U.S. Politics: There's Identity Politics, On Many Sides

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Um, yeah, no. 

[Week]

55 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Um, yeah, no. 

Cut off trade with Rusha and Gi-Na. No prob. What's your concern? 

[IamMe90]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Apparently she didn't release it, though that speaks more to her lack of control than anything else. 

 

Pretty bad excuse. You really don't think she had anything to do with it? 

Okay, let's go another route. Say she did, and this was an irrefutable fact. Do you think that this would be okay? Furthermore, if you did, how would  that be any different from the kind of intentional party strife inducement that you've been ascribing to Sanders? 

I think your blinders are on when it comes to Hillary. Her 2008 primary campaign is associated with all sorts of horrible shit against Obama (which I wouldn't associate with Hillary personally) and yet you seem to totally fine with tarring most-to-all Bernie supporters with the same brush. Furthermore, you're not cool with one division of the party (the far left) attacking the other during the campaign if it results in political damage to the party, even though Hillary is doing precisely that here, and for no actual possible reason other than "I told you so."  

 

Like, seriously. Any possible reasons you could possibly come up with  for not wanting Sanders to run, or to drop out earlier than he did, or to not use the campaign rhetoric he did--I can easily put forward  the same reason toward why Hillary shouldn't have put this in her book, except the only difference is that there's no dividend in the latter that doesn't pay out exclusively to the benefit of Hillary et al. 

[IamMe90]

Oh, oh, oh... It's so interesting to see so many "liberals" here deriding Sanders for basically helping to ensure that there was at least one serious alternative to the party in the primary... AKA, democracy. I wonder how many would be singing a similar tune about Hillary had her campaign (and the infamous supporters of it) caused Obama to lose the general in 2008. Thankfully, we'll never know the answer to that. Instead, we'll just have to bear attacks on the character and moral intentions of Bernie Sanders and wide swathes of his supporters, even though most of them towed the line and voted for a candidate with which they weren't satisfied. 

 

Fuq Bernie Bros Tho!! 

 

[James Arryn]

37 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

Oh, oh, oh... It's so interesting to see so many "liberals" here deriding Sanders for basically helping to ensure that there was at least one serious alternative to the party in the primary... AKA, democracy. I wonder how many would be singing a similar tune about Hillary had her campaign (and the infamous supporters of it) caused Obama to lose the general in 2008. Thankfully, we'll never know the answer to that. Instead, we'll just have to bear attacks on the character and moral intentions of Bernie Sanders and wide swathes of his supporters, even though most of them towed the line and voted for a candidate with which they weren't satisfied. 

 

Fuq Bernie Bros Tho!! 

 

Sanders is really only remarkable because Clinton was all but anointed. But that was almost as true her first time around, and I think the Obama experience embittered her and many supporters to the point that they see/saw Sanders as evidence of either Clinton specific hostility or overall gender bias and therefore don't particularly look at his individual merits. He's just the latest symptom. 

And all this happened while Trump was happening. I personally identified more with Sanders' political positions and intensely dislike Clinton's ~ neocon foreign adventurism, but the prospect of the Orange Horror actually winning made me root for Hillary because I too wanted a united front and thought Sanders self-proclaimed anti-christhood...sorry, socialism in America were just too smart too soon for that electorate. Others meanwhile saw Trump's bucket of 'isms' as a timebomb that would go off in the general, but I guess they had a higher opinion of America/Americans than I do.

So I'm sort of in a weird place because my resentment of the Sanders effect is self-servingly hypocritical but not at all fuelled by the same acid drip of many of her traumatized supporters. And while everyone rightfully states that her emails were small beer compared with any of (let alone all of) Trump's string of debacles and scandals I did say at the time that given the profile it clearly had even by the primary, if she was lying about it being absolutely nothing that was our own time-bomb for the general and I'd blame her if it went off and It won. It did and I do. 

But mostly I blame the EC and America's infinite capacity to be so American.

[Shryke]

49 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

Oh, oh, oh... It's so interesting to see so many "liberals" here deriding Sanders for basically helping to ensure that there was at least one serious alternative to the party in the primary... AKA, democracy. I wonder how many would be singing a similar tune about Hillary had her campaign (and the infamous supporters of it) caused Obama to lose the general in 2008. Thankfully, we'll never know the answer to that. Instead, we'll just have to bear attacks on the character and moral intentions of Bernie Sanders and wide swathes of his supporters, even though most of them towed the line and voted for a candidate with which they weren't satisfied. 

 

Fuq Bernie Bros Tho!! 

 

You seem mad. It's funny though that suddenly people who disagree with you are not even liberals anymore. It's the same kind of language Trump uses against the press when they give him bad coverage, so it's lovely to see it coming from you.

People aren't deriding Sanders for running. They are deriding him for sticking around well past when he had already lost and for reinforcing right-wing narratives about his own party's candidate. You know, the kind of shit people criticized Clinton for in 2008.

[Shryke]

23 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Sanders is really only remarkable because Clinton was all but anointed. But that was almost as true her first time around, and I think the Obama experience embittered her and many supporters to the point that they see/saw Sanders as evidence of either Clinton specific hostility or overall gender bias and therefore don't particularly look at his individual merits. He's just the latest symptom. 

And all this happened while Trump was happening. I personally identified more with Sanders' political positions and intensely dislike Clinton's ~ neocon foreign adventurism, but the prospect of the Orange Horror actually winning made me root for Hillary because I too wanted a united front and thought Sanders self-proclaimed anti-christhood...sorry, socialism in America were just too smart too soon for that electorate. Others meanwhile saw Trump's bucket of 'isms' as a timebomb that would go off in the general, but I guess they had a higher opinion of America/Americans than I do.

So I'm sort of in a weird place because my resentment of the Sanders effect is self-servingly hypocritical but not at all fuelled by the same acid drip of many of her traumatized supporters. And while everyone rightfully states that her emails were small beer compared with any of (let alone all of) Trump's string of debacles and scandals I did say at the time that given the profile it clearly had even by the primary, if she was lying about it being absolutely nothing that was our own time-bomb for the general and I'd blame her if it went off and It won. It did and I do. 

But mostly I blame the EC and America's infinite capacity to be so American.

I don't think that's really what happened. I mean, Clinton was the favourite because she'd spent years building her brand and her support within the party. The same was true in 2008 but Obama, unlike Sanders, had also been doing the same and so he started closer to even with her and managed to out-maneuver her on tons of occasions because his campaign staff was just better, along with him having a really great message and slogan and presence and all that.

I don't think her campaign generally saw Sanders himself as evidence of Clinton specific hostility (though I think they saw that and rightly so in many of his supporters). I think they just kinda saw him as a competitor who was never really competitive but just refused to go away. His policy proposals were jokes and he had very little chance quite early in the process but they just couldn't make him go away.

[James Arryn]

8 minutes ago, Shryke said:

I don't think that's really what happened. I mean, Clinton was the favourite because she'd spent years building her brand and her support within the party. The same was true in 2008 but Obama, unlike Sanders, had also been doing the same and so he started closer to even with her and managed to out-maneuver her on tons of occasions because his campaign staff was just better, along with him having a really great message and slogan and presence and all that.

I don't think her campaign generally saw Sanders himself as evidence of Clinton specific hostility (though I think they saw that and rightly so in many of his supporters). I think they just kinda saw him as a competitor who was never really competitive but just refused to go away. His policy proposals were jokes and he had very little chance quite early in the process but they just couldn't make him go away.

To be clear, your distinction is what I actually meant...ie not Sanders himself, but his success was seen so much as either Clinton specific antagonism or overall mysoginy, and therefore it was seen as a symptom w/o being looked at on merit.

l kinda had the same frustration with his 'sticking around', but only out of naked self-serving fear of the Donald happening. TBH it struck me at the time that Clinton supporters' own frustration often came off as a bit condescending and entitled. 

 

[Shryke]

19 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

To be clear, your distinction is what I actually meant...ie not Sanders himself, but his success was seen so much as either Clinton specific antagonism or overall mysoginy, and therefore it was seen as a symptom w/o being looked at on merit.

l kinda had the same frustration with his 'sticking around', but only out of naked self-serving fear of the Donald happening. TBH it struck me at the time that Clinton supporters' own frustration often came off as a bit condescending and entitled. 

 

That's not what I'm saying though. I think they understood he had actual appeal. That while there was Clinton-specific antagonism and misogyny as reasons for people backing him, that was far from the only reason. It's just that I just think they believed his plans were mostly flim-flam and that he didn't have a chance anyway. But they worried about what his attacks were doing but also saw no way to make him go away. And they worried because they understood the appeal of his rhetoric to a lot of people.

[lokisnow]

59 minutes ago, Shryke said:

I think they just kinda saw him as a competitor who was never really competitive but just refused to go away. His policy proposals were jokes and he had very little chance quite early in the process but they just couldn't make him go away.

That's the essence of where Clinton's campaign failed, they could not defeat an exceptionally weak and unserious candidate in Sanders, nor could they with Trump, ultimately.

perhaps the original sin of 2016, is obama trying to set up Clinton to be his Seward, a sec state policy heir to the presidency, rather than allowing his legacy to be carried forward affirmatively by Biden as Bush did for Reagan.

[Hereward]

On 01/09/2017 at 9:47 PM, OldGimletEye said:

3. It’s my understanding that both Australia, Germany and Britain, countries that ranked higher on the 2016 Democracy Index, all allow unlimited campaign contributions.

Just saw this. While it is true that contributions are unlimited in the UK, as long as the donor is eligible and the donation is declared, spending by parties and candidates is highly regulated and at an exceptionally low level compared to the US. The entire spend by all parties and candidates at the last election is lower than what was spent on one local race in the last US election cycle. There are also strict limitations on TV and radio advertising, and coverage, to ensure balance and accuracy. 

[Jo498]

I think it is similar in Germany. Contributions are highly regulated (although there are always loopholes I guess, just read an article about some mysterious foundation contributing a lot to the right wing AfD) and overall the dimensions are tiny compared to the US. The plutocracy is more covert in Europe.

(And a country that is going to elect Merkel for the 4th time should better not be used as an exemplar of democracy, rather than for what can go wrong in democracy...)

[DMC]

So it took Trump less than a day to equivocate on ending DACA:

This is not surprising, considering the feared backlash of actually ending the program coupled with the reality that Congress has 16 years of futility on the issue despite bipartisan support and that's unlikely to change in the next six months.  This about sums up Trump's "legislative" strategy - announce bold policy change, with little to no actual follow up changing policy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Hereward said:

Just saw this. While it is true that contributions are unlimited in the UK, as long as the donor is eligible and the donation is declared, spending by parties and candidates is highly regulated and at an exceptionally low level compared to the US. The entire spend by all parties and candidates at the last election is lower than what was spent on one local race in the last US election cycle. There are also strict limitations on TV and radio advertising, and coverage, to ensure balance and accuracy. 

Honestly, I'd love to see UK style restrictions on campaign advertising in the US.  That is what really jacks up the cost of elections in the US.  

[Yukle]

12 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

(And a country that is going to elect Merkel for the 4th time should better not be used as an exemplar of democracy, rather than for what can go wrong in democracy...)

There are no term limits in Germany, true, but the powers are separated. The Head of State and Head of Government aren't the same person, as is the case in the United States, and it is a much simpler process to remove a Chancellor from office. In fact, doing so also immediately dismisses their entire cabinet, too, for expediency, and a new one must be installed immediately.

There's nothing wrong with a democracy if they re-elect an incumbent. There are a fifteen members of the current United States Congress who have served over 30 years in office, some approaching 60 years.

A democracy allowing re-elections is fine - it's when there are lifetime appointments that democracy fails. After all, an independent but equally powered Judiciary is essential to democracy. This is an area where the USA needs to seriously question why they allow judges to serve for life. A simple rule like Australia's limiting judges to serve only until age 70 may help alleviate this.

[DMC]

10 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Many of the Sanders people didn't end up voting. 

This is not really the case.  Based on Schaffner's recent analysis around 3-5% of Bernie voters didn't end up voting.  This is pretty much exactly the same amount of Hillary primary voters that did not vote in the 2008 general (5 percent) - or even Obama primary voters that didn't vote in the 2008 general (4 percent).  This makes sense - the vast majority of primary voters are going to vote in the general election.  As has been discussed previously, the vast majority of Bernie voters that abandoned Clinton were divided between those that went to Trump (12 percent) and those that went third party (about 9 percent).

5 hours ago, James Arryn said:

So I'm sort of in a weird place because my resentment of the Sanders effect is self-servingly hypocritical but not at all fuelled by the same acid drip of many of her traumatized supporters.

Clinton's issue was ultimately not Sanders - it was with the portion of Sanders supporters (and non-Sanders supporters) that were unlikely to vote for her anyway.  Again, as Schaffner pointed out in the Vox piece, the main difference between Bernie to Trump voters and Bernie-Clinton voters was racial resentment.  These are, generally, the "populists" that propelled Trump to victory - liberal on economic issues and conservative on identity issues.  As Lee Drutman demonstrated a few months ago, this is a substantial portion of the electorate, and they significantly shifted to Trump and the GOP in 2016:

Quote

Of the 29 percent of the electorate that is populist, almost 16 percent were already Republican voters in the 2012 presidential election. Trump kept 93 percent of these populists voting Republican, losing very few to other candidates, and even fewer to Clinton.

Of the remaining 13 percent of the electorate qualifying as populists, about 8 percent of electorate had voted for Obama in 2012, while another 5 percent of the electorate had voted for someone else.

Among those populists who voted for Obama, Clinton did terribly. She held onto only 6 in 10 of these voters (59 percent). Trump picked up 27 percent of these voters, and the remaining 14 percent didn’t vote for either major party candidate.

The bolded effectively means the populist shift resulted in Hillary losing about 5 percent of the electorate - and Trump gaining about 3.5 percent.  That's how you lose an election in the polarized era. 

The other key aspect of Clinton's loss is her comparatively tepid support among liberals.  Liberals account for twice the amount of the electorate compared to conservatives - about 44 percent to about 22 percent.  But Trump held onto conservatives at a substantially greater rate than Clinton held onto liberals:

Quote

However, it is also worth noting that Clinton won only 83.4 percent of liberals, while Trump won 6.3 percent of liberals. By contrast, Trump won 90.2 percent of conservatives, and Clinton won almost no conservatives.

While Clinton relied overwhelmingly on liberals, Trump’s general election support was split evenly between conservatives and populists—of the electorate, 20.4 percent were conservatives who supported Trump, 19.1 percent were populists who supported Trump.

This reflects the lack of enthusiasm for Clinton - and supports the notion that if she had simply held on to that proportion of liberals that supported Obama but either voted third party or stayed home in 2016, she could have weathered the populist shift to Trump and still pulled it off. 

Overall, there was always going to be a substantial faction of the Democratic primary electorate that is anti-Hillary.  This is how Obama got his foot in the door and was able to defeat her in 2008 and it is part of why Sanders enjoyed so much support against an "inevitable" nominee.  Sanders voters are a microcosm of why Clinton lost the general - a coalition between populists that hold racial resentment and liberals that have been lukewarm about Hillary for over a decade (my family and myself included, albeit none of us voted for Sanders).  

The arguments among Sanders supporters that he would have won in the general or Clinton "stole" the primary due to DNC shenanigans is ridiculous.  But it is equally fallacious for Clinton supporters to blame her loss on Sanders.  Sanders' success was a symptom of trends against Clinton and the Democratic party in general, not the cause.  Did he stick around too long?  Sure, that annoyed me at the time.  But there's little to no evidence that that changed the views of the portion of Sanders supporters that were unlikely to support Clinton in the first place.  

Finally, it should be emphasized Clinton should look inward if she's looking to blame someone.  Whether it was overconfidence, laziness, or just because she was bad at it (which, ok, but that doesn't mean you don't even try), she has no one to blame but herself for her lack of campaigning down the stretch.  When you appear not to have enthusiasm in your own candidacy, is it a surprise when others don't either?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 hours ago, James Arryn said:

I think 2016 was Biden's woulda shoulda, if not for his son...perfect foil for Trump. But he's 77 in 2020, is that doable? The more I read about Harris, the less I'm enthused. What are the thoughts on Castro, Franken and Warren?

2016 was likely Biden’s last chance to run, and the same is probably true for Warren. Not sure why you’re down on Harris though. She is one of the Democrats best chances to win. Castro is intriguing, but I’m left wondering whether it helps or hurts that he has a twin brother. Franken would make a good VP pick, but he can’t be at the top of the ticket, and I say that as someone who has indirectly worked for him.

Really at this point, the best looking ticket from my perspective is a combination of Harris and a Congressman named Tim Ryan. That would be a really strong ticket to go up against Trump and Pence.

Also, it looks like it’s all but inevitable that Kasich is going to primary Trump.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

31 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

2016 was likely Biden’s last chance to run, and the same is probably true for Warren. Not sure why you’re down on Harris though. She is one of the Democrats best chances to win. Castro is intriguing, but I’m left wondering whether it helps or hurts that he has a twin brother. Franken would make a good VP pick, but he can’t be at the top of the ticket, and I say that as someone who has indirectly worked for him.

Really at this point, the best looking ticket from my perspective is a combination of Harris and a Congressman named Tim Ryan. That would be a really strong ticket to go up against Trump and Pence.

Also, it looks like it’s all but inevitable that Kasich is going to primary Trump.

Didn't Kasich leave the Republican party?  Evidently not, I could swear I saw an article to that effect last week.

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

2016 was likely Biden’s last chance to run, and the same is probably true for Warren. Not sure why you’re down on Harris though. She is one of the Democrats best chances to win. Castro is intriguing, but I’m left wondering whether it helps or hurts that he has a twin brother. Franken would make a good VP pick, but he can’t be at the top of the ticket, and I say that as someone who has indirectly worked for him.

I'm equally bearish on Biden and Warren.  The former due to voter fatigue and the perception of more of the same, and the latter because I don't think she has the temperament to make a very good president.  I think Franken would be a very interesting candidate but I don't think he'd be likely to garner the broad appeal and enthusiasm I'm looking for.

Warren and/or Sanders are likely to begin as frontrunners, and it will be hard to peel off leftist support from either.  In terms of the more "centrist" wing, I think Booker, Castro, Gillibrand, Harris, and Patrick all have the potential to be outstanding candidates.  We'll see.  Harris' background as a prosecutor is particularly interesting for me - although it also seems to be why the left doesn't like her.  It should be noted there've been multiple reports for awhile that the Obama camp is already pushing hard for Patrick.

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Really at this point, the best looking ticket from my perspective is a combination of Harris and a Congressman named Tim Ryan. That would be a really strong ticket to go up against Trump and Pence.

I like Tim Ryan, but his campaign to oust Pelosi (not to mention his voting history) is not going to endear him to the left.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Didn't Kasich leave the Republican party?  Evidently not, I could swear I saw an article to that effect last week.

No.  There has been talk of him at the top of a unity ticket with Colorado Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper.  That may be what you saw, and is the height of silly season as the notion is ridiculous.