Re: The Future of the Democratic Party
Posted: 08 Apr 2020, 1:59pm
Fingers crossed for an inspiring VP candidate - Warren or Abrams really. I'd put good money he's picking Amy to *theoretically* get that midwest vote though.
They're in luck then, as "I insist I am actually alive" appears to be Biden's entire policy platform.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑08 Apr 2020, 1:39pmwhy anti-Trump voters will be more demanding than Trump supporters.
Russia. Duh!Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑08 Apr 2020, 1:24pmOnce again, I want someone to explain—nuts and bolts, not just doomsaying—where Trump is going to get his votes. He finished 3M behind last time and won by the tightest margin in three states. What has changed so dramatically in his favour that makes him winning such a slam dunk now? Will he acquire significant former Democratic voters? Will Democrats who voted in 2016 and 2018 not come out? I want cold analysis here that shows why November is now a foregone conclusion.
At which point I throw up my hands and question whether they truly think Trump is the lesser of two obvious evils. This is not about full-throated support of Biden. As I've said, work to elect him and then work against him whenever he heeds Wall Street. Saying that another four years of Trump is somehow better suggests dubious political acumen.
I don't think four more years of Trump is better, but I don't think that voting for the Dem no matter what has done anything to move the party left. If you demonstrate that you will always vote for the Dem no matter what, I'm not sure why the Dems would have any reason to cater to your needs.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑08 Apr 2020, 2:38pmAt which point I throw up my hands and question whether they truly think Trump is the lesser of two obvious evils. This is not about full-throated support of Biden. As I've said, work to elect him and then work against him whenever he heeds Wall Street. Saying that another four years of Trump is somehow better suggests dubious political acumen.
I'm the same way with Biden re. him being a punching bag, but Trump is also senile and gets away with it. And maybe the greater electorate regards Biden as folksy somehow? I don't get it, but seemingly there's some kind of charm there.Flex wrote: ↑08 Apr 2020, 1:56pmI'll have to let someone with more confidence in predicting the outcome of the election field the rest of this. My gut says Biden is a punching bag waiting to be walked all over, but my experience with this primary season has been that my instincts of what will and won't resonate with the electorate are pretty skewed to my own personal preferences and what I think might be my own left-ish case of Trump Derangement Syndrome where I think his powers of bullying are a lot more compelling to people than they actually may be. But, I dunno. I'd love to hear from someone who's run through more of the numbers - I've really tried to not follow the polling and horse race shit too closely for a while since it was giving me a bad attitude.
In a normal election and against a different candidate, those allegations should be disqualifying, and it's irritating that they emerged so late. But I really do think anti-Trump voters are going to hold their nose on a lot. This election, if the Democrats win, won't be a vote for them so much as against Trump. And I see no evidence that Trump won't keep providing red meat to the anti-Trump side. The issue isn't about shaking his base—that's mostly irrelevant—but which way does he push everyone else. How much does he motivate those outside his base to turn him out?Like, here's an example: Biden has now been (I think credibly) accused of sexual assault. Seems like the sort of thing that Trump will exploit. And even though MAGA deplorables don't give a shit about assaulting women, presumably at least some suburban mom swing voters do. So does Trump have the ability to generate some controversy on whether Biden ssaults women? And if he does, does he benefit from voters starting to believe "lol nothing matters anymore"? Again, my gut says yes on at least the last point - fascism benefits from a belief that they're all bastards so you should just go with the bastard who's there for "you". But, eh, I don't really have any numbers to back any of this up, it's just instinct.
A couple things. Winning the presidency isn't the only game for moving the party to the left. How well do they do growing that caucus in the House? Of course Bernie would be better than Biden to us here, but the presidential nominee isn't the sum total. Second, I keep pointing to history, particularly 1932. FDR didn't run as a welfare state proponent. Hell, he came out as more of a balanced budget candidate than Hoover did. But it's a fallacy to think social events can't move politics. Do we know for certain that Biden wouldn't be receptive to the left flank of the party given events? I'm not saying he would be, only that we can't know for certain. He's a much better gamble, tho, than a second term of Trump. None of this should be taken as pollyannaish. Rather, it's about acknowledging what we don't know—"I could be wrong" has been my intellectual motto since I had the bug awakened in my thirty years—and appreciating that a small chance is better than no chance.eumaas wrote: ↑08 Apr 2020, 2:41pmI don't think four more years of Trump is better, but I don't think that voting for the Dem no matter what has done anything to move the party left. If you demonstrate that you will always vote for the Dem no matter what, I'm not sure why the Dems would have any reason to cater to your needs.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑08 Apr 2020, 2:38pmAt which point I throw up my hands and question whether they truly think Trump is the lesser of two obvious evils. This is not about full-throated support of Biden. As I've said, work to elect him and then work against him whenever he heeds Wall Street. Saying that another four years of Trump is somehow better suggests dubious political acumen.
I still think, in terms of electoral work, spending more time on special district boards, local councils, and school district boards (etc.) would be a better use of people's time than going all-in on major congressional elections. More boring, but both probably more immediately impactful to your local community and also a lot easier to win those elections. Some places do a lot of that, some not so much, but I'd like to see energy push in that direction for people who want to still be involved in election-type work.
I actually do think the presidency is very important for moving the party to the left because it sets the agenda for who the party backs in the other races, and that has a lot to do with where the money is going to go. Since getting involved in electoral politics I've seen how the money machine backs establishment candidates and drowns out left alternatives in the primaries. I mean Cal Cunningham just won the primary here and I don't think it's a coincidence he's flooded with money. I wouldn't be surprised if the small crop of lefties in the Dems end up getting ousted.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑08 Apr 2020, 2:54pmA couple things. Winning the presidency isn't the only game for moving the party to the left. How well do they do growing that caucus in the House? Of course Bernie would be better than Biden to us here, but the presidential nominee isn't the sum total. Second, I keep pointing to history, particularly 1932. FDR didn't run as a welfare state proponent. Hell, he came out as more of a balanced budget candidate than Hoover did. But it's a fallacy to think social events can't move politics. Do we know for certain that Biden wouldn't be receptive to the left flank of the party given events? I'm not saying he would be, only that we can't know for certain. He's a much better gamble, tho, than a second term of Trump. None of this should be taken as pollyannaish. Rather, it's about acknowledging what we don't know—"I could be wrong" has been my intellectual motto since I had the bug awakened in my thirty years—and appreciating that a small chance is better than no chance.eumaas wrote: ↑08 Apr 2020, 2:41pmI don't think four more years of Trump is better, but I don't think that voting for the Dem no matter what has done anything to move the party left. If you demonstrate that you will always vote for the Dem no matter what, I'm not sure why the Dems would have any reason to cater to your needs.Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑08 Apr 2020, 2:38pmAt which point I throw up my hands and question whether they truly think Trump is the lesser of two obvious evils. This is not about full-throated support of Biden. As I've said, work to elect him and then work against him whenever he heeds Wall Street. Saying that another four years of Trump is somehow better suggests dubious political acumen.
Biden is an uninspired choice but for Bernie supporters to boycott or protest vote in this election really seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I unfortunately think this will happen and will help shore up another 4 (or more) years of Trump. I understand being principled to a degree but a boycott will likely eliminate any chance in hell that Socialist ever get anything they want.
Local stuff may be easier in some places but here in Orange County the real estate developers and landlords who run the local Dems have a hard lock on the offices and real progressives/socialists have found it impossible to make much headway, especially on affordable housing, which is the chief problem in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Never underestimate the enemy's power!Flex wrote: ↑08 Apr 2020, 2:58pmI still think, in terms of electoral work, spending more time on special district boards, local councils, and school district boards (etc.) would be a better use of people's time than going all-in on major congressional elections. More boring, but both probably more immediately impactful to your local community and also a lot easier to win those elections. Some places do a lot of that, some not so much, but I'd like to see energy push in that direction for people who want to still be involved in election-type work.
I don't think it's about principled abstention, actually. It's more about demonstrating that not appealing to the left means that you do not gain their votes. That would at least give the Dems some incentive to move left.BostonBeaneater wrote: ↑08 Apr 2020, 3:09pmBiden is an uninspired choice but for Bernie supporters to boycott or protest vote in this election really seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I unfortunately think this will happen and will help shore up another 4 (or more) years of Trump. I understand being principled to a degree but a boycott will likely eliminate any chance in hell that Socialist ever get anything they want.