US Election Thread - Is this heaven? No, it's Iowa

[DanteGabriel]

6 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I've done my best to explain the difference between holding some press conferences and actually taking a case directly to the American people. Obviously you can, like TN, agree to disagree with me on this point.

Let me note, though, that Obama has this year decided to operate differently than he has in the past. Instead of making simply making appeals during press conferences, he is going to the media, and threatening every Democrat that he will withhold his support if they don't get in line on guns. If you don't see what Obama is doing now as distinct from before, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you do see it as distinct, then we both recognize that there is more he could have done in the past.

I think Obama is getting a little more forceful on gun control, but you still have failed to convince me that Sanders can or will do anything different to materialize this popular movement besides, well, making speeches.

Obama made speeches on gun control, and appealed directly to Americans. What has Sanders done besides make speeches? Give me something besides vague platitudes about "building public support" (which sounds a lot like "making speeches"). What does "going to the media" mean, except making speeches while looking into a camera? If Sanders is going to become President and threaten to withhold his support from Democrats who won't get on board with whatever agenda he's pushing, how much is that threat worth coming from a registered Independent with a weaker hold on the Democratic coalition than Obama had?

[TrackerNeil]

9 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

If Sanders is going to become President and threaten to withhold his support from Democrats who won't get on board with whatever agenda he's pushing, how much is that threat worth coming from a registered Independent with a weaker hold on the Democratic coalition than Obama had?

I'm just picturing Barack Obama threatening Heidi Heitkamp, a Democratic senator from a state the Big O lost by twenty points in the same year she won her seat. What would he threaten her with? The scolding of a lifetime? 

[TerraPrime]

Sanders is beholden to big money. Check his donor's list. It's all the major unions.

I am a proud union member and I support unions. But that doesn't take them out of the big money league. We are dwarved now by dark money and super-PACs, but there's still a lot of muscle left, particularly in terms of mobilizing members to turn out to vote.

Also, wait for Sanders to win the nomination, and check his donation sources again. He will not remain pure as driven snow for long. He can't afford to.

This talk of purity in money is exactly the same bullshit that anti-establishment tea party people try to sell you, and the common schtick of the dimestore huskters like Cruz.

So yeah, the whole argument that Sanders is, and will be, less beholden to big monies is fantastically unconvincing to me.

 

As for Clinton's battle-harden status, I will point you to the GOP smear campaign against her that started when Bill Clinton appointed her to lead the welfare reform effort, all through White Water, then resumed with Benghazi, and now continuing through email leaks. That's the type of scrutiny and bullshit she has lived through, and continues to live through. Sanders haven't even gotten a scratch yet from the GOP dirt apparatus. Someone earlier made the point that Kerry, with a purple heart award, was successfully painted as a coward. I'd also thrown in the example of Max Cleland, who lost 3 limbs in a war only to be portrayed as a terrorist-sympathizer. You put a self-avowed socialist up on the stage, and even Reeter Skeeter can watch Netflix and chill while till collecting a paycheck.

 

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

17 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I think Obama is getting a little more forceful on gun control, but you still have failed to convince me that Sanders can or will do anything different to materialize this popular movement besides, well, making speeches.

Obama made speeches on gun control, and appealed directly to Americans. What has Sanders done besides make speeches? Give me something besides vague platitudes about "building public support" (which sounds a lot like "making speeches"). What does "going to the media" mean, except making speeches while looking into a camera? If Sanders is going to become President and threaten to withhold his support from Democrats who won't get on board with whatever agenda he's pushing, how much is that threat worth coming from a registered Independent with a weaker hold on the Democratic coalition than Obama had?

I've made the specific comparison to electoral campaigns multiple times now ("I would hope he would carry on doing what he's doing now"- ie, campaigning). I think most people recognize the level of public engagement during a campaign is significantly greater than just making a speech into a camera.

Re: withholding support. The threat will be worth a lot if Sanders proves he has the support behind him and his platform to sweep him into power and make it matter. For the record, I don't think it's likely that he does, as I said pages ago. Recent discourse has been dominated by theories of change, and I do believe that it is possible for a popular movement to bring about sweeping change (and I'm heartened by the apparent overwhelming support for Sanders' social democratic ideas among young Democrats). I don't accept the counterargument that all we can hope for is backroom deal making that placates corporate interests. In an important sense, the election of any specific candidate is a lagging indicator of the the existence of a popular movement- but it's also important that the candidate recognize their place in it and be prepared to leverage its power. Sanders, who, again, I do not believe will win, understands this.

[TrackerNeil]

2 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Re: withholding support. The threat will be worth a lot if Sanders proves he has the support behind him and his platform to make it matter. For the record, I don't think it's likely that he does, as I said pages ago.

So then you also believe that the political revolution Sanders envisions is unlikely? Great...I am pleased we can agree. I'm focusing on what the next president is likely to be able to do, not on what could possibly happen if unforeseen and unprecedented things occur.

[TerraPrime]

1 minute ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Re: withholding support. The threat will be worth a lot if Sanders proves he has the support behind him and his platform to make it matter. For the record, I don't think it's likely that he does, as I said pages ago. Recent discourse has been dominated by theories of change, and I do believe that it is possible for a popular movement to bring about sweeping change, I don't accept the counterargument that all we can hope for is backroom deal making that placates corporate interests. In an important sense, the election of any specific candidate is a lagging indicator of the the existence of a popular movement- but it's also important that the candidate recognize their place in it and be prepared to leverage its power. Sanders, who, again, I do not believe will win, understands this.

I don't think that things can never change. Things can, for the better (and for the worse).

But I think it is a bit of putting the cart in front of the horse, to envision a Sanders (or Warren) presidency spear-heading this change. While it never hurts to have a charismatic and popular leader at the front of your movement (see MLK Jr), I don't think that's the key to bringing about those changes we probably agree on as required. Electoral reform, districting reform, and safe-guarding voting rights, etc., these will not happen because we have Sanders at the lead pushing for it, but rather, they will succeed if we can manage a sustained and directed effort towards these things, and then, at the end, a Sanders-like president may emerge. 

[TheKitttenGuard]

35 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

This happened without any President advocating for it, and in fact most elected politicians were pretty cowardly on it, so I fail to see how it is relevant to the power of the President. This is a change that came from a popular movement and a cultural change, not because any politicians pushed it.

So, there was a mass movement that pushed it.  The thing that others are saying just does not work. 

I was getting a little scattershot, I supposed.  There can be a question of mass movement within more established political  circles.  

[DanteGabriel]

4 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I've made the specific comparison to electoral campaigns multiple times now ("I would hope he would carry on doing what he's doing now"- ie, campaigning). I think most people recognize the level of public engagement during a campaign is significantly greater than just making a speech into a camera.

Re: withholding support. The threat will be worth a lot if Sanders proves he has the support behind him and his platform to sweep him into power and make it matter. For the record, I don't think it's likely that he does, as I said pages ago. Recent discourse has been dominated by theories of change, and I do believe that it is possible for a popular movement to bring about sweeping change (and I'm heartened by the apparent overwhelming support for Sanders' social democratic ideas among young Democrats). I don't accept the counterargument that all we can hope for is backroom deal making that placates corporate interests. In an important sense, the election of any specific candidate is a lagging indicator of the the existence of a popular movement- but it's also important that the candidate recognize their place in it and be prepared to leverage its power. Sanders, who, again, I do not believe will win, understands this.

I think, frankly, you've been a little disingenuous on the Obama-Sanders comparisons, especially when you write off Obama's gun control efforts as "just holding some press conferences." If a President has ever gotten a divisive piece of legislation passed by "taking the case directly to the American people" (which still sounds vague to me) then please let me know.

How does President Sanders convince Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring a $15 minimum wage or single-payer health care bill to the floor for a vote?

[DanteGabriel]

8 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

So, there was a mass movement that pushed it.  The thing that others are saying just does not work. 

I was getting a little scattershot, I supposed.  There can be a question of mass movement within more established political  circles.  

A mass movement that formed with almost no leadership from elected politicians. This is what we're talking about, since you do seem to get scattered -- can Bernie Sanders create a mass movement in support of the goals he wants (and goals that I very much want too!), such as a big increase in minimum wage, single-payer health care, or meaningful corporate reform?

Mass movements do work, but let me know if you have a surefire way to make a mass movement coalesce around a specific policy goal. One would think a couple of dozen dead white kindergarteners would be enough to catalyze a mass movement for gun control, but no. So how is a President going to create this mass movement?

I have no idea what your last sentence means.

[TheKitttenGuard]

37 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

MThis.

And it's a mistake to think Sanders will be able to spark a grass roots movement in a way Obama couldn't.

A more cynic view is that Obama won in 2008, he had no further interest in the grass roots he built.

[TheKitttenGuard]

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

A mass movement that formed with almost no leadership from elected politicians. This is what we're talking about, since you do seem to get scattered -- can Bernie Sanders create a mass movement in support of the goals he wants (and goals that I very much want too!), such as a big increase in minimum wage, single-payer health care, or meaningful corporate reform?

Mass movements do work, but let me know if you have a surefire way to make a mass movement coalesce around a specific policy goal. One would think a couple of dozen dead white kindergarteners would be enough to catalyze a mass movement for gun control, but no. So how is a President going to create this mass movement?

I have no idea what your last sentence means.

Well, Bernie will need a mass movement to get elected, so it will already be built up.  Now, will Bernie follow up with what was built or allow it to wither and die like Obama did after 2008.

[Altherion]

6 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

If a President has ever gotten a divisive piece of legislation passed by "taking the case directly to the American people" (which still sounds vague to me) then please let me know.

Not just a piece of legislation, but an entire ideology.

Quote

How does President Sanders convince Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring a $15 minimum wage or single-payer health care bill to the floor for a vote?

He probably cannot. But there are plenty of things he can do simply by enforcing laws which already exist and by issuing executive orders. Of course all of this would have been a whole lot easier in 2009 than it will be in 2017, but what's done is done.

[Commodore]

I'm old enough to remember when pushing for policies that can't happen was called a waste of time. 

[TerraPrime]

1 minute ago, Commodore said:

I'm old enough to remember when pushing for policies that can't happen was called a waste of time. 

You mean like the 40+ times when the Republicans tried to repeal the PPACA?

Yeah, that happened such a loooooong time ago.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

So then you also believe that the political revolution Sanders envisions is unlikely? Great...I am pleased we can agree. I'm focusing on what the next president is likely to be able to do, not on what could possibly happen if unforeseen and unprecedented things occur.

I don't think it's likely this year. That doesn't mean it's not worth discussing theories of change, why should it?

1 minute ago, TerraPrime said:

I don't think that things can never change. Things can, for the better (and for the worse).

But I think it is a bit of putting the cart in front of the horse, to envision a Sanders (or Warren) presidency spear-heading this change. While it never hurts to have a charismatic and popular leader at the front of your movement (see MLK Jr), I don't think that's the key to bringing about those changes we probably agree on as required. Electoral reform, districting reform, and safe-guarding voting rights, etc., these will not happen because we have Sanders at the lead pushing for it, but rather, they will succeed if we can manage a sustained and directed effort towards these things, and then, at the end, a Sanders-like president may emerge. 

I basically agree- I just said "the election of any specific candidate is a lagging indicator of the the existence of a popular movement."

But I don't think it's meaningless that Sanders is out there talking about his ideas, either. Leadership can have an impact on popular opinion, and I think Sanders' candidacy has the effect of making it at least a little more likely that a future candidate with similar ideas could succeed.

7 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I think, frankly, you've been a little disingenuous on the Obama-Sanders comparisons, especially when you write off Obama's gun control efforts as "just holding some press conferences." If a President has ever gotten a divisive piece of legislation passed by "taking the case directly to the American people" (which still sounds vague to me) then please let me know.

How does President Sanders convince Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring a $15 minimum wage or single-payer health care bill to the floor for a vote?

It was press conferences and speeches- you're right that "just press conferences" is unfair. The overall distinction stands.

"Taking the case directly to the American people"- FDR, who came into power with a popular movement and new coalition in American politics, was famous for using the novel mass media tools of the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireside_chats#Origin

Roosevelt understood that his administration's success depended upon a favorable dialogue with the electorate — possible only through methods of mass communication — and that the true power of the presidency was the ability to take the initiative. The use of radio for direct appeals was perhaps the most important of FDR's innovations in political communication.[1]:153 Roosevelt’s opponents had control of most newspapers in the 1930s and press reports were under their control and involved their editorial commentary. Historian Betty Houchin Winfield says, "He and his advisers worried that newspapers' biases would affect the news columns and rightly so."[2] Historian Douglas B. Craig says that he, "offered voters a chance to receive information unadulterated by newspaper proprietors' bias" through the new medium of radio.[3]

Roosevelt first used what would become known as fireside chats in 1929 as Governor of New York.[4] He faced a conservative Republican legislature, so during each legislative session he would occasionally address the residents of New York directly.[5] His third gubernatorial address—April 3, 1929, on WGY radio—is cited by Roosevelt biographer Frank Freidel as being the first fireside chat.[5]

In these speeches, Roosevelt appealed to radio listeners for help getting his agenda passed.[4] Letters would pour in following each of these addresses, which helped pressure legislators to pass measures Roosevelt had proposed.[6]

 

[TrackerNeil]

1 minute ago, TerraPrime said:

You mean like the 40+ times when the Republicans tried to repeal the PPACA?

Yeah, that happened such a loooooong time ago.

I was rushing to type this very comment!

[Commodore]

4 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

You mean like the 40+ times when the Republicans tried to repeal the PPACA?

Yeah, that happened such a loooooong time ago.

that's what I was referring to yes, it's suddenly ok if Sanders does it

fwiw I don't think it's a waste of time. It's about moving the Overton Window.

Although I'm not sure having to move the Overton Window as a prerequisite for building a majority coalition is a winning presidential campaign strategy. That foundation needs to be laid much earlier. 

 

[DanteGabriel]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Not just a piece of legislation, but an entire ideology.

All it took was the Great Depression, the threat of violent economic rebellion, and total dominance of Congress!

[Kalbear]

It's an interesting idea to think that what a leader needs to do is address everyone and tell them what's going on. Sanders' constant whining that he's not getting press coverage for his ideas kind of speaks to him not being the right leader for that job, but it's certainly possible. If anyone seems to have captured this movement during this political cycle it's Trump - consistent quick messages, tons of media and rallies, lots of grassroot support. 

Quote

I don't think it's likely this year. That doesn't mean it's not worth discussing theories of change, why should it?

It also means that Clinton might be a better leader for that job. Having a leader that can recognize when the wind turns and turn with it (as Obama did with gay marriage) is fairly important too. Especially one that will otherwise be fairly effective in their goals. Having an ineffective leader support your causes can taint the well fairly badly, as we saw with Carter. 

[DanteGabriel]

6 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

"Taking the case directly to the American people"- FDR, who came into power with a popular movement and new coalition in American politics, was famous for using the novel mass media tools of the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireside_chats#Origin

FDR did make great use of radio. Was there a Fox Radio with associated media apparatus that constituted the primary source of news (and, increasingly, view of reality) for roughly half the electorate that demonized FDR and convinced people that any cooperation with him was equivalent to dealing with the Devil?

What equivalent tool does Obama have that will capture a vastly more fragmented and distracted public? Reddit chats? I thought making speeches in front of a camera wasn't enough.