US Politics: What goes up, must come down!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Are we all just going to skip over the strain named “dolphins choking on garbage?”

[Kalbear]

Just now, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Pretty sure Hillary lost but let me check wikipedia really quick to verify. 

She did. Is her being moderate why she lost? That's what I was contesting. Like, of all the things you could look at in 2016's election, her policy stance being moderate is what you go on as far as 'why she lost'? Please.

[Maithanet]

18 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Who is the right candidate? Warren is running on a substantially identical social democratic platform to Sanders'. Nominating any of the rest of the field (but most especially Bloomberg) asks left-wing voters to take a back seat once again. 

The right candidate is a candidate that at least attempts to appeal to both the center-left and the progressive wings of the party.  Warren, Harris and Castro all attempted this, and for some reason it seems like all of them suffered for it because they became everybody's second choice but had no real constituency.  Which demonstrates to me that people who value "electability" are looking for something different than what I'm looking for.

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

One issue, however, is that Biden isn't likely to depress House candidates. A big fear is that Sanders also depresses the House vote, and gives a full majority to Republicans again. 

I am getting very worried about this.  As bad as Trump 2017-18 with unified Republican control was, Trump 2021-22 with unified Trumpist control would be much much worse. 

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You can reasonably say that about Kerry.

There's a pretty good argument to be made that Kerry vastly exceeded expectations in 2004. He was facing a wartime president (and a war that, in September 2004, 54% of voters still said the war was the right thing to do) with a solid approval rating and a decent economy, and he only lost by a single state. Kerry lost Ohio 50.81%-48.71%, flip that and he would've been president. In fact, he did slightly better in Ohio than he did nationwide; so it was not out of the question that he could've won the electoral college while losing the national popular vote. His campaign honed in on the states he needed to win, and very nearly got it done.

Bill Clinton's approval rating in fall 1996 was only slightly higher than Bush's in fall 2004, yet Kerry did vastly, vastly better than Bob Dole did.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

She did. Is her being moderate why she lost? That's what I was contesting. Like, of all the things you could look at in 2016's election, her policy stance being moderate is what you go on as far as 'why she lost'? Please.

I didn't say it was "why she lost." I said moderates have been botching elections throughout of recent history, and I named Hillary as one of those moderates. My argument is that there is no clear record of moderate policy stances being a major electoral advantage, and in fact there is a long record of moderates losing. Clearly Hillary's moderation, even if we allow that it was an advantage at all, was not enough of one to overcome her deficiencies. That is my only point. If moderates had a screaming record of electoral success, I could defer to their electability claims. They do not.

[Fez]

Oh good. A budget fight.

This is the kinda shit that Democrats suck so bad at highlighting. The Trump Administration is full of monsters; pass the word.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

Oh good. A budget fight.

This is the kinda shit that Democrats suck so bad at highlighting. The Trump Administration is full of monsters; pass the word.

Yup.  Also, this really might be the shock that causes a global recession.  We're due.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

29 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I am getting very worried about this.  As bad as Trump 2017-18 with unified Republican control was, Trump 2021-22 with unified Trumpist control would be much much worse. 

I don’t need to remind you, but it will be even worse than that. If we lose the House, the down ballot impact is going to be terrible and legislatures will be lost. Just what we need, more gerrymandering to help the minority party.

[Rippounet]

28 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I didn’t say no liberal American, I was implying that he won’t have a ton of allies on a lot of his views with regards to left wing socialist and authoritarian governments. Keep in mind, ti fully understand the issue you must see it through the average American’s eyes. The propaganda in this country is still quite strong, and as Mormont mentioned, Sanders is going to get bogged down explaining a lot of his stances and views, many which fall outside of the traditional mainstream.

I understand all that Ty, better than you probably think I might add. But there's a fine line between describing American conservatism and using it as an excuse to either push your own views or dismiss some things as impossible or irrelevant, and lately I'm getting more than a whiff of the latter here.
Now I agree that some things will never happen in the US and I'm willing to partake in the defeatism there, but blaming Sanders for being right about American foreign policy is taking it two steps too far in my book. It's not on Sanders if most Americans are clueless about what their country has done or what socialism means to other peoples, it speaks volumes about his courage that he's not willing to bow to public pressure on that one, and if anyone is not willing to at least understand some of his positions then it's fully on them, and they're the ones who are cowards and knobheads.

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, I want to ridicule you on that, because that's not remotely what you said or what I quoted.

It's absolutely what I was saying, I posted about foreign politics in three messages and even my fourth message, despite a more generic tone to conclude the discussion, was still focused on that. When I wrote "there are things that are almost impossible to defend in the US" I was still thinking about Cuba or Nicaragua. Similarly, when I ended my message by talking about what I see "at work here, in February, on [this] board," I was obviously talking about what liberals here are saying, so your comment on Trumpism was nothing more than a cheap non-sequitur.

Now in a spirit of conciliation I will add that Sanders should be more careful on Cuba, he ought to know that the US media will deliberately lay traps for him on this one. But when you throw Nicaragua in the mix it's a different story. This article for instance, seems to offer a rather balanced account of this point :
https://newrepublic.com/article/154096/making-sense-bernies-sandinista-sympathies

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Ultimately whether or not I agree with Sanders on Nicaragua is incidental, because it is a politically stupid thing to say. It's stupid for Sanders to have a flag of the Soviet Union in his office - for any reason at all - as a politician in the US. It's stupid for him to commend Castro on basically anything unless he's specifically getting something from Castro for the US on it (like Obama was trying to do, and even that wasn't great politically). It's stupid to wish for a worker's revolution in the US if you want to legitimately run for a major office. That is the state of the US, that's been the state of the US since 1917, and wishing it wasn't so isn't going to change it. 

It can't be that stupid since he managed to build an entire political career and become a US Senator while saying all these things. It only looks stupid since he decided to run for president, which is indeed aiming too high with his message/brand. And while I agree that Sanders is unlikely to win and that Warren would have had better chances at pushing the same-ish message, that's not on Sanders. You can blame him for not passing the torch to someone younger, but if you truly think some of his positions on foreign policy have been "idiotic," "stupid," or whatever, then perhaps the problem is not a 78-year old man who's been trying to speak for the oppressed his entire life, although clumsily at times - for a professional politician.

Also, and since this has been said by someone else than me (and who would know far better), one should bear in mind that perspectives on US foreign politics are of interest to everyone, and the way some of Sanders's positions are treated in the US will receive some measure of attention abroad.
All this might seem abstract to most here, but one of my American friends happens to be Salvadoran-American and Sanders's positions on US foreign politics will appeal to him on a deeply personal level. Not all Latinx voters in the US are Cubans who fled the Castro regime... There might be a few, quite a few perhaps even, who will welcome a bit of honesty and sincerity - for once.

 

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Yeah, don’t lay that bullshit at my door. Or the door of any other foreigner. You are where you are because of choices Americans made. Elections matter.

And if your streets are full of homeless people, that’s squarely on the shoulders of Americans.

Who blamed your Canadian snowflakeness?  Nobody here did, that's for sure.  On the contrary, you just irrationally blamed us / me for putting blame of these things upon our national policies and leaders for decades, and informing you -- who said that can't be possible in the USA -- that economically and socially things in this country are just effed.  And you are yelling at us for that? Gee whiz, come on, puleeze.  

[DMC]

2 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Anybody ever get the feeling that the youth vote is so unreliable because Dems consistently nominate candidates with minimal youth appeal?  

If you scroll down that Broockman & Kalla Vox piece, they estimate that Sanders would have to increase youth turnout 6 points from 2008 - 48.4% to 54.4%.  And they intentionally use a measure that historically overestimates youth turnout.  That's a very tall order to ask no matter the nominee's "youth appeal." 

1 hour ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I said moderates have been botching elections throughout of recent history, and I named Hillary as one of those moderates.

Generally, there's a long history of research showing more "extremist" nominees depress their party's share of turnout and increase the opposing party's compared to "moderate" nominees.  I agree that in recent history the losing presidential nominee almost always is the more "milquetoast" nominee.  And I suppose "milquetoast" and "moderate" are correlated.  But they're independent of each other.

34 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I understand all that Ty, better than you probably think I might add. But there's a fine line between describing American conservatism and using it as an excuse to either push your own views or dismiss some things as impossible or irrelevant, and lately I'm getting more than a whiff of the latter here.
Now I agree that some things will never happen in the US and I'm willing to partake in the defeatism there, but blaming Sanders for being right about American foreign policy is taking it two steps too far in my book. It's not on Sanders if most Americans are clueless about what their country has done or what socialism means to other peoples, it speaks volumes about his courage that he's not willing to bow to public pressure on that one, and if anyone is not willing to at least understand some of his positions then it's fully on them, and they're the ones who are cowards and knobheads.

I think there's an important distinction between "blaming" Sanders and recognizing it could be an electoral vulnerability for him due to the historical stupidity of American public opinion on foreign policy.

[Rippounet]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I think there's an important distinction between "blaming" Sanders and recognizing it could be an electoral vulnerability for him due to the historical stupidity of American public opinion on foreign policy.

Certainly. And I only got involved in this because Lollygag's posting multiple links about Sanders seemed to me to be doing the former and not the latter. My original point was that throwing all these links here was completely unnecessary since everyone here must be keenly aware of Sanders's electoral vulnerabilities. Of course, since these threads move faster than a bullet-train, such a simple point quickly got lost in my development(s) and by the time I wrapped up the exchange I wanted to have it probably looked as if I was arguing something different.

[DMC]

Just now, Rippounet said:

And I only got involved in this because Lollygag's posting multiple links about Sanders seemed to me to be doing the former and not the latter.

Oh, agreed.  Yeah I basically ignored that whole thing so must have missed it, my bad.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

I understand all that Ty, better than you probably think I might add. But there's a fine line between describing American conservatism and using it as an excuse to either push your own views or dismiss some things as impossible or irrelevant, and lately I'm getting more than a whiff of the latter here.
Now I agree that some things will never happen in the US and I'm willing to partake in the defeatism there, but blaming Sanders for being right about American foreign policy is taking it two steps too far in my book. It's not on Sanders if most Americans are clueless about what their country has done or what socialism means to other peoples, it speaks volumes about his courage that he's not willing to bow to public pressure on that one, and if anyone is not willing to at least understand some of his positions then it's fully on them, and they're the ones who are cowards and knobheads.

So there’s a few differing things to separate. First, I wasn’t trying to suggest that you don’t understand, just that it requires a different lens. Second, if you want to call Sanders brave politically, I’m not going disagree with that, but at the same time it’s fair to point out that he hasn’t accomplished a lot legislatively (though he has forever changed the party for the better). Lastly, and Kal touched on this before, being right ethically on foreign policy is not the same as being right politically. The more complicated story of Cuba doesn’t sell here, for example. Many older Americans have eaten up the propaganda and nothing will change that. Or take Iran for example. To correctly discuss U.S.-Iran relations, you have to go back to 1953. However, that will never sell politically here because it requires Americans to consider that we’re not perfect and not the best at everything (or anything really, other than gun violence, bang bang!!!).

It’s reductionist, I know, but Americans really aren’t that bright and are grossly ignorant. Like, it wouldn’t even shock me if French teenagers knew more about the U.S. government than teens here, and when people here can’t even grasp some of the basics of politics and government, how are they suppose to understand a lot of what Sanders is selling other then he’s sick and tired of everything.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Triskele said:

Biden says he worked with Deng Xiaoping on the Paris Accord that was signed 19 years after Deng died.  Any chance he means that talks from way previous made it into Paris or just completely insane?

He did just tell a crowd in SC that he’s a candidate for Senate.  

[Zorral]

29 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Many older Americans have eaten up the propaganda and nothing will change that.

They are in the most vulnerable demo for fatality from the virus infection, particularly if they're male . . . .

But don't worry -- it can't happen here! The virus is contained and it's highly HIGHLY unlikely there will be any more infected people in the USA.  However! we need billions taken from programs like those that help with the heating bills of low income households to fight it!  And we are selling your bridges too.  Yay and win-win all the way.  America's GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRt again.

 

[Rippounet]

25 minutes ago, DMC said:

Oh, agreed.  Yeah I basically ignored that whole thing so must have missed it, my bad.

No problem, I think several people missed that I was originally responding to Lollygag... And to be fair, I went on tangents here and there.

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So there’s a few differing things to separate. [...]

Ty, I couldn't agree more, but didn't I acknowledge many of these points about 6 posts above and one hour ago?

Originally, I was just pointing out that Sanders was right ethically, while acknowledging that this was a vulnerability. Like, this is from my post on page 1, when I got involved in this:

Quote

- The election. As a socialist politician, Sanders has over the years been ambiguous over things happening under Castro or Chavez. Of course. And yes, that will cost him votes, probably Florida (though don't Cuban-Americans already vote Republican anyway?), and possibly the election. That's precisely why I thought Warren would be a better candidate, since she comes without that kind of bagagge.

I know I'm walking a fine line by defending some of Sanders's positions while acknowledging that he's not the best for the nomination, but seriously guys, I get it. Bernie is likely to go down in history as another McGovern or Dukkakis. And that'll be bad for everyone, including the Democratic Party.
Since DMC answered a question of mine a few weeks ago about his chances of mobilizing voters in the rust belt I've pretty much accepted that he's toast.

Being rather dispassionate about the whole thing (more than most people here I think) I tend to wonder about how it came to this and what it means for the future. It's not just that the US is conservative anymore, that word isn't strong enough now. If most people don't see that Bernie is a lesser evil compared to Trump I seriously wonder if there's anything to hope from politics anymore. A line of thinking which, paradoxically, makes me like Bernie even more. He'll most probably lose, but he'll have fought for what's right to the very end, in the face of insurmountable odds. I agree he should have sat this one out, found someone younger to carry his legacy, but damn, I really like what he's saying, and if that's not enough for you guys (on this board) then I'm afraid the future will be grim indeed.

[karaddin]

16 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Again this is bullshit. Yeah I'm a bad saver. My rent increases astronomically over the last decade, I live in affordable housing and I have a bachelor and master's degree but fifty percent of my check goes to rent. Yeah fuck me and my budgeting. You have no clue.

The real bullshit, and I'm sure you know this, is that a country as wealthy as the US has as many people living in severe poverty as it does. I'm actually kinda surprised at seeing people even resistant to the idea that there may be a lot of people left behind by the economy. Last I looked even though the job numbers had recovered since the GFC there was a large shift towards minimum wage in a lot of the new jobs which represented a large cut to the middle class.

As an Australian I very much feel like conditions are better here for the employed even when the numbers suggest a better economy in the US. Our unemployment benefit is a different story though. I didn't really get how bad low paying jobs in the US were until I lived there, with my ex getting paid basically minimum wage working in a bank and my work at a software company was paid less than half what I got for comparable work here. And that still left us better off than an awful lot of people.

I do understand the concern that too many Americans won't vote for Sanders, but that just indicates that a lot of [mostly white] Americans would rather vote for a fascist who largely maintains the corrupt economic status quo than risk actual change. It doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of other Americans who have it bad and desperately want that change.

[Jace, Extat]

38 minutes ago, karaddin said:

 

I do understand the concern that too many Americans won't vote for Sanders, but that just indicates that a lot of [mostly white] Americans would rather vote for a fascist who largely maintains the corrupt economic status quo than risk actual change. It doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of other Americans who have it bad and desperately want that change.

And just because those people want wholesale revolution does not a socialist nation make. You just pointed out that the biggest demographics in this country tacitly support fascistic policies.

Personally, I'll start with someone who lets the kids out of the cages and isn't hell bent on accelerating climate change.

The choice Sanders and his rabid fanatics have pushed on us is everything or nothing. They will get nothing. There's no path to these reforms he's promising. No amount of wishful thinking will get Joe Manchin voting M4A. No amount of youthful engagement will see a supermajority in the Senate, if we can get it back at all.

And if Democrats did pass something? Actually managed to produce and pass a bill? Let me tell you about this thing called the Supreme Court. 

[Rippounet]

12 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I'm actually kinda surprised at seeing people even resistant to the idea that there may be a lot of people left behind by the economy. Last I looked even though the job numbers had recovered since the GFC there was a large shift towards minimum wage in a lot of the new jobs which represented a large cut to the middle class.

People underestimate inequality in the US, how it works and what it means, including working-class Americans.

That's why the link posted by Ormond AND Simon's analysis can both be correct. Americans (and I'm saying this seriously) tend to be hard-working and independent, they don't like blaming outside factors for their own woes, that's "un-American." So when you dive in the numbers you realize there's a colossal discrepancy between what people perceive and the reality. In other words, most Americans underestimate how serious poverty is in the US.

I posted this UN report here when it came out:
https://undocs.org/A/HRC/38/33/ADD.1

And this article gives you an overview of the debate (tip of the iceberg I might add):
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/25/trump-team-rebukes-u-n-saying-it-overestimates-extreme-poverty-in-america-by-18-million-people/

It's also worth noting that the Trump administration's policies will make everything worse (of course). Basically the US's GINI coefficient is already one of the worst of all OECD countries and it keeps getting worse. It mostly started in the 1980s under... Reagan (of course).

Why the discrepancy? I personally think the answer is, again, propaganda. Americans are tought that the system is fair, that it rewards hard-working individuals, and that people who don't make it are responsible for their own failures. So when people hit poverty they blame themselves and -weirdly enough- keep thinking the system is fair ; there is also more poor-shaming in the US than in other Western countries.
Even when shit hits the fan (as in 2008) Americans will tend to blame everyone and everything (immigrants, the swamp... etc) except the socio-economic structure itself. Because for all intents and purposes, most people believe that a market-based approach to labor and the economy must be fair. Conservatives even tend to think that the market is natural, the spontaneous order of things, the best way to organize a human society, and that it definitely cannot do wrong. But honestly, even liberals can be reluctant to do more than tinker with the entire system, either because they also believe in its fairness, because they don't see any credible alternatives, or -quite often- a bit of both.

Hey, I did manage to explain anti-capitalism 101 after all, yeah!