US Politics - Term of surrender? Or is it wise to follow the Dumpty?

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Boris Johnson is a huge ol' piece of shit, but he doesn't have the same kind of control over the courts that Trump wields, and he's the next closest as far as I can tell.

Sure, this sums up the difference institutionally.  We got federalism and a really stupid electoral system.  Both help reinforce the powers of the presidency over your standard prime minister in a PR parliamentary system.  On a public level, though, the entirely fucked up rising sentiment we've seen in the US, we have also seen in Europe.  Is it going to manifest itself in different ways here?  Yeah.  But it'd be silly for any and all European states to think that means they're somehow more secured from the same sentiments.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Sure, this sums up the difference institutionally.  We got federalism and a really stupid electoral system.  Both help reinforce the powers of the presidency over your standard prime minister in a PR parliamentary system.  On a public level, though, the entirely fucked up rising sentiment we've seen in the US, we have also seen in Europe.  Is it going to manifest itself in different ways here?  Yeah.  But it'd be silly for any and all European states to think that means they're somehow more secured from the same sentiments.

Okay, then we're in agreement. I don't see the white nationalist movement as a major practice in the US, but due to how the US political system functions as long as you are the plurality winner in your party, you effectively can wield majority power over the entire nation. Especially if you're Republican - it would be significantly harder to do this as as Democrat due to the requirement of so many different groups vying for support and willing to simply not toe the line if they don't get what they need. 

And that's where I think you see a major difference in failing. The movement is largely the same, and probably based on similar causes, but the effect in the US's case is the entire country being thrown into near civil war and most democratic institutions being effectively turned to autocracy. All the checks and balances in the US system are now suspect or outright failing. We had Dershowitz today claim that being re-elected is in the public interest, so anything you do to help get yourself re-elected is a public good. And this is the standard talking point for fully half of the elected officials in the federal system! Again, the closest thing I've seen so far in any other democracy is in Hungary, where a non-majority has effectively rewritten the system due to judicial appointees and redrawing maps such that a minority rules with an effective supermajority. The US isn't quite there yet, but that's largely due to the blue wave in 2018. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Triskele said:

I do wonder what the Sanders camp would say to that.  I'd guess it'd be back to what someone suggested earlier that within this given dynamic (upstart not even really from the party, officially, coming close to beating the party's chosen candidate) it was an unusually strong turnout.  I'm not necessarily endorsing that, but I think that'd be what they'd say.  

It was definitely more than expected and worked out really well - though as I've pointed out repeatedly it was far more effective in caucus states, and far more effective in whiter states. But still, it wasn't enough, not by a longshot, and if you can't get the turnout for beating Clinton, where are you going to get it to beat Trump? 

The other thing this assumes is that Sanders' support among the non-young is actually constant with respect to other candidates. And that doesn't appear to be a reasonable assumption, any more than Clinton's support from non-white people appears to have been the same as Obama's. The youth have been courted for generations, and the youth have failed to deliver every god damn time. The old people might not be with Sanders, but they also vote more consistently than anyone. Losing 1% of the older voters is equivalent to losing 4% of the youth. Gaining 1% of the youth is equivalent roughly to gaining .25% of the older voters. 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

All the checks and balances in the US system are now suspect or outright failing. We had Dershowitz today claim that being re-elected is in the public interest, so anything you do to help get yourself re-elected is a public good.

Next week I'm going over "Democracy in America."  I assigned them Federalist 51, and Kennan's Long Telegram to emphasize how American "democracy" has been expressed.  But I'm not sure how I talk about checks and balances; separation of powers anymore.  At least with a straight face.  And that's what I do for a living.  Thanks, now I need another drink. 

[Altherion]

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And again, the problem is that if Sanders is talking about improving turnout, why couldn't he beat Clinton?

Because he wasn't just up against Clinton, he was going against the entire Democratic party establishment.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Because he wasn't just up against Clinton, he was going against the entire Democratic party establishment.

Let's say this is true.  If Sanders does not have the backing of the Democratic establishment, doesn't that inherently make him a weaker nominee?

[ThinkerX]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Let's say this is true.  If Sanders does not have the backing of the Democratic establishment, doesn't that inherently make him a weaker nominee?

it is almost like you are saying that given a choice between 'President Sanders' and 'President Trump,' the democratic establishment would, with little hesitation,  choose the latter option.  (President Trump)

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

it is almost like you are saying that given a choice between 'President Sanders' and 'President Trump,' the democratic establishment would, with little hesitation,  choose the latter option.  (President Trump)

Uh, no, that's not at all what I'm saying.  Mobilizing turnout is largely based on activists.  Many activists are employed, one way or another, by the Democratic establishment.  If enthusiasm among "the establishment" is murky for a certain nominee, then that is a weakness for that nominee's electoral prospects.

[Altherion]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Let's say this is true.  If Sanders does not have the backing of the Democratic establishment, doesn't that inherently make him a weaker nominee?

Not necessarily. If a nominee has strong popular support and the establishment does ultimately back him after he is nominated, there is no reason for him to be weaker. In fact, this is exactly what happened with Trump and the Republicans: establishment Republicans strongly disliked Trump in the primary, but most (though not all) of them backed him in the general election and he won despite being up against an establishment candidate on the other side.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

In fact, this is exactly what happened with Trump and the Republicans: establishment Republicans strongly disliked Trump in the primary, but most (though not all) of them backed him in the general election and he won despite being up against an establishment candidate on the other side.

Trump is the right counter-example.  But he didn't win because of establishment support, he won in spite of the lack of it.  And he won by a hair. Can that work for a Democratic nominee?  In terms of the popular vote, sure.  In terms of the EC?  I'm much less certain. 

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Not necessarily. If a nominee has strong popular support and the establishment does ultimately back him after he is nominated, there is no reason for him to be weaker. In fact, this is exactly what happened with Trump and the Republicans: establishment Republicans strongly disliked Trump in the primary, but most (though not all) of them backed him in the general election and he won despite being up against an establishment candidate on the other side.

The problem with this example is that Sanders did not, in fact, win the nomination. Trump did. The comparison is apt, but the actual result indicates that Trump was a stronger candidate. Trump also never trailed in polling, barely ever trailed in delegates, and was a front runner wire-to-wire. 

Sanders lost. 

[DMC]

Gotta say, just from an analyst perspective, that's not really fair to Sanders.  He was taking on HILLARY, basically one-on-one (no, Littlefinger O'Malley doesn't count).  Trump had an open field - his biggest rival from the get-go was Jeb.  And, well, Jeb sucked.  When it ends up that your biggest rival in the primary is someone as unlikeable - and punchable - as Ted Cruz, it's not a fair comparison to competing against the Clintons.

[Kalbear]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Gotta say, just from an analyst perspective, that's not really fair to Sanders.  He was taking on HILLARY, basically one-on-one (no, Littlefinger O'Malley doesn't count).  Trump had an open field - his biggest rival from the get-go was Jeb.  And, well, Jeb sucked.  When it ends up that your biggest rival in the primary is someone as unlikeable - and punchable - as Ted Cruz, it's not a fair comparison to competing against the Clintons.

Sure, but what's his excuse this time for being at 20ish % and losing to Joe Fucking Biden? It always seems like excuse after excuse for why he lost and what went wrong and how everyone's against him, but all I'm starting to hear is reasons why he's not actually a winner, and things we might hear from his concession speech. 

And it's not like he's doing a whole lot to reach out to the rest of the Democratic party groups. Joe Rogan ain't gonna be helping him win South Carolina. 

[DMC]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure, but what's his excuse this time for being at 20ish % and losing to Joe Fucking Biden?

No argument there.  But, voting hasn't started yet.  We'll see, soon.  I don't like it any more than you do, but like Maith said, if it comes down to Biden v Sanders, which is what it looks like......fuck man.  I don't know what my preference is.

[mormont]

The argument that Sanders was sabotaged by the Democratic establishment is not very well substantiated. The worst you can say is that the party establishment aren't very enthused by the idea of Sanders as the nominee, and since he is explicitly running as an anti-establishment candidate, it would be somewhat weird if the establishment were huge fans. Further, there's no evidence of any real substantial attempts to sink his candidacy in any way except those that an explicitly anti-establishment candidate should thrive on, rather than be vulnerable to (ie party establishment figures making sceptical comments about his electability). 

Sanders does, as noted, do reasonably well at appealing to anti-establishment non-voters but in doing so, all he's doing is demonstrating that there aren't enough of them willing to come out and vote to matter at the end of the day. He's a walking demonstration of the weakness of his own strategy. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Clinton was leading Obama 42-23 on Dec 31 2007. Of course, the dynamics there were very different since Obama took SC. Still, even national polls around this time need not have a bearing on the final outcome.

[James Arryn]

Last I checked Biden was still far ahead of anyone else in head to head vs. Trump polls, as unappetizing as that is. There are moments when I think that’s all that really matters.

 

FB- Might as we’ll be married, and not so much moving in...we’ve lived together for ages...but moved out of the house we shared with the other 5 girls. Gonna be a dad...feel distinctly unqualified. 

[James Arryn]

11 hours ago, DMC said:

Meh, that's a weird standard or constraint you're putting on it.  Obviously we've seen democracies fall a hundred years ago, although you're right they didn't have much "democratic tradition" at the time.  But if you're gonna confine it to that, neither do most states.  The UK is obviously going through a concurrent backlash.  In France, there's elements of it too.  Regardless, all are poor comparisons because they are not superpowers post-WWII.  This is where Trump gains traction with lots of people - Europe has relied on the US and has not put in its fair share.  And he's right, it's entirely hypocritical of them to shame our foreign policy while reaping the benefits.  They are, largely, in effect free riders when it comes to any time we all agree (rightly or - mostly - wrongly) military action is necessary.  Other than Canada, it's not like any other countries of the G7 haven't had to deal with this shit - both historically and currently.

To be clear, because I'm sure I'm going to get a lot of whiny responses about this, I'm not saying it's right that the US are the world police.  Just that most of Europe expects the US to be the world police, so then they can sit back and criticize America for doing the exact thing they usually wanted the US to do in the first place.

Yep, certainly.  Never said anything to the contrary.

To the great surprise of no one, I intend on a whiney response when I get some sleep, but the preview would include ideas like ‘inverted process, ie ‘Europe expects’ is a charitable way of looking at them saying ‘if you are going to Truman Doctrine/Suez intervention cop it up et al when it’s only other nation’s interests at stake, they can reasonably call foul when you suddenly get all realpolitik when US interests are at stake’...ie, self-appointed cops might be grudgingly accepted if they have the firepower, but corrupt cops using the badge to feather their nest are inevitably gonna piss everyone else off. 

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I intend on a whiney response when I get some sleep

Heh, look forward to it.

[DMC]

Sorry for the double post, but huh I didn't really think about this until right now - the Iowa caucus is going to be the day after the Super Bowl.  The general expectation remains very high turnout, but that seems like dumb scheduling.  Why not hold it on Tuesday instead?