alone will shape US politics for years to come. That being said, I am increasingly...
Bernie has been insanely influential and important to a whole generation of voters, and I am sure that legacy alone will shape US politics for years to come. That being said, I am increasingly convinced that his relative success in 2016 had much more to do with HRC's insane unpopularity than it did with any real shift to the left among the party as a whole (certainly among demographics within the party - the aforementioned young people, e.g.). It's hard to reconcile the notion of such a shift with the fact that Bernie won Michigan by some 22% in 2016, and didn't win a single county in 2020. At the end of the day his support just didn't materialize. Trump-style insurgent campaigns (in the sense of winning a divided primary by appealing to a fervent base) seem to remain an exception rather than the new norm.
One thing this has really taught me is that Twitter is not at all representative of the population as a whole. If you went only by the talking heads there, you would have thought that Bernie had the nomination locked in back in January.
The centrist position in 2020 was that we shouldn't abolish all private insurance as we create a public option or Medicare 4 All scheme. The party has lurched significantly leftward since 2016,...
That being said, I am increasingly convinced that his relative success in 2016 had much more to do with HRC's insane unpopularity than it did with any real shift to the left among the party as a whole (certainly among demographics within the party - the aforementioned young people, e.g.).
The centrist position in 2020 was that we shouldn't abolish all private insurance as we create a public option or Medicare 4 All scheme. The party has lurched significantly leftward since 2016, it's just that it's the same centrists adopting more progressive positions. This is obscured, somewhat, by the fact that the entire campaign revolved around dredging up votes and shit from 30 years ago instead of talking about how anyone (save for Warren and Yang) are actually planning to do anything.
I'm really unsure how to feel about this whole "centrists move left" thing. It feels more like pandering to what's become a larger left-wing element of the party (without really meaning it) than...
I'm really unsure how to feel about this whole "centrists move left" thing. It feels more like pandering to what's become a larger left-wing element of the party (without really meaning it) than anything else. We've tried incremental progress for so long; I'm not confident that more of it, even if it's somewhat larger steps, will really get anywhere.
A politician's entire job is to pander to where the median voter is. There is literally no electoral scenario where that is not the case. Even Bernie Sanders panders, just in a different...
It feels more like pandering to what's become a larger left-wing element of the party (without really meaning it) than anything else.
A politician's entire job is to pander to where the median voter is. There is literally no electoral scenario where that is not the case. Even Bernie Sanders panders, just in a different direction. It's why he was soft on guns up until he started running for President. It's why he's cagey about abolishing the filibuster because, as a senator from a dinky rural state, some of the system's structural inequities actually benefit him.
This is kind of my problem with the "Only Bernie can do anything" line of argument for him. Bernie, by himself, can't do shit. So his campaign's trying to pretend that anything other than Bernie is functionally missing the off-ramp from the apocalypse was just deluded. Moving the post in any direction means changing the electorate itself, both by building enthusiasm for government action by creating programs that work and by empowering more voters and by moving existing voters left. That's the only way democratic change can ever happen. But the campaign, instead, bet the farm on a savior narrative.
He kind of was the running favorite until the Democrats realize that it was going to be Sanders or Biden, and Sanders wasn't exactly a coalition candidate, so they coalitioned around Biden.
He kind of was the running favorite until the Democrats realize that it was going to be Sanders or Biden, and Sanders wasn't exactly a coalition candidate, so they coalitioned around Biden.
Who are "Democrats" here? Sanders was the running favorite when he was winning primaries and caucuses, and he stopped being the running favorite when he wasn't. The field certainly quickly got...
Who are "Democrats" here? Sanders was the running favorite when he was winning primaries and caucuses, and he stopped being the running favorite when he wasn't. The field certainly quickly got smaller with Pete and Klobuchar dropping out and endorsing Biden. Some point to this as shady back room dealings by the establishment to cut Sanders out, but what I find more likely is that Biden put more effort into courting party officials and it showed results at the end. At the end of the day, people vote for who they like. Endorsements and maneuvering can affect that, but thousands of average voters chose Biden over Sanders and that's why he won. At the end of the day, I really think it's that simple.
I don't think it was a "shady back room dealing to cut Sanders out" but I would be incredibly surprised if the DNC plan wasn't to do everything in their power to get Biden up there because of his...
I don't think it was a "shady back room dealing to cut Sanders out" but I would be incredibly surprised if the DNC plan wasn't to do everything in their power to get Biden up there because of his "elect-ability." We've literally seen this play out 4 years ago, I do start to question how many times were supposed to put up with it. Also:
At the end of the day, people vote for who they like.
How can you that then move to:
Endorsements and maneuvering can affect that
then come to this conclusion:
but thousands of average voters chose Biden over Sanders and that's why he won. At the end of the day, I really think it's that simple.
I'm not saying the average taxpayer is dumb but most people do little-to-no research and vote for who is presented for them. Of course endorsements and maneuvering affect that and absolutely determine the outcome of elections.
Exactly the point my wife and I are at. We are both considering doing a write in for Sanders or Warren. Yes, that will help get chetto re-elected but a message has to be sent.
I do start to question how many times were supposed to put up with it.
Exactly the point my wife and I are at. We are both considering doing a write in for Sanders or Warren. Yes, that will help get chetto re-elected but a message has to be sent.
The way to send a message is to organize to win the primary. I just don’t understand how people can chalk this up to the DNC not listening to their voters when they are choosing the candidate who...
The way to send a message is to organize to win the primary. I just don’t understand how people can chalk this up to the DNC not listening to their voters when they are choosing the candidate who far and away won the most votes, states, and delegates. What are they supposed to do, alienate the majority of the party by picking a candidate with limited yet strong support?
I think this primary has really showed that the median Democratic voter (in the sense of a typical voter from a random state going out to vote in a primary) is distinct from the median Democratic voter online (in the sense of a typical user who indicates they are a Democrat while participating in online discussion). Support for Biden online is pretty much nonexistent but it materialized in dramatic fashion at the polls, and I think this discrepancy makes it feel like the will of the average voter wasn’t listened to. In reality, I think we all just have the wrong sense of the ‘will of the average voter’.
Unless a huge voter abstention campaign is organized and implemented before November, that message is not going to be received by anyone of consequence. Not voting for the Democratic candidate is...
Unless a huge voter abstention campaign is organized and implemented before November, that message is not going to be received by anyone of consequence. Not voting for the Democratic candidate is essentially voting for Trump under the current system.
I hate it as much as you do, maybe more, but unless you want to work to organize something bigger the only effective thing to do is hold your nose and vote.
Thoughts in relative order: Bleh... You knew this was coming ever since the moderates Voltroned up around Biden. The DNC is acting in self preservation, the RNC let their hard line inmates run the...
Thoughts in relative order:
Bleh...
You knew this was coming ever since the moderates Voltroned up around Biden.
The DNC is acting in self preservation, the RNC let their hard line inmates run the asylum, they'd be dammed if they let theirs do the same.
Maybe this is a good thing, Sanders goal was to push the party left, and if he was in charge, a lot of the shine would come off the progressive movement.
Yes, and Biden is still an avatar of moderate Democrats, saving the day from the Republicans who lost their way, and that's what the people want to happen because they rather have all be well then get involved and fix anything.
Still, Republicans really, REALLY shat the bed with gestures around, maybe if they lose big, the progressives will have more of a say since Moderate Democrats have no spine and value unity.
Assuming Biden doesn't also have a bed shitting left in him, and America is through with it's love affair with Trumpiness, or anything is predictable right now.
Very worried about this. No matter what the truth of things is, I think that Trump will easily be able to get into the heads of voters about Biden's numerous flaws.
Assuming Biden doesn't also have a bed shitting left in him
Very worried about this. No matter what the truth of things is, I think that Trump will easily be able to get into the heads of voters about Biden's numerous flaws.
Right now you're comparing Biden to other Democrats. Once we're in general election season that anchoring effect will be gone and you'll be comparing him to Trump. Any flaw Trump wants to point...
I think that Trump will easily be able to get into the heads of voters about Biden's numerous flaws.
Right now you're comparing Biden to other Democrats. Once we're in general election season that anchoring effect will be gone and you'll be comparing him to Trump. Any flaw Trump wants to point out about Biden, Trump exhibits in spades so I don't think it's a huge deal.
Meandering anecdotes that go nowhere? Trump is worse at this than Biden is
Clearly in cognitive decline? Trump is worse
Handsy and potentially gropey? No "potentially" about it with Trump
Incredibly corrupt government and rampant nepotism? Check!
In 2016 Trump benefitted enormously from a media assumption that he wasn't going to win. So they all went soft on him and went hard on Clinton. That's less likely to happen now that he's actually President.
Granted I've stopped paying real attention a while back, but the media hasn't been very hard on Trump since he was elected. He's exposed how weak/compromised the press are; I wouldn't put my faith...
Granted I've stopped paying real attention a while back, but the media hasn't been very hard on Trump since he was elected. He's exposed how weak/compromised the press are; I wouldn't put my faith in them for the coming election.
I'm hoping it'll be a replay of the 2008 election where a president who was deeply unpopular by the time of the general election paved the way for protest vote against the Republican party. I...
I'm hoping it'll be a replay of the 2008 election where a president who was deeply unpopular by the time of the general election paved the way for protest vote against the Republican party. I think 2016 was also a protest vote against the incrementalism and centrist policies of the Democratic president at the time.
In fact, I'm starting to come around to the idea that the candidate who outrages a majority of people enough to vote against them is the losing candidate. I don't know if it really matters who that candidate is, if they're even running in the next election, or who their opposition is. The person who outrages enough people to go vote against them and/or their party will lose. A corollary to this is that the opposition who can stoke the flames and increase this outrage will win.
Based on this, Trump will have a hard time this year. He has a failed economy, a deadly pandemic with a disastrous response to match, and enough issues beforehand to spark enough outrage to cede the house to the Democrats in 2018 as well as getting impeached some time later. If Biden plays his cards right and throws fuel in the fire, he'll have the election in the bag in 2020.
The problem I see, according to this model, is that Biden's response to the pandemic hasn't been all that rousing so far. We need to see a more public Biden now (not before the DNC) not only point out Trump's ineptitude to the situation, but offer a comprehensive plan that'll help with economic and medical recovery. So far, I'm not seeing that.
Some more articles on the topic: CNN's article Washington Post's article Vox' Article I think everyone saw this coming for a while, but I believe it is now officially going to be Trump vs. Biden...
Alright, this thread's past the point of any usefulness. It's just devolved into the same handful of users bickering over the exact same things as always, with nobody having the slightest...
Alright, this thread's past the point of any usefulness. It's just devolved into the same handful of users bickering over the exact same things as always, with nobody having the slightest intention of budging their opinion.
I have zero confidence in the Biden campaign or the Democratic party to win in November. I'm directing all my attention to Senate races for the remainder of the year. At least if we take the...
I have zero confidence in the Biden campaign or the Democratic party to win in November. I'm directing all my attention to Senate races for the remainder of the year. At least if we take the Senate, we can more effectively put a cap on another 4 years of Trump.
Bernie was the only chance of ousting Trump, as he was in 2016. Calling it now. You know why? Only 6 states really matter in the general: Iowa, Michigan, Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, and...
Bernie was the only chance of ousting Trump, as he was in 2016. Calling it now.
You know why?
Only 6 states really matter in the general: Iowa, Michigan, Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. These are the swing states that 2012 Obama won and Hillary lost. They're largely the only states that have played a substantial factor since before 2000.
So these 6 states have 100 EC votes in the general. Assuming any D candidate won't lose any other states that Hillary won, the Democratic party needs to scrape together 43 of those.
Iowa's 6 are probably Trump's.
Michigan's 16 are a tossup. Fun fact: Both Hillary and Trump received less votes than Mitt Romney did in 2012. Hillary was low relative to Obama, but not really outside the margin of error compared to other Democrats.
Florida's 29 are a tossup, but would give edge to Trump. Even at the best of times, Florida is a wildcard.
Wisconsin's 10 are a tossup. Same story as Michigan, but they also received less than Bush or Kerry in 2004.
Ohio's 18 are likely Trump's.
Pennsylvania's 20 are likely Trump's.
So those are our 6 states. You know what the most common thread for all these states is? Trump won with more votes from Republicans in those states than almost any other Republican ever has. Florida was the only one where Hillary had record-breaking turnout instead of sub-par to average.
Biden is an echo of Obama the way Gore was an echo of Bill Clinton. It didn't work out well then, I doubt it will do better this time...especially since it's been an extra 4 years so Obama's presidency isn't quite as fresh.
Trump won in these states for the reason Obama did, and Hillary did not: Trump was promising something different from the status quo. Perhaps these 6 states should be voting first in the Democratic primary. Biden was non-viable in Iowa. He then won in the two others that voted since (and we know the results of), but how much of that was influenced by the narrative that Biden had effectively won after Super Tuesday, even when no state in Super Tuesday matters.
That's all well and good. But in the national election, popular vote means jack squat. There is work to change that, but it's not anywhere near live yet. Gore virtually tying with Bush in FL also...
That's all well and good. But in the national election, popular vote means jack squat. There is work to change that, but it's not anywhere near live yet.
Gore virtually tying with Bush in FL also isn't a resounding endorsement, as W was universally considered to be a dolt from the outset, much like Trump.
PA was nearly as close in 2016 as FL was in 2000. That (and the other losses) was an abject failure of the DNC. Oh and PA doesn't even have paper trails to verify the votes.
Trump is the new Reagan. The Reagan that swept the Electoral college twice, and got Bush 1 into office from momentum. Trump boosted turnout for the Republicans in a way not seen in decades.
Republican presidential candidates have a "floor" of about 48%. One of them could eat a baby on live television and not get much worse than 40%. The fact is, the problems having runaway victories...
Gore virtually tying with Bush in FL also isn't a resounding endorsement, as W was universally considered to be a dolt from the outset, much like Trump.
Republican presidential candidates have a "floor" of about 48%. One of them could eat a baby on live television and not get much worse than 40%. The fact is, the problems having runaway victories happen way upstream of which politician is on the front of the ticket from one year to the next. A competently run campaign is basically niggling over a 3 or 4 percentage point margin, not moving large masses of public opinion. The kind of movement building you're talking about needs to happen outside the political system, and it will have the effect of moving the whole system in a particular direction so your Manchins of tomorrow will be sounding like the Bidens of today. (And, TBH, Biden used to be one of the Manchins of yesteryear who is now running to the Left of Hillary Clinton).
Putting all your hopes and wishes on having the right guy at the top was always kind of bonkers. That's just a savior complex. It's an easy hero narrative that the media picks up on. But it's not how lasting, constructive change actually happens. The Presidential candidate is just a figurehead for the movement behind him. This is why a dolt like Dubya could win, because conservatives understand this.
Edit: Out of curiosity I decided to double-check my "Republicans realistically have a floor of about 48% support and they would have to do something egregious, like eating a baby, to drop to 40%" claim. Turns out I was too optimistic. Roy Moore got 48%. He didn't eat any babies (that we know of), but he certainly diddled a few kids. . . and yet. . .
[Checks watch] ugh still too early to start drinking I see
It's 5' clock somewhere. Just don't exhaust your supply while liquor stores are closed. But if Biden pulls lackluster numbers the way Hillary did, and everyone starts saying bullshit about how...
It's 5' clock somewhere. Just don't exhaust your supply while liquor stores are closed.
But if Biden pulls lackluster numbers the way Hillary did, and everyone starts saying bullshit about how 'Bernie bros tanked Biden,' I'm gonna be pissed.
Trump is pulling astronomical numbers, the same way Reagan did. I have serious doubts about Biden, even before the attack ads begin.
Trump is pulling Reagan numbers in what way? His approval rating hasn't been above his disapproval rating since his first week in office and he lost the popular vote by 3 million last time.
Trump is pulling Reagan numbers in what way? His approval rating hasn't been above his disapproval rating since his first week in office and he lost the popular vote by 3 million last time.
Thank you for the link, but I'm not at all convinced. The author keeps trying to draw this comparison but still notes that Reagan's approval rating was eight points higher at this point in 1984,...
Thank you for the link, but I'm not at all convinced. The author keeps trying to draw this comparison but still notes that Reagan's approval rating was eight points higher at this point in 1984, not to mention the pandemic (which I see this article was written before) that the regime has horribly fucked up and the economic downturn that's already started, not to mention Reagan won in 1980 by 9% while Trump lost in 2016 by 2%. I'm not saying Trump can't or won't win, but there is no universe where he does better in the electoral college than in 2016 and I would be shocked if he did better by the popular vote.
Saying "If Trump wasn't Trump, he'd be Reagan" is meaningless. What the author dismisses as drama is actually incompetence from top to bottom and corruption that makes Iran-Contra look like Blagojevich trying to sell Obama's Senate seat in 2009. Reagan and Bush were corrupt and awful too, but they could at least put on appearances.
God, imagine worshiping Donald fucking Trump as much as some of the people in this article do. A guy who allegedly has a billion dollars but can't get a good haircut or a good tan, who can't put sentences together, who has cheated on his taxes since day one. I know why people worship him, but it's pathetic all the same.
I think he is comparable to Reagan, but only within the media sphere of the Republican party and the population (demographically and financially) of 1980. When Reagan won in 1980 the US was 18%...
I think he is comparable to Reagan, but only within the media sphere of the Republican party and the population (demographically and financially) of 1980. When Reagan won in 1980 the US was 18% more white, 20% more likely to go to a church and far more socially mobile and more likely to own a home. The US was much more conducive to a figure like Reagan in 1980 so the US going from 58% Reagan to 46% Trump is more the US being worse off/less traditionalist/more diverse than in the 80s than Trump being a worse candidate than Reagan. This also explains all the voter suppression and media cultishness increasingly coming from the Republicans since the 1990s.
How often are the battleground states in one presidential election the exact same in the next? Between the two elections there have been 4 years of demographic changes, and policies that are more...
How often are the battleground states in one presidential election the exact same in the next? Between the two elections there have been 4 years of demographic changes, and policies that are more popular in some states than in others.
Taegan Goddard now considers Ohio and Iowa to be Republican states, and Michigan to be Democratic, but he's added Arizona and North Carolina to the list of battleground states.
So 6+18 now solidly Trump. And 15+11 are now battleground. A whopping 3 extra delegate for contested. Arizona has been solidly R since 1952, except for second-term Bill Clinton. North Carolina...
So 6+18 now solidly Trump. And 15+11 are now battleground. A whopping 3 extra delegate for contested. Arizona has been solidly R since 1952, except for second-term Bill Clinton. North Carolina solidly R since 1968, except Carter and first-term Obama. So color me skeptical that they're legitimately battlegrounds an not just 'not quite 100% R.' Ohio and Iowa were far more contested than either of those have been since before my parents were born.
Michigan has been solidly Democratic since 1992, except for Trump. So I am again skeptical of this claim that it's a solid win in the face of Trump.
And again, all of these mentioned states Trump won easily, except PA where it was razor thin. PA and FL are enough, but they're effectively coin tosses at best right now.
Biden is same strategy as Hillary was. I will be very surprised if it works.
Track records don't matter. Demographic shifts do. Rural states are only getting more rural as anyone with an education and money pursues jobs and opportunity elsewhere. This is why Georgia is...
So 6+18 now solidly Trump. And 15+11 are now battleground. A whopping 3 extra delegate for contested. Arizona has been solidly R since 1952, except for second-term Bill Clinton. North Carolina solidly R since 1968, except Carter and first-term Obama. So color me skeptical that they're legitimately battlegrounds an not just 'not quite 100% R.' Ohio and Iowa were far more contested than either of those have been since before my parents were born.
Track records don't matter. Demographic shifts do. Rural states are only getting more rural as anyone with an education and money pursues jobs and opportunity elsewhere. This is why Georgia is getting to be a lighter and lighter shade of red. This is why Arizona has become a battleground. This is why Colorado and Virginia turned blue. It's also why Iowa and Ohio are sort of lost causes now. Unless Cleveland and Columbus really turn things around economically and culturally I don't see Ohio being competitive.
Maybe, but check this out: https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/book-review-albions-seed/ Some good history there, but it also reveals something important for elections: Turns out, people move...
Some good history there, but it also reveals something important for elections:
Turns out, people move around a lot, but people also acclimate to the culture of their neighbors when they do so, so it can take a long time for demographic shifts.
And the most important point (that only 3 extra delegates shifted to be competitive) still holds true, even if the new states are 100% competitive.
The difference here isn't that they're moving from two fungible places. It's that they're moving between fundamentally different lifestyles, rural/exurban vs. urban/suburban. And by changing...
turns out, people move around a lot, but people also acclimate to the culture of their neighbors when they do so
The difference here isn't that they're moving from two fungible places. It's that they're moving between fundamentally different lifestyles, rural/exurban vs. urban/suburban. And by changing places, they're also concentrating/sorting by political preference. The GOP is consciously the party of rural and exurban Whites. The Democrats are, not as consciously but still pretty firmly the party of the "Creative Class."
So it's gonna be like Bush v Gore/Kerry but we 'traded' the Midwest for Hispanic states, the largest media outlet is trump propaganda and we can't leave home because of the SARS outbreak that...
So it's gonna be like Bush v Gore/Kerry but we 'traded' the Midwest for Hispanic states, the largest media outlet is trump propaganda and we can't leave home because of the SARS outbreak that could have been? Wacky.
It's more a electoral position swing-states-FPTP-FFS thing. Obama was a very exceptional candidate, winning states like Ohio, Indiana and Iowa and coming within 5% of Nebraska and Montana, states...
It's more a electoral position swing-states-FPTP-FFS thing. Obama was a very exceptional candidate, winning states like Ohio, Indiana and Iowa and coming within 5% of Nebraska and Montana, states which Trump and Bush (in his reelection run) won by at least 5 points. For all it's worth Obama was an exceptional Democrat and his electoral performance should either not have been taken as normal or the dems should have tried abolishing FPTP allocation of electors (although not the electoral college itself since that's an amendment) nationwide in those first 2 years.
I'm not American but l'm worried for my friends who live there. A PR friend of mine expects Biden to completely forget about his island where, for instance, just today there's been three power...
I'm not American but l'm worried for my friends who live there. A PR friend of mine expects Biden to completely forget about his island where, for instance, just today there's been three power outages already. Hoping for the best, but it doesn't look good.
It's nice to see that all the most toxic personality traits I first encountered in the Immigrant's March back in 2006 has metastasized into the lifestyle and worldview of the online left. I assume...
It's nice to see that all the most toxic personality traits I first encountered in the Immigrant's March back in 2006 has metastasized into the lifestyle and worldview of the online left.
I assume this was always kind of a thing in Leftist spaces since people older than me complain about these sorts of bratty people when they were coming up too. It's really disheartening, and kind of makes it clear why the only "Leftists" who ever get into real power seem to be thinly veiled fascists or warlords (Mao, Lenin).
Nah, that's some false equivalancy bullshit. Alt-right is breeding hatred against women and minorities who are not the cause of people's misfortunes, like Nazis tend to do. At the absolute worst,...
The internet brand of leftists has an unusually similiar culture to the alt-right. The way they talk about "elites", the mainstream media, the tendency towards conspiracy, the way they treat their chosen demagogue as an angelic being that can do no wrong
Nah, that's some false equivalancy bullshit. Alt-right is breeding hatred against women and minorities who are not the cause of people's misfortunes, like Nazis tend to do. At the absolute worst, the leftists are saying 'fucking punch a Nazi' and reminding people that it's not the minorities fucking you over, it's the rich twats continually consolidating wealth and power.
The conspiratorial thinking comes from living in a society where even some of the craziest conspiracies have more than a hint of truth.
It's real interesting how Bloomberg was able to join in the race, get on a debate stage by having the rules changed, drop half a billion dollars, including literally paying people to shill for him, and promptly drop out and endorse Biden. It's a hell of a coincidence that you can also spend unlimited funds however you wish if you're a candidate, and that the entirety of Bloombergs campaign was at an opportune time to start running attack ads.
Oh and remember how Bernie keeps repeating how we need to make policies that benefit everyone, and not just the rich? How's that oversight committee for the 500 billion slush fund doing? Hope that those unemployed folks can make that one-off payment stretch 3 months or more. Oh, and have a nice look at healthcare stock prices since Bernie dropped out. Glad to see the leeches doing so well in a medical crisis.
Oh or how about how corporations that are laying off people in gigantic numbers. God forbid companies have to lose a bit of money to give them paid time away from work so we can keep people alive.
Finally, Sanders is by no means a deity for the left. Hes a centerist. If you don't think so its because youve fallen into the trap of thinking that anyone who isnt an authoritation right-winger is a leftist. He's just the only one on the national stage calling out the charade for what it is and that does make him stand out from the crowd. It also helps that he's been consistently calling this shit out since before I was born.
I think it's just the lowest common denominator of behavior that social media encourages and, for various sociological reasons, people who are extremely online tend to not have particularly...
I think it's just the lowest common denominator of behavior that social media encourages and, for various sociological reasons, people who are extremely online tend to not have particularly fulfilling careers or personal lives. If they did, they'd be putting their time and energy into those things rather than farming karma on Reddit or cultivating beefs on Twitter. But populism targets people who feel unfulfilled and cut out of the system specifically, so this Gamergate organizing shtick is what sticks.
And there are, for sure, lots of media personalities who have economic and ego-driven motivations to keep that stuff going even if they don't personally benefit from the policy angle.
I've heard it argued that all societies have some number of basically broken people who don't play great with others, and one of the advantages of the previous era of middle-class driven industrial capitalism was it created a generally socially productive track for those people to go on. They had fairly routine and predictable jobs and as long as they did them loyally they could live the Leave it to Beaver proscribed existence. Once they're asked to forge their own paths they don't really know what to do and hurt themselves and others in their confusion. I'm not sure how far I buy it, but when you spend too much time on Twitter it gets hard to not.
Pretty disappointed to see something like this as the top comment on this thread, both that you posted it and that so many people voted on it instead of labeling it Noise or even Malice like it...
Exemplary
Pretty disappointed to see something like this as the top comment on this thread, both that you posted it and that so many people voted on it instead of labeling it Noise or even Malice like it deserved.
I wasn't available this morning, but probably would have removed it if I had been here earlier. Now over half the discussion on this thread is underneath this comment so it's probably not worth it at this point.
I know a lot of you are unhappy about this result and venting, but let's still try to do better than this, please.
I feel you on that, sorry for not holding up to Tilderino standards. I've always been a big believer that groups can make better decisions than individuals but it's hard not to see Biden as the...
I feel you on that, sorry for not holding up to Tilderino standards. I've always been a big believer that groups can make better decisions than individuals but it's hard not to see Biden as the absolute worst possible match up against Trump.
To be honest its hard to see for me. Plenty of candidates this cycle were worse, and plenty of Americans disagree with you and saw Biden as the best choice. I understand being disappointed, but...
To be honest its hard to see for me. Plenty of candidates this cycle were worse, and plenty of Americans disagree with you and saw Biden as the best choice. I understand being disappointed, but Biden's platform is not horrible and if he has a better chance against Trump than Bernie (if the primaries are anything to go by) then he is not the worst match up, and it is at least absolutely not clear that he might be.
There were a lot of not great candidates this cycle, but only Biden has weaknesses that mirror Trump. Even Amy Klobuchar could have gone after Trump for his boorishness, his corruption, his...
There were a lot of not great candidates this cycle, but only Biden has weaknesses that mirror Trump. Even Amy Klobuchar could have gone after Trump for his boorishness, his corruption, his inability to string a thought together, his racist policies, his actions that worsen climate change, and his predilection to starting stupid wars. Biden can't do any of that without a flood of whattaboutism.
Now, going by the primaries, Bernie consistently won independent voters. You're not going to beat Trump without them. It's just hard for me to imagine someone who would show up to vote for Biden and not Bernie, but there are plenty of Bernie voters who've never felt like they could believe in a politician before and aren't going to show up for Joe.
Platforms are basically meaningless. I mean, they're nice, but it's just something to add to the horse race narratives. What I care about is a candidate's ability or willingness to do the right thing. Three in four Democrats support Medicare For All, Biden would veto it. I have zero confidence he will do anything to meaningfully address climate change. I have less than zero confidence he'll act to fix all the damage caused by the Trump admin, and send them to jail for their crimes. About the only bright spot in a Biden administration is the judges he nominates might not be awful.
It’s a typical comment for both tildes and this user. One of the main reasons why I stopped checking tildes daily. Sadly low effort comments are almost always what rose to the top of any political...
It’s a typical comment for both tildes and this user. One of the main reasons why I stopped checking tildes daily. Sadly low effort comments are almost always what rose to the top of any political post.
I truly despise Biden, and I hate that he's going to be the nominee now from the bottom of my heart, but he and Trump are not the same. Conflating the two is, in my opinion, dangerous. If nothing...
I truly despise Biden, and I hate that he's going to be the nominee now from the bottom of my heart, but he and Trump are not the same. Conflating the two is, in my opinion, dangerous. If nothing else, President Biden won't create a generation-long supermajority on the supreme court if/when RBG steps down or passes away.
It's a joke, everyone needs to calm down. But I do think this is probably one of the worst election options I have seen in my lifetime though. Rivaling Bush v Kerry.
It's a joke, everyone needs to calm down. But I do think this is probably one of the worst election options I have seen in my lifetime though. Rivaling Bush v Kerry.
Sorry if I misread what you were saying, then. I've just seen this as a genuine take on Twitter, etc., and I'm afraid of people starting to believe it and staying home. Trump needs to go.
Sorry if I misread what you were saying, then. I've just seen this as a genuine take on Twitter, etc., and I'm afraid of people starting to believe it and staying home. Trump needs to go.
The fact that Biden was our best choice is the fault of the DNC, I think is what I'm getting at. I'm not a Bernie bro who is bent out of shape because he didn't get the nomination. What I do get...
The fact that Biden was our best choice is the fault of the DNC, I think is what I'm getting at. I'm not a Bernie bro who is bent out of shape because he didn't get the nomination. What I do get upset with is that the choices presented post-Obama have been abysmal.
Ya and the entire process was an absolute joke this time around (similar to 2016). The debates were a mess and barely pulled policy answers out of the candidates and did a much better job pitting...
Ya and the entire process was an absolute joke this time around (similar to 2016). The debates were a mess and barely pulled policy answers out of the candidates and did a much better job pitting them against each other WWF style. Their role in the process, among other things, is to formalize debates in hopes of giving voters clearer insight to the candidates views in a live setting, which they continually fail at. You're right in that, at the end of the day, its the voters choice. The issue is that the debates were set up to be a screaming match where the candidates that "won" were the ones who screamed the loudest or "came off" the strongest. I don't mean to downplay the voters role in this or bring in any conspiracy theories, but you can't in good faith tell me the DNC does not play a large role and/or they are doing a good job.
I personally felt like Biden actually attacked just as much if not more than Bernie in the last 'debate'. But I also felt like Biden was so much more composed than usual that it was suspicious....
I personally felt like Biden actually attacked just as much if not more than Bernie in the last 'debate'. But I also felt like Biden was so much more composed than usual that it was suspicious.
FWIW I'm not a Bernie or die fanatic. I just hate the fact that I'm going to have to vote for someone who I think is a morally questionable person for the second time in a row. The more I get into politics, the more I find out that the skeletons in most of their closets are disgusting.
This is one of those constructions that makes it seem like you've trying to set him up to fail. I don't think it's at all suspicious that a successful politician can comport himself well on stage....
But I also felt like Biden was so much more composed than usual that it was suspicious.
This is one of those constructions that makes it seem like you've trying to set him up to fail. I don't think it's at all suspicious that a successful politician can comport himself well on stage. The only reason it seemed weird was because the Sanders campaign spent the month leading up to it trying to imply the man was a total dotard so as long as Biden refrained from drooling all over himself on camera he looked great. What this was was terrible expectations management from the Sanders campaign.
If you had super-low expectations for him and he exceeded those expectations I would think the smart move would be to reexamine what led to your mental model's making the assumption it did and think about how to improve its predictive value going forward.
I mean, he exceeded my expectations too. But in hindsight, my stream of coverage was coming largely from people sharing videos of him picking fights with people at rallys and flubbing over his...
I mean, he exceeded my expectations too. But in hindsight, my stream of coverage was coming largely from people sharing videos of him picking fights with people at rallys and flubbing over his words in an attempt to make him look bad, so it wasn't surprising that I had a lower opinion of how far his mental state had declined.
No one is perfect, but the kind of morally reprehensible things that many politicians are accused of (such as rape) or we have proof of (racist voting history) are definitely not the kind of...
No one is perfect, but the kind of morally reprehensible things that many politicians are accused of (such as rape) or we have proof of (racist voting history) are definitely not the kind of skeletons I have.
Biden's mannerisms, the era that he is from, his ego, her story and her reasons for telling her story. No one will know for sure whether it happened or not, but I believe that it is plausible....
What makes that allegation credible?
Biden's mannerisms, the era that he is from, his ego, her story and her reasons for telling her story. No one will know for sure whether it happened or not, but I believe that it is plausible. Just as I believed Christine Blasey Ford's story was plausible. When you elect someone to one of the most powerful positions in government, these things should be taken seriously.
And on the other side of this social media scrubbing, all the people who were formerly on the #BelieveAllWomen train until the side changed, now they are deleting their posts. So what's up with that?
You are judging Reade by how she is reacting? And speaking of behavior... And then you combine this with how he handled Anita Hill in the early 90s, I think you have a plausible picture. No one...
So we are judging people guilty on when they were born and how they act?
You are judging Reade by how she is reacting?
Reade deleted all her social media posts where she called Mueller a "coup", Trump a "fearless leader" and made mention of Putin as "sensuous", and a strong leader doing good things in Russia.
Hours after the video, The Washington Post reported allegations from three more women, including a former White House intern who said Biden got very close to her face and called her a "pretty girl."
The additional accounts bring the total number of women who have brought forward complaints about Biden to seven, since Friday.
And then you combine this with how he handled Anita Hill in the early 90s, I think you have a plausible picture.
No one has said Biden is guilty in this whole conversation. I said its plausible. I think history has shown time and again that more often than not, men in power and who are part of the culture that allows sexual assault to run rampant, these allegations are more often than not credible. If it doesn't pass your smell test, fine. But it passes mine to the point where I think the claims should be fully investigated to a reasonable extent. And I hold these standards across the board with any position of power in my country's government for national security reasons.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/joe-bidens-dangerous-campaign-in-waiting/586183/ It isn't about the actions themselves, its about the context of those actions and the...
Friday afternoon, New York magazine published a bombshell: a first-person account from Lucy Flores, who said that at an event in 2014, when she was running for lieutenant governor of Nevada, she felt Biden “get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified … He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head.”
It isn't about the actions themselves, its about the context of those actions and the resulting feeling afterward. If a woman says they felt uncomfortable with body language that is invading their personal space, I'm going to believe them.
Going back to the original "skeletons in our closets post", yes if unexpectedly putting my arm around a woman-I-know's, shoulders in a friendly manner, putting my head against hers in a moment of sympathy after she shared a moment with me, holding a hand, or telling someone they are pretty outside of the act of courting, are now considered assault then I do have skeletons. Those are perfecly normal human interactions. Hell, I have had women do them to me and I didn't give them a second thought despite being a bit of an introvert.
I think you are missing the point of how these women feel and why they feel the way they did about Joe's behavior. These women aren't long time friends of Joe Biden. These women are also not in the same position's of power as Joe Biden. If they feel their space was invaded and that the behavior was unacceptable, then they have the right to feel disgusted towards it. Its not the behaviors themselves that are the issue, its the context of that behavior. And Joe Biden has repeatedly had instances where he had questionable behavior in inappropriate contexts that made women feel uncomfortable. Those are red flags and a reason to investigate an assault claim further.
Any comment on 2:08-2:16 of this video? What of all the women who've come forward and said his actions made them uncomfortable?
Can I suggest that Biden putting his forehead against somebody else's, holding a woman's hands, or calling someone "pretty" doesn't really hold up to the Reade allegations?
Yeah I don't disagree with you, but my point is not the DNC vs. Bernie (I never even brought him up in the first place.) My point is the DNC vs. voters. Their job is to get democratic candidates...
Yeah I don't disagree with you, but my point is not the DNC vs. Bernie (I never even brought him up in the first place.) My point is the DNC vs. voters. Their job is to get democratic candidates into the white house and they are doing an incredibly poor job of mediating that. Consequently we are going to be living under Trump for four more years, is all I am saying.
I mean, this is true but this is also partly due to reforms to the process that Sanders and his crew insisted on back in 2016 because they felt like the debate schedule didn't give contender(s) a...
The debates were a mess and barely pulled policy answers out of the candidates and did a much better job pitting them against each other WWF style.
I mean, this is true but this is also partly due to reforms to the process that Sanders and his crew insisted on back in 2016 because they felt like the debate schedule didn't give contender(s) a fair chance against Clinton and stacked the calendar in favor of incumbents.
So this time the DNC bends over backwards to let anyone in with the thinnest framework for having a bar for entry and people still aren't happy.
If we've learned anything about the post 2008 system it is that the modern system is an abject failure and there is no amount of nibbling around the edges that will make a losing campaign feel like they've been treated fairly.
The DNC still does have the option of what happens at convention. They could, you know... hold a real convention due to the world turning upside down. Let the candidates make their pitch and...
The DNC still does have the option of what happens at convention. They could, you know... hold a real convention due to the world turning upside down. Let the candidates make their pitch and settle it with votes rather than coronating Biden.
I think we should scrap this primary nonsense and have a nationwide vote. What about all those people that voted for those other moderates and Warren? Unfortunately it would also need to be...
I think we should scrap this primary nonsense and have a nationwide vote. What about all those people that voted for those other moderates and Warren? Unfortunately it would also need to be entirely mail-in because of the coronavirus.
I won't feel comfortable until someone else is sitting behind the desk. I live in a social bubble of like-minded individuals and really have no idea what it looks like from an etic perspective.
I won't feel comfortable until someone else is sitting behind the desk. I live in a social bubble of like-minded individuals and really have no idea what it looks like from an etic perspective.
Biden was unbelievably popular at the time he and Obama left office in 2017. What the fuck happened in the last three years to cause everyone to hate him more than a Clinton?
Biden was unbelievably popular at the time he and Obama left office in 2017. What the fuck happened in the last three years to cause everyone to hate him more than a Clinton?
As someone who voted for Obama twice, I couldn't have cared less about Biden. I honestly didn't know anything about him or his politics until he started a serious campaign recently and I am not a...
As someone who voted for Obama twice, I couldn't have cared less about Biden. I honestly didn't know anything about him or his politics until he started a serious campaign recently and I am not a fan of what I've seen. Not to mention the WEIRD behavior he exhibits around children and just in general. It's purely speculation but I'd imagine his popularity then was heavily influenced by his ties to Obama. I will vote for him but I'm not thrilled about it.
Why do you think you can predict the election when so many things are changing? I don't think we will ever know for sure whether Sanders would do better than Biden. Alternate history is too hard.
Why do you think you can predict the election when so many things are changing?
I don't think we will ever know for sure whether Sanders would do better than Biden. Alternate history is too hard.
I'm some random person on the internet, of course I can't predict the election. However, we are gearing up for to repeat exactly what happened in 2016.
I'm some random person on the internet, of course I can't predict the election. However, we are gearing up for to repeat exactly what happened in 2016.
I don't want to belittle what you said but that is absurd. Of course it's okay to joke about. It's obvious the two men are not the same. And its a running joke in politics worldwide that you're...
I don't want to belittle what you said but that is absurd. Of course it's okay to joke about. It's obvious the two men are not the same. And its a running joke in politics worldwide that you're always voting between two awful choices. Lighten up.
Of course it’s obvious the two aren’t the same, but many people are saying what you said unironically either because they’re propagandized or intentionally dividing people. You’ll have to excuse...
Of course it’s obvious the two aren’t the same, but many people are saying what you said unironically either because they’re propagandized or intentionally dividing people. You’ll have to excuse me - the humor of “both sides are bad” has been lost on me for at least a decade. A lot of people can’t afford to joke about this stuff especially in an era of extreme disinformation.
I'm sorry, but this is terrible analysis. If you honestly believe that the effects of a Biden administration are the same as the effects of a second Trump term, then you have either not really...
I'm sorry, but this is terrible analysis. If you honestly believe that the effects of a Biden administration are the same as the effects of a second Trump term, then you have either not really been watching the last 4 years as institutional norms get shredded, environmental regulations get scrapped, and inequality continues to skyrocket. I completely understand not being satisfied with Biden either as a person or as a politician, but to equate the two is naive at best and malicious at worst.
nevermind overt corruption and senate-approved lawlessness. To be fair though, after one term of trump I find myself feeling a bit of a bernie-or-bust mindset. Not that I would abstain if I even...
the last 4 years as institutional norms get shredded, environmental regulations get scrapped, and inequality continues to skyrocket
nevermind overt corruption and senate-approved lawlessness.
To be fair though, after one term of trump I find myself feeling a bit of a bernie-or-bust mindset. Not that I would abstain if I even could vote, but it's really gut-wrenching to see such an uninspired nominee. He's supposed to clean up the mess and rebuild the country, you might as well do it right.
Ah yes, the old "my preferred candidate isn't on the ballot so I'm going to make sure the worst possible candidate wins" mindset. It works out real well.
Ah yes, the old "my preferred candidate isn't on the ballot so I'm going to make sure the worst possible candidate wins" mindset. It works out real well.
This "both sides are the same" nonsense is pure cancer. Will people still be saying this when Trump replaces Ginsburg during his hypothetical second term and abortion rights go out the window?
This "both sides are the same" nonsense is pure cancer. Will people still be saying this when Trump replaces Ginsburg during his hypothetical second term and abortion rights go out the window?
I suspect that this is all the result of a bet between two billionaires. One said, I'll prove that I'm the richest most powerful guy, I'll get reality TV show host Donald Trump elected. A couple...
I suspect that this is all the result of a bet between two billionaires. One said, I'll prove that I'm the richest most powerful guy, I'll get reality TV show host Donald Trump elected. A couple years later, they reconvene at the Bohemian Grove and the other billionaire says you did a pretty good job with Trump, but wait till you see what I make the Democrats do this year.
We need more/better options. Seems like 'no taxation without representation' has become relevant again. I'm not being represented, and it seems like if you aren't wealthy or a captain of industry,...
We need more/better options. Seems like 'no taxation without representation' has become relevant again. I'm not being represented, and it seems like if you aren't wealthy or a captain of industry, neither are you. All of the platitudes about voting strategically just make me want to throw up in my mouth at this point. I've heard that shit my entire life, and guess what? It never works. That's how we got to this point. I've had enough.
If people organize a tax strike or some kind of serious third party ticket I'm so in. I don't hold out much hope of that happening, but we are living in interesting times.
This is one of the things that irks me so much. Feels like the true left of the Democratic party is always coerced into voting for whoever the party line candidate is by the promise of a few...
All of the platitudes about voting strategically just make me want to throw up in my mouth at this point.
This is one of the things that irks me so much. Feels like the true left of the Democratic party is always coerced into voting for whoever the party line candidate is by the promise of a few breadcrumbs of the policy that they want, most of which never materialize. I loved Bernie and, to a lesser extent, Warren because they both seemed like they would actually change something for once.
Unfortunately, the reason our wing of the party has to be coerced into this is because our wing of the party hasn't put forth a candidate that has won a nomination yet. There is only one process...
Unfortunately, the reason our wing of the party has to be coerced into this is because our wing of the party hasn't put forth a candidate that has won a nomination yet. There is only one process and one set of rules for determining a Democratic nominee for president, and even though we could write a thesis on the faults with the nominating system, the progressive candidate clearly lost this cycle. We can't just say, "hey, we've tried your method of nominating the same type of moderate candidate before, let's try our way with a progressive candidate." We actually have to prove that out through the only nominating system we have.
The positive side is that the nominating process can be changed much more easily than say actual voting laws. Progressive Democrats should continue pushing for change from within the party rather than taking this defeat as a reason to throw up our hands.
But the tactic of electing a moderate candidate hasn't really ever worked either. Carter won, but he was more of a conservative than a moderate, and after the Nixion resignation it is likely any D...
Carter won, but he was more of a conservative than a moderate, and after the Nixion resignation it is likely any D would have won.
Bill Clinton won as a moderate, but he also didn't really have a progressive challenger. Gore, Kerry, Hillary all failed.
Obama won...by esposing progressive rhetoric.
Trump won...by espousing anti-establishment rhetoric against a moderate candidate.
I'll vote for the helping of shit that's been presented for me, but I fully expect a Trump reelection at this point. And I sure as hell am not going to be happy about it.
The problem is, they aren't. As we saw in 2016, left wing voters didn't turn up to support Clinton, because they would rather live under Trump than suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils....
The problem is, they aren't. As we saw in 2016, left wing voters didn't turn up to support Clinton, because they would rather live under Trump than suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils.
Politics is literally a game of compromise. Nobody gets everything they want. The best we can possibly do is nudge the system in our preferred direction.
I laid out in a top level post why that isn't true. The only swing states that Trump won and Hillary lost were due to massive R turnout and lackluster D turnout. We got Trump because Hillary was...
I laid out in a top level post why that isn't true. The only swing states that Trump won and Hillary lost were due to massive R turnout and lackluster D turnout. We got Trump because Hillary was precisely the kind of candidate that Trump was rallying against. Trump would have had far less ammo against Bernie than Hillary, and almost doubly so against Biden. The only swing state that voted prior to Super Tuesday was Iowa, where Biden was non-viable. Super Tuesday doesn't mean anything in the general. But it sure as hell shifted the narrative to Biden being the presumed winner, and typically once that narrative is out there, it sticks. That's why Iowa was so important in the narrative...until Bernie did well and all of a sudden Iowa didn't matter and only Super Tuesday did.
That kind of proves my point, doesn't it? Lackluster D turnout because too many Democrats weren't willing to actually show up and vote for Hilary even though they didn't want Trump to win.
he only swing states that Trump won and Hillary lost were due to massive R turnout and lackluster D turnout.
That kind of proves my point, doesn't it? Lackluster D turnout because too many Democrats weren't willing to actually show up and vote for Hilary even though they didn't want Trump to win.
But it's a twofold. Yes, Hillary's numbers were lackluster. But Trumps were stellar. He pulled a lot of record-breaking numbers in various states. I'd wager Biden doesn't pull Obama...
But it's a twofold. Yes, Hillary's numbers were lackluster. But Trumps were stellar. He pulled a lot of record-breaking numbers in various states.
I'd wager Biden doesn't pull Obama numbers....because relying on nostalgia from better times isn't as effective as putting forth a message of your own.
What else are you going to do at this point? The alternative is another four (or more, knowing Trump) years of all of this bullshit.
All of the platitudes about voting strategically just make me want to throw up in my mouth at this point. I've heard that shit my entire life, and guess what? It never works. That's how we got to this point. I've had enough.
What else are you going to do at this point? The alternative is another four (or more, knowing Trump) years of all of this bullshit.
I'm joining my local Food Not Bombs to provide mutual aid to people in my community. Listening to a lot less outrage bait "news" about what Trump said this time. Got an interesting looking book to...
I'm joining my local Food Not Bombs to provide mutual aid to people in my community. Listening to a lot less outrage bait "news" about what Trump said this time. Got an interesting looking book to read a friend recommended about "emergent strategy."
At this point I'm having to vote for Biden. I'll be looking for any other options than Trump or Biden and hoping something pops up. If the libertarians put Yang/Tulsi on their ticket I'd be...
At this point I'm having to vote for Biden. I'll be looking for any other options than Trump or Biden and hoping something pops up.
If the libertarians put Yang/Tulsi on their ticket I'd be tempted. They have a vehicle/apparatus and ballot access, they can and do get that third choice out there on the ballot regularly. They are just as disillusioned with modern politics as anyone on the left or right.
Hey libertarians, can we borrow your car? Ours have broken down. We need to get to the election with our sanity intact.
Bernie has been insanely influential and important to a whole generation of voters, and I am sure that legacy alone will shape US politics for years to come. That being said, I am increasingly convinced that his relative success in 2016 had much more to do with HRC's insane unpopularity than it did with any real shift to the left among the party as a whole (certainly among demographics within the party - the aforementioned young people, e.g.). It's hard to reconcile the notion of such a shift with the fact that Bernie won Michigan by some 22% in 2016, and didn't win a single county in 2020. At the end of the day his support just didn't materialize. Trump-style insurgent campaigns (in the sense of winning a divided primary by appealing to a fervent base) seem to remain an exception rather than the new norm.
One thing this has really taught me is that Twitter is not at all representative of the population as a whole. If you went only by the talking heads there, you would have thought that Bernie had the nomination locked in back in January.
The centrist position in 2020 was that we shouldn't abolish all private insurance as we create a public option or Medicare 4 All scheme. The party has lurched significantly leftward since 2016, it's just that it's the same centrists adopting more progressive positions. This is obscured, somewhat, by the fact that the entire campaign revolved around dredging up votes and shit from 30 years ago instead of talking about how anyone (save for Warren and Yang) are actually planning to do anything.
I'm really unsure how to feel about this whole "centrists move left" thing. It feels more like pandering to what's become a larger left-wing element of the party (without really meaning it) than anything else. We've tried incremental progress for so long; I'm not confident that more of it, even if it's somewhat larger steps, will really get anywhere.
A politician's entire job is to pander to where the median voter is. There is literally no electoral scenario where that is not the case. Even Bernie Sanders panders, just in a different direction. It's why he was soft on guns up until he started running for President. It's why he's cagey about abolishing the filibuster because, as a senator from a dinky rural state, some of the system's structural inequities actually benefit him.
This is kind of my problem with the "Only Bernie can do anything" line of argument for him. Bernie, by himself, can't do shit. So his campaign's trying to pretend that anything other than Bernie is functionally missing the off-ramp from the apocalypse was just deluded. Moving the post in any direction means changing the electorate itself, both by building enthusiasm for government action by creating programs that work and by empowering more voters and by moving existing voters left. That's the only way democratic change can ever happen. But the campaign, instead, bet the farm on a savior narrative.
He kind of was the running favorite until the Democrats realize that it was going to be Sanders or Biden, and Sanders wasn't exactly a coalition candidate, so they coalitioned around Biden.
Who are "Democrats" here? Sanders was the running favorite when he was winning primaries and caucuses, and he stopped being the running favorite when he wasn't. The field certainly quickly got smaller with Pete and Klobuchar dropping out and endorsing Biden. Some point to this as shady back room dealings by the establishment to cut Sanders out, but what I find more likely is that Biden put more effort into courting party officials and it showed results at the end. At the end of the day, people vote for who they like. Endorsements and maneuvering can affect that, but thousands of average voters chose Biden over Sanders and that's why he won. At the end of the day, I really think it's that simple.
I don't think it was a "shady back room dealing to cut Sanders out" but I would be incredibly surprised if the DNC plan wasn't to do everything in their power to get Biden up there because of his "elect-ability." We've literally seen this play out 4 years ago, I do start to question how many times were supposed to put up with it. Also:
How can you that then move to:
then come to this conclusion:
I'm not saying the average taxpayer is dumb but most people do little-to-no research and vote for who is presented for them. Of course endorsements and maneuvering affect that and absolutely determine the outcome of elections.
Easy. Endorsements help you decide who you like when you don't have perfect information about the people running.
Exactly the point my wife and I are at. We are both considering doing a write in for Sanders or Warren. Yes, that will help get chetto re-elected but a message has to be sent.
Permanently revoking voting rights for all the most vulnerable people in society to own the libs
The way to send a message is to organize to win the primary. I just don’t understand how people can chalk this up to the DNC not listening to their voters when they are choosing the candidate who far and away won the most votes, states, and delegates. What are they supposed to do, alienate the majority of the party by picking a candidate with limited yet strong support?
I think this primary has really showed that the median Democratic voter (in the sense of a typical voter from a random state going out to vote in a primary) is distinct from the median Democratic voter online (in the sense of a typical user who indicates they are a Democrat while participating in online discussion). Support for Biden online is pretty much nonexistent but it materialized in dramatic fashion at the polls, and I think this discrepancy makes it feel like the will of the average voter wasn’t listened to. In reality, I think we all just have the wrong sense of the ‘will of the average voter’.
Unless a huge voter abstention campaign is organized and implemented before November, that message is not going to be received by anyone of consequence. Not voting for the Democratic candidate is essentially voting for Trump under the current system.
I hate it as much as you do, maybe more, but unless you want to work to organize something bigger the only effective thing to do is hold your nose and vote.
Thoughts in relative order:
Very worried about this. No matter what the truth of things is, I think that Trump will easily be able to get into the heads of voters about Biden's numerous flaws.
Right now you're comparing Biden to other Democrats. Once we're in general election season that anchoring effect will be gone and you'll be comparing him to Trump. Any flaw Trump wants to point out about Biden, Trump exhibits in spades so I don't think it's a huge deal.
In 2016 Trump benefitted enormously from a media assumption that he wasn't going to win. So they all went soft on him and went hard on Clinton. That's less likely to happen now that he's actually President.
Granted I've stopped paying real attention a while back, but the media hasn't been very hard on Trump since he was elected. He's exposed how weak/compromised the press are; I wouldn't put my faith in them for the coming election.
If Trump goes away, what are they going to talk about? I have to imagine some of the news execs all across the board are in his corner.
I'm hoping it'll be a replay of the 2008 election where a president who was deeply unpopular by the time of the general election paved the way for protest vote against the Republican party. I think 2016 was also a protest vote against the incrementalism and centrist policies of the Democratic president at the time.
In fact, I'm starting to come around to the idea that the candidate who outrages a majority of people enough to vote against them is the losing candidate. I don't know if it really matters who that candidate is, if they're even running in the next election, or who their opposition is. The person who outrages enough people to go vote against them and/or their party will lose. A corollary to this is that the opposition who can stoke the flames and increase this outrage will win.
Based on this, Trump will have a hard time this year. He has a failed economy, a deadly pandemic with a disastrous response to match, and enough issues beforehand to spark enough outrage to cede the house to the Democrats in 2018 as well as getting impeached some time later. If Biden plays his cards right and throws fuel in the fire, he'll have the election in the bag in 2020.
The problem I see, according to this model, is that Biden's response to the pandemic hasn't been all that rousing so far. We need to see a more public Biden now (not before the DNC) not only point out Trump's ineptitude to the situation, but offer a comprehensive plan that'll help with economic and medical recovery. So far, I'm not seeing that.
It almost did, and a lot has changed since then. I don't think it's much use for forecasting?
Some more articles on the topic:
I think everyone saw this coming for a while, but I believe it is now officially going to be Trump vs. Biden come November.
Good luck, southern neighbours.
Alright, this thread's past the point of any usefulness. It's just devolved into the same handful of users bickering over the exact same things as always, with nobody having the slightest intention of budging their opinion.
I have zero confidence in the Biden campaign or the Democratic party to win in November. I'm directing all my attention to Senate races for the remainder of the year. At least if we take the Senate, we can more effectively put a cap on another 4 years of Trump.
Bernie was the only chance of ousting Trump, as he was in 2016. Calling it now.
You know why?
Only 6 states really matter in the general: Iowa, Michigan, Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. These are the swing states that 2012 Obama won and Hillary lost. They're largely the only states that have played a substantial factor since before 2000.
So these 6 states have 100 EC votes in the general. Assuming any D candidate won't lose any other states that Hillary won, the Democratic party needs to scrape together 43 of those.
Iowa's 6 are probably Trump's.
Michigan's 16 are a tossup. Fun fact: Both Hillary and Trump received less votes than Mitt Romney did in 2012. Hillary was low relative to Obama, but not really outside the margin of error compared to other Democrats.
Florida's 29 are a tossup, but would give edge to Trump. Even at the best of times, Florida is a wildcard.
Wisconsin's 10 are a tossup. Same story as Michigan, but they also received less than Bush or Kerry in 2004.
Ohio's 18 are likely Trump's.
Pennsylvania's 20 are likely Trump's.
So those are our 6 states. You know what the most common thread for all these states is? Trump won with more votes from Republicans in those states than almost any other Republican ever has. Florida was the only one where Hillary had record-breaking turnout instead of sub-par to average.
Biden is an echo of Obama the way Gore was an echo of Bill Clinton. It didn't work out well then, I doubt it will do better this time...especially since it's been an extra 4 years so Obama's presidency isn't quite as fresh.
Trump won in these states for the reason Obama did, and Hillary did not: Trump was promising something different from the status quo. Perhaps these 6 states should be voting first in the Democratic primary. Biden was non-viable in Iowa. He then won in the two others that voted since (and we know the results of), but how much of that was influenced by the narrative that Biden had effectively won after Super Tuesday, even when no state in Super Tuesday matters.
That's all well and good. But in the national election, popular vote means jack squat. There is work to change that, but it's not anywhere near live yet.
Gore virtually tying with Bush in FL also isn't a resounding endorsement, as W was universally considered to be a dolt from the outset, much like Trump.
PA was nearly as close in 2016 as FL was in 2000. That (and the other losses) was an abject failure of the DNC. Oh and PA doesn't even have paper trails to verify the votes.
Trump is the new Reagan. The Reagan that swept the Electoral college twice, and got Bush 1 into office from momentum. Trump boosted turnout for the Republicans in a way not seen in decades.
Republican presidential candidates have a "floor" of about 48%. One of them could eat a baby on live television and not get much worse than 40%. The fact is, the problems having runaway victories happen way upstream of which politician is on the front of the ticket from one year to the next. A competently run campaign is basically niggling over a 3 or 4 percentage point margin, not moving large masses of public opinion. The kind of movement building you're talking about needs to happen outside the political system, and it will have the effect of moving the whole system in a particular direction so your Manchins of tomorrow will be sounding like the Bidens of today. (And, TBH, Biden used to be one of the Manchins of yesteryear who is now running to the Left of Hillary Clinton).
Putting all your hopes and wishes on having the right guy at the top was always kind of bonkers. That's just a savior complex. It's an easy hero narrative that the media picks up on. But it's not how lasting, constructive change actually happens. The Presidential candidate is just a figurehead for the movement behind him. This is why a dolt like Dubya could win, because conservatives understand this.
Edit: Out of curiosity I decided to double-check my "Republicans realistically have a floor of about 48% support and they would have to do something egregious, like eating a baby, to drop to 40%" claim. Turns out I was too optimistic. Roy Moore got 48%. He didn't eat any babies (that we know of), but he certainly diddled a few kids. . . and yet. . .
[Checks watch] ugh still too early to start drinking I see
It's 5' clock somewhere. Just don't exhaust your supply while liquor stores are closed.
But if Biden pulls lackluster numbers the way Hillary did, and everyone starts saying bullshit about how 'Bernie bros tanked Biden,' I'm gonna be pissed.
Trump is pulling astronomical numbers, the same way Reagan did. I have serious doubts about Biden, even before the attack ads begin.
Trump is pulling Reagan numbers in what way? His approval rating hasn't been above his disapproval rating since his first week in office and he lost the popular vote by 3 million last time.
Here's a pretty decent writeup on the issue.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/26/if_trump_wasnt_trump_hed_be_reagan_142236.html
Thank you for the link, but I'm not at all convinced. The author keeps trying to draw this comparison but still notes that Reagan's approval rating was eight points higher at this point in 1984, not to mention the pandemic (which I see this article was written before) that the regime has horribly fucked up and the economic downturn that's already started, not to mention Reagan won in 1980 by 9% while Trump lost in 2016 by 2%. I'm not saying Trump can't or won't win, but there is no universe where he does better in the electoral college than in 2016 and I would be shocked if he did better by the popular vote.
Saying "If Trump wasn't Trump, he'd be Reagan" is meaningless. What the author dismisses as drama is actually incompetence from top to bottom and corruption that makes Iran-Contra look like Blagojevich trying to sell Obama's Senate seat in 2009. Reagan and Bush were corrupt and awful too, but they could at least put on appearances.
God, imagine worshiping Donald fucking Trump as much as some of the people in this article do. A guy who allegedly has a billion dollars but can't get a good haircut or a good tan, who can't put sentences together, who has cheated on his taxes since day one. I know why people worship him, but it's pathetic all the same.
I think he is comparable to Reagan, but only within the media sphere of the Republican party and the population (demographically and financially) of 1980. When Reagan won in 1980 the US was 18% more white, 20% more likely to go to a church and far more socially mobile and more likely to own a home. The US was much more conducive to a figure like Reagan in 1980 so the US going from 58% Reagan to 46% Trump is more the US being worse off/less traditionalist/more diverse than in the 80s than Trump being a worse candidate than Reagan. This also explains all the voter suppression and media cultishness increasingly coming from the Republicans since the 1990s.
How often are the battleground states in one presidential election the exact same in the next? Between the two elections there have been 4 years of demographic changes, and policies that are more popular in some states than in others.
Taegan Goddard now considers Ohio and Iowa to be Republican states, and Michigan to be Democratic, but he's added Arizona and North Carolina to the list of battleground states.
So 6+18 now solidly Trump. And 15+11 are now battleground. A whopping 3 extra delegate for contested. Arizona has been solidly R since 1952, except for second-term Bill Clinton. North Carolina solidly R since 1968, except Carter and first-term Obama. So color me skeptical that they're legitimately battlegrounds an not just 'not quite 100% R.' Ohio and Iowa were far more contested than either of those have been since before my parents were born.
Michigan has been solidly Democratic since 1992, except for Trump. So I am again skeptical of this claim that it's a solid win in the face of Trump.
And again, all of these mentioned states Trump won easily, except PA where it was razor thin. PA and FL are enough, but they're effectively coin tosses at best right now.
Biden is same strategy as Hillary was. I will be very surprised if it works.
Track records don't matter. Demographic shifts do. Rural states are only getting more rural as anyone with an education and money pursues jobs and opportunity elsewhere. This is why Georgia is getting to be a lighter and lighter shade of red. This is why Arizona has become a battleground. This is why Colorado and Virginia turned blue. It's also why Iowa and Ohio are sort of lost causes now. Unless Cleveland and Columbus really turn things around economically and culturally I don't see Ohio being competitive.
Maybe, but check this out:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/book-review-albions-seed/
Some good history there, but it also reveals something important for elections:
Turns out, people move around a lot, but people also acclimate to the culture of their neighbors when they do so, so it can take a long time for demographic shifts.
And the most important point (that only 3 extra delegates shifted to be competitive) still holds true, even if the new states are 100% competitive.
The difference here isn't that they're moving from two fungible places. It's that they're moving between fundamentally different lifestyles, rural/exurban vs. urban/suburban. And by changing places, they're also concentrating/sorting by political preference. The GOP is consciously the party of rural and exurban Whites. The Democrats are, not as consciously but still pretty firmly the party of the "Creative Class."
So it's gonna be like Bush v Gore/Kerry but we 'traded' the Midwest for Hispanic states, the largest media outlet is trump propaganda and we can't leave home because of the SARS outbreak that could have been? Wacky.
Optimistically you could say Democrats do indeed want an 'electable' candidate. To quote the article:
Political dynasty versus establishment candidate? I'm not sure the comparison of Bush to Trump is fair.
It's more a electoral position swing-states-FPTP-FFS thing. Obama was a very exceptional candidate, winning states like Ohio, Indiana and Iowa and coming within 5% of Nebraska and Montana, states which Trump and Bush (in his reelection run) won by at least 5 points. For all it's worth Obama was an exceptional Democrat and his electoral performance should either not have been taken as normal or the dems should have tried abolishing FPTP allocation of electors (although not the electoral college itself since that's an amendment) nationwide in those first 2 years.
I'm not American but l'm worried for my friends who live there. A PR friend of mine expects Biden to completely forget about his island where, for instance, just today there's been three power outages already. Hoping for the best, but it doesn't look good.
Subreddit drama has a pretty good list of the nonsense that has gone down on reddit since this news broke.
It's nice to see that all the most toxic personality traits I first encountered in the Immigrant's March back in 2006 has metastasized into the lifestyle and worldview of the online left.
I assume this was always kind of a thing in Leftist spaces since people older than me complain about these sorts of bratty people when they were coming up too. It's really disheartening, and kind of makes it clear why the only "Leftists" who ever get into real power seem to be thinly veiled fascists or warlords (Mao, Lenin).
Nah, that's some false equivalancy bullshit. Alt-right is breeding hatred against women and minorities who are not the cause of people's misfortunes, like Nazis tend to do. At the absolute worst, the leftists are saying 'fucking punch a Nazi' and reminding people that it's not the minorities fucking you over, it's the rich twats continually consolidating wealth and power.
The conspiratorial thinking comes from living in a society where even some of the craziest conspiracies have more than a hint of truth.
It's real interesting how Bloomberg was able to join in the race, get on a debate stage by having the rules changed, drop half a billion dollars, including literally paying people to shill for him, and promptly drop out and endorse Biden. It's a hell of a coincidence that you can also spend unlimited funds however you wish if you're a candidate, and that the entirety of Bloombergs campaign was at an opportune time to start running attack ads.
Oh and remember how Bernie keeps repeating how we need to make policies that benefit everyone, and not just the rich? How's that oversight committee for the 500 billion slush fund doing? Hope that those unemployed folks can make that one-off payment stretch 3 months or more. Oh, and have a nice look at healthcare stock prices since Bernie dropped out. Glad to see the leeches doing so well in a medical crisis.
Oh or how about how corporations that are laying off people in gigantic numbers. God forbid companies have to lose a bit of money to give them paid time away from work so we can keep people alive.
Finally, Sanders is by no means a deity for the left. Hes a centerist. If you don't think so its because youve fallen into the trap of thinking that anyone who isnt an authoritation right-winger is a leftist. He's just the only one on the national stage calling out the charade for what it is and that does make him stand out from the crowd. It also helps that he's been consistently calling this shit out since before I was born.
I think it's just the lowest common denominator of behavior that social media encourages and, for various sociological reasons, people who are extremely online tend to not have particularly fulfilling careers or personal lives. If they did, they'd be putting their time and energy into those things rather than farming karma on Reddit or cultivating beefs on Twitter. But populism targets people who feel unfulfilled and cut out of the system specifically, so this Gamergate organizing shtick is what sticks.
And there are, for sure, lots of media personalities who have economic and ego-driven motivations to keep that stuff going even if they don't personally benefit from the policy angle.
I've heard it argued that all societies have some number of basically broken people who don't play great with others, and one of the advantages of the previous era of middle-class driven industrial capitalism was it created a generally socially productive track for those people to go on. They had fairly routine and predictable jobs and as long as they did them loyally they could live the Leave it to Beaver proscribed existence. Once they're asked to forge their own paths they don't really know what to do and hurt themselves and others in their confusion. I'm not sure how far I buy it, but when you spend too much time on Twitter it gets hard to not.
I can't wait to vote for the senile mentally addled rapist with a history of siding with corporations over workers and people.
Pretty disappointed to see something like this as the top comment on this thread, both that you posted it and that so many people voted on it instead of labeling it Noise or even Malice like it deserved.
I wasn't available this morning, but probably would have removed it if I had been here earlier. Now over half the discussion on this thread is underneath this comment so it's probably not worth it at this point.
I know a lot of you are unhappy about this result and venting, but let's still try to do better than this, please.
I feel you on that, sorry for not holding up to Tilderino standards. I've always been a big believer that groups can make better decisions than individuals but it's hard not to see Biden as the absolute worst possible match up against Trump.
To be honest its hard to see for me. Plenty of candidates this cycle were worse, and plenty of Americans disagree with you and saw Biden as the best choice. I understand being disappointed, but Biden's platform is not horrible and if he has a better chance against Trump than Bernie (if the primaries are anything to go by) then he is not the worst match up, and it is at least absolutely not clear that he might be.
There were a lot of not great candidates this cycle, but only Biden has weaknesses that mirror Trump. Even Amy Klobuchar could have gone after Trump for his boorishness, his corruption, his inability to string a thought together, his racist policies, his actions that worsen climate change, and his predilection to starting stupid wars. Biden can't do any of that without a flood of whattaboutism.
Now, going by the primaries, Bernie consistently won independent voters. You're not going to beat Trump without them. It's just hard for me to imagine someone who would show up to vote for Biden and not Bernie, but there are plenty of Bernie voters who've never felt like they could believe in a politician before and aren't going to show up for Joe.
Platforms are basically meaningless. I mean, they're nice, but it's just something to add to the horse race narratives. What I care about is a candidate's ability or willingness to do the right thing. Three in four Democrats support Medicare For All, Biden would veto it. I have zero confidence he will do anything to meaningfully address climate change. I have less than zero confidence he'll act to fix all the damage caused by the Trump admin, and send them to jail for their crimes. About the only bright spot in a Biden administration is the judges he nominates might not be awful.
It’s a typical comment for both tildes and this user. One of the main reasons why I stopped checking tildes daily. Sadly low effort comments are almost always what rose to the top of any political post.
It's almost as if we'e being asked to vote between the same two men.
I truly despise Biden, and I hate that he's going to be the nominee now from the bottom of my heart, but he and Trump are not the same. Conflating the two is, in my opinion, dangerous. If nothing else, President Biden won't create a generation-long supermajority on the supreme court if/when RBG steps down or passes away.
It's a joke, everyone needs to calm down. But I do think this is probably one of the worst election options I have seen in my lifetime though. Rivaling Bush v Kerry.
Sorry if I misread what you were saying, then. I've just seen this as a genuine take on Twitter, etc., and I'm afraid of people starting to believe it and staying home. Trump needs to go.
No worries, and yeah it's not a great situation. But honestly, either way the DNC really goofed, Trump is most likely a two term president.
The fact that Biden was our best choice is the fault of the DNC, I think is what I'm getting at. I'm not a Bernie bro who is bent out of shape because he didn't get the nomination. What I do get upset with is that the choices presented post-Obama have been abysmal.
Ya and the entire process was an absolute joke this time around (similar to 2016). The debates were a mess and barely pulled policy answers out of the candidates and did a much better job pitting them against each other WWF style. Their role in the process, among other things, is to formalize debates in hopes of giving voters clearer insight to the candidates views in a live setting, which they continually fail at. You're right in that, at the end of the day, its the voters choice. The issue is that the debates were set up to be a screaming match where the candidates that "won" were the ones who screamed the loudest or "came off" the strongest. I don't mean to downplay the voters role in this or bring in any conspiracy theories, but you can't in good faith tell me the DNC does not play a large role and/or they are doing a good job.
I personally felt like Biden actually attacked just as much if not more than Bernie in the last 'debate'. But I also felt like Biden was so much more composed than usual that it was suspicious.
FWIW I'm not a Bernie or die fanatic. I just hate the fact that I'm going to have to vote for someone who I think is a morally questionable person for the second time in a row. The more I get into politics, the more I find out that the skeletons in most of their closets are disgusting.
This is one of those constructions that makes it seem like you've trying to set him up to fail. I don't think it's at all suspicious that a successful politician can comport himself well on stage. The only reason it seemed weird was because the Sanders campaign spent the month leading up to it trying to imply the man was a total dotard so as long as Biden refrained from drooling all over himself on camera he looked great. What this was was terrible expectations management from the Sanders campaign.
If you had super-low expectations for him and he exceeded those expectations I would think the smart move would be to reexamine what led to your mental model's making the assumption it did and think about how to improve its predictive value going forward.
Just how I personally felt after seeing him talk at other events - no ties to any campaigns.
I mean, he exceeded my expectations too. But in hindsight, my stream of coverage was coming largely from people sharing videos of him picking fights with people at rallys and flubbing over his words in an attempt to make him look bad, so it wasn't surprising that I had a lower opinion of how far his mental state had declined.
No one is perfect, but the kind of morally reprehensible things that many politicians are accused of (such as rape) or we have proof of (racist voting history) are definitely not the kind of skeletons I have.
Does someone have a credible allegation of sexual assault against you?
Biden's mannerisms, the era that he is from, his ego, her story and her reasons for telling her story. No one will know for sure whether it happened or not, but I believe that it is plausible. Just as I believed Christine Blasey Ford's story was plausible. When you elect someone to one of the most powerful positions in government, these things should be taken seriously.
And on the other side of this social media scrubbing, all the people who were formerly on the #BelieveAllWomen train until the side changed, now they are deleting their posts. So what's up with that?
You are judging Reade by how she is reacting?
And speaking of behavior...
And then you combine this with how he handled Anita Hill in the early 90s, I think you have a plausible picture.
No one has said Biden is guilty in this whole conversation. I said its plausible. I think history has shown time and again that more often than not, men in power and who are part of the culture that allows sexual assault to run rampant, these allegations are more often than not credible. If it doesn't pass your smell test, fine. But it passes mine to the point where I think the claims should be fully investigated to a reasonable extent. And I hold these standards across the board with any position of power in my country's government for national security reasons.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/03/joe-bidens-dangerous-campaign-in-waiting/586183/
It isn't about the actions themselves, its about the context of those actions and the resulting feeling afterward. If a woman says they felt uncomfortable with body language that is invading their personal space, I'm going to believe them.
I think you are missing the point of how these women feel and why they feel the way they did about Joe's behavior. These women aren't long time friends of Joe Biden. These women are also not in the same position's of power as Joe Biden. If they feel their space was invaded and that the behavior was unacceptable, then they have the right to feel disgusted towards it. Its not the behaviors themselves that are the issue, its the context of that behavior. And Joe Biden has repeatedly had instances where he had questionable behavior in inappropriate contexts that made women feel uncomfortable. Those are red flags and a reason to investigate an assault claim further.
Any comment on 2:08-2:16 of this video?
What of all the women who've come forward and said his actions made them uncomfortable?
Yeah I don't disagree with you, but my point is not the DNC vs. Bernie (I never even brought him up in the first place.) My point is the DNC vs. voters. Their job is to get democratic candidates into the white house and they are doing an incredibly poor job of mediating that. Consequently we are going to be living under Trump for four more years, is all I am saying.
I mean, this is true but this is also partly due to reforms to the process that Sanders and his crew insisted on back in 2016 because they felt like the debate schedule didn't give contender(s) a fair chance against Clinton and stacked the calendar in favor of incumbents.
So this time the DNC bends over backwards to let anyone in with the thinnest framework for having a bar for entry and people still aren't happy.
If we've learned anything about the post 2008 system it is that the modern system is an abject failure and there is no amount of nibbling around the edges that will make a losing campaign feel like they've been treated fairly.
The DNC still does have the option of what happens at convention. They could, you know... hold a real convention due to the world turning upside down. Let the candidates make their pitch and settle it with votes rather than coronating Biden.
I think we should scrap this primary nonsense and have a nationwide vote. What about all those people that voted for those other moderates and Warren? Unfortunately it would also need to be entirely mail-in because of the coronavirus.
I know that it's likely, but I really, really hope not. Another four years would be devastating, likely for generations because of the supreme court.
I won't feel comfortable until someone else is sitting behind the desk. I live in a social bubble of like-minded individuals and really have no idea what it looks like from an etic perspective.
Biden was unbelievably popular at the time he and Obama left office in 2017. What the fuck happened in the last three years to cause everyone to hate him more than a Clinton?
As someone who voted for Obama twice, I couldn't have cared less about Biden. I honestly didn't know anything about him or his politics until he started a serious campaign recently and I am not a fan of what I've seen. Not to mention the WEIRD behavior he exhibits around children and just in general. It's purely speculation but I'd imagine his popularity then was heavily influenced by his ties to Obama. I will vote for him but I'm not thrilled about it.
Why do you think you can predict the election when so many things are changing?
I don't think we will ever know for sure whether Sanders would do better than Biden. Alternate history is too hard.
I'm some random person on the internet, of course I can't predict the election. However, we are gearing up for to repeat exactly what happened in 2016.
Almost everything has changed. An exact repeat seems rather improbable.
I hope you're right!
It's dangerous to say this even jokingly especially when it was not at all obvious that you were joking initially.
I don't want to belittle what you said but that is absurd. Of course it's okay to joke about. It's obvious the two men are not the same. And its a running joke in politics worldwide that you're always voting between two awful choices. Lighten up.
Of course it’s obvious the two aren’t the same, but many people are saying what you said unironically either because they’re propagandized or intentionally dividing people. You’ll have to excuse me - the humor of “both sides are bad” has been lost on me for at least a decade. A lot of people can’t afford to joke about this stuff especially in an era of extreme disinformation.
I'm sorry, but this is terrible analysis. If you honestly believe that the effects of a Biden administration are the same as the effects of a second Trump term, then you have either not really been watching the last 4 years as institutional norms get shredded, environmental regulations get scrapped, and inequality continues to skyrocket. I completely understand not being satisfied with Biden either as a person or as a politician, but to equate the two is naive at best and malicious at worst.
nevermind overt corruption and senate-approved lawlessness.
To be fair though, after one term of trump I find myself feeling a bit of a bernie-or-bust mindset. Not that I would abstain if I even could vote, but it's really gut-wrenching to see such an uninspired nominee. He's supposed to clean up the mess and rebuild the country, you might as well do it right.
Ah yes, the old "my preferred candidate isn't on the ballot so I'm going to make sure the worst possible candidate wins" mindset. It works out real well.
Stop. This is ridiculous false equivalence.
This "both sides are the same" nonsense is pure cancer. Will people still be saying this when Trump replaces Ginsburg during his hypothetical second term and abortion rights go out the window?
As stated above, it's a joke there guy.
I suspect that this is all the result of a bet between two billionaires. One said, I'll prove that I'm the richest most powerful guy, I'll get reality TV show host Donald Trump elected. A couple years later, they reconvene at the Bohemian Grove and the other billionaire says you did a pretty good job with Trump, but wait till you see what I make the Democrats do this year.
For fuck sake. :(
We need more/better options. Seems like 'no taxation without representation' has become relevant again. I'm not being represented, and it seems like if you aren't wealthy or a captain of industry, neither are you. All of the platitudes about voting strategically just make me want to throw up in my mouth at this point. I've heard that shit my entire life, and guess what? It never works. That's how we got to this point. I've had enough.
If people organize a tax strike or some kind of serious third party ticket I'm so in. I don't hold out much hope of that happening, but we are living in interesting times.
So long Bernie, and thanks for all the rants. <3
This is one of the things that irks me so much. Feels like the true left of the Democratic party is always coerced into voting for whoever the party line candidate is by the promise of a few breadcrumbs of the policy that they want, most of which never materialize. I loved Bernie and, to a lesser extent, Warren because they both seemed like they would actually change something for once.
Unfortunately, the reason our wing of the party has to be coerced into this is because our wing of the party hasn't put forth a candidate that has won a nomination yet. There is only one process and one set of rules for determining a Democratic nominee for president, and even though we could write a thesis on the faults with the nominating system, the progressive candidate clearly lost this cycle. We can't just say, "hey, we've tried your method of nominating the same type of moderate candidate before, let's try our way with a progressive candidate." We actually have to prove that out through the only nominating system we have.
The positive side is that the nominating process can be changed much more easily than say actual voting laws. Progressive Democrats should continue pushing for change from within the party rather than taking this defeat as a reason to throw up our hands.
But the tactic of electing a moderate candidate hasn't really ever worked either.
Carter won, but he was more of a conservative than a moderate, and after the Nixion resignation it is likely any D would have won.
Bill Clinton won as a moderate, but he also didn't really have a progressive challenger. Gore, Kerry, Hillary all failed.
Obama won...by esposing progressive rhetoric.
Trump won...by espousing anti-establishment rhetoric against a moderate candidate.
I'll vote for the helping of shit that's been presented for me, but I fully expect a Trump reelection at this point. And I sure as hell am not going to be happy about it.
The problem is, they aren't. As we saw in 2016, left wing voters didn't turn up to support Clinton, because they would rather live under Trump than suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils.
Politics is literally a game of compromise. Nobody gets everything they want. The best we can possibly do is nudge the system in our preferred direction.
Yes but....If you start from a weak position, your opponents will make it weaker.
True, but first you do need to start from a position that gets you enough support to win an election. Bernie clearly did not do that.
I laid out in a top level post why that isn't true. The only swing states that Trump won and Hillary lost were due to massive R turnout and lackluster D turnout. We got Trump because Hillary was precisely the kind of candidate that Trump was rallying against. Trump would have had far less ammo against Bernie than Hillary, and almost doubly so against Biden. The only swing state that voted prior to Super Tuesday was Iowa, where Biden was non-viable. Super Tuesday doesn't mean anything in the general. But it sure as hell shifted the narrative to Biden being the presumed winner, and typically once that narrative is out there, it sticks. That's why Iowa was so important in the narrative...until Bernie did well and all of a sudden Iowa didn't matter and only Super Tuesday did.
That kind of proves my point, doesn't it? Lackluster D turnout because too many Democrats weren't willing to actually show up and vote for Hilary even though they didn't want Trump to win.
But it's a twofold. Yes, Hillary's numbers were lackluster. But Trumps were stellar. He pulled a lot of record-breaking numbers in various states.
I'd wager Biden doesn't pull Obama numbers....because relying on nostalgia from better times isn't as effective as putting forth a message of your own.
What else are you going to do at this point? The alternative is another four (or more, knowing Trump) years of all of this bullshit.
I'm joining my local Food Not Bombs to provide mutual aid to people in my community. Listening to a lot less outrage bait "news" about what Trump said this time. Got an interesting looking book to read a friend recommended about "emergent strategy."
The only bombs I'm for is seed bombs, baby 😎
At this point I'm having to vote for Biden. I'll be looking for any other options than Trump or Biden and hoping something pops up.
If the libertarians put Yang/Tulsi on their ticket I'd be tempted. They have a vehicle/apparatus and ballot access, they can and do get that third choice out there on the ballot regularly. They are just as disillusioned with modern politics as anyone on the left or right.
Not sure we could have asked for more options when 20+ people ran for the nomination.
How many primaried against Trump? Seems like it was two or three but I can't even remember their names.
Bill Weld and Joe Walsh IIRC.