Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martell Spy

U.S. Politics: Self Medicating

Recommended Posts

Yeah I'm sure most if not all of you don't mean it the way it sounds, but the gist of the last few pages seems to be "Black Democrat voters aren't smart enough to vote as they should, lets dismiss the whole thing were they all voted for Biden".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Yeah I'm sure most if not all of you don't mean it the way it sounds, but the gist of the last few pages seems to be "Black Democrat voters aren't smart enough to vote as they should, lets dismiss the whole thing were they all voted for Biden".

But that's what Biden just said: "Black voters who don't know whether to vote for me ain't black". So should we trust the black voters who voted for him, and conclude he must be a good candidate, which means we should believe what he said about black voters, and thereby mistrust black voters who vote against him? Either way you slice it, you have to dismiss some black voters.

(Also, all black voters did not vote for Biden).

Edited by dbergkvist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dbergkvist said:

But that's what Biden just said: "Black voters who don't know whether to vote for me ain't black". So should we trust the black voters who voted for him, and conclude he must be a good candidate, which means we should believe what he said about black voters, and thereby mistrust black voters who vote against him? Either way you slice it, you have to dismiss some black voters.

(Also, all black voters did not vote for Biden).

I believe he meant him vs Trump, but there was an argument a few pages back about how Biden got more votes from the BC then anyone else and it was dismissed by a few people in what I found a very insulting way.

Not that Biden should have said that and it isn't a WTF moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Yeah I'm sure most if not all of you don't mean it the way it sounds, but the gist of the last few pages seems to be "Black Democrat voters aren't smart enough to vote as they should, lets dismiss the whole thing were they all voted for Biden".

Personally, I'm saying that a large portion of the voter base is prioritizing the short term (feeling safe and protected from the bad man), over their long term interests. This is not exclusively a black issue, blacks were important to Joe Biden, but they were not the only ones who voted for him. There were plenty of white, Asian, Latino voters who also voted for him.

For the record, there are plenty of reasons why black voters, especially older black voters, were supporting Biden. The reason (put forth by numerous black writers) that has resonated with me the most is that a large proportion of them lived through the civil rights movement, or their parents did, and they saw what they had to do to claw those rights back. It is entirely unsurprising that they would prioritize going with the person they saw as most likely to win over someone who was more inline with their actual ideology. If you are able to back the winning horse, you have a seat at the table, and if you have a seat at the table, you are able to further your interests.

Additionally, there is not so much a race gap so much as an age gap, Bernie won younger black voters, it's just that like all young voters, they don't turn out in equal numbers to older voters.

Additionally, there is a regional difference, namely in the south, where black voters are a larger percentage of the population, Biden won big, elsewhere, the difference wasn't quite as pronounced, with Bernie still losing overall, but not by the same margins.

I think their calculation that Biden winning will be beneficial in the long term is wrong, but that has nothing to do with them not being smart enough, that is down to a difference of perspective.

Edited by GrimTuesday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Of course he meant Trump, but so what? He is of the opinion that black people who don't vote the way he like are idiots who don't know what's good for them. If we agree with Biden on this, that means that I have every right to equally dismiss primary voters who didn't vote the way I wanted (as I think that Biden is doomed to lose, so voting for him in the primary is equivalent to voting for Trump in the general). And if we disagree with Biden, it follows that the people who voted for him must have made a mistake in voting for him.

Edited by dbergkvist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

I have a lot of gripes with Obama,  But- his name on the ballot got democrats both houses of Congress. And the ACA, while a poor excuse for healthcare reform overall was huge in that it protected people with preexisting conditions. As one of those people- it is life saving, life changing, the single most impactful for me piece of legislation passed in my lifetime. There are a lot more of us than you think and thousands more of us still alive today because of that bill.

Wasn't it something like a thousand state level seats over the course of two terms. Add to that both houses of Congress lost and he couldn't fill his last supreme court seat. Why? His party lost too much power and lacked effective leadership.

I'll give you preexisting conditions but given how much the law has been gutted since it has passed how much longer is that going to last? For.that matter was that bill worth a decade political isolation?

Hindsight is 20/20 but smarter move in 2009 might have been to push for DC and Puerto Rico statehood. He probably keeps the senate, gets his last court seat and someone bolder than Gorsich to boot. Don't think that's possible how about using your super majority to aggressively fight the recession, fight the big banks and run on that message. Also don't dismantle your online machine of voters, fundraising and volunteers in 2009. That might have helped stem the bloodbath in the years ahead. Instead he spends his capital on a bill that will be quickly starved of funding and undone by the next administration.

By 2011 he has no Congress left, no idea how to rally support at the local level. All he can do is sign executive  orders that will be quickly undone by the next administration.

Loved the guy but acquiring and using power was not his thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Triskele said:

On the whole Biden, "ain't black" affair:

Did anyone bring up in the always fast-moving thread that Hannah Nicole-Jones of NYT's 1619 project, if I understand correctly, tweeted but then deleted something the upshot of which was "What Biden said is true, and we're all kidding ourselves if we say otherwise."  I say this not to condone or condemn, but to point out that however inelegant or tactically wise or unwise it was from Biden it is something that I think a ton of black folks mostly agree with and just an opiate of a story that media would obviously not stay away from.  

A bit of an anecdote, but Clarence Thomas has also said something to the effect that this is what many black people believe. (As in, people are telling him not merely that they disagree with his position of the US constitution etc, but that he shouldn't make the interpretation that he does, specifically because he's black). But I don't know how common this viewpoint is; I doubt that Clarence Thomas has made a scientific study on the subject.

Edited by dbergkvist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Was it Obama's fault that the GOP had a massive year in 2010?  I hardly think so.  I think that a lot of 2008 voters thought the work was done which sucks plus then the very fired up GOP base to vote in those midterms like crazy.  Did anyone see the evil genius ratfucking of 2010 for future years coming before that election?  Probably not, but would it have mattered one bit if they had?  

It was somewhat Obama's fault that he prioritized using all his political capital on the ACA, but more importantly it was entirely Obama's fault that he replaced Howard Dean with DWS and let her do her thing without any real input or guidance or pushback. 

15 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Given that Obama will won re-election and in decently handy fashion in 2012 the fact that they lost so much at the lower levels feels a bit like the work of greater forces.  

It's that the dem party prioritized winning reelection over literally everything else. 

15 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Did the Dems have a genius strategy in the 2018 midterms or was it kinda sort the inverse of 2010?  The latter seems likelier to me. 

It's probably neither - it's that Trump is really, really hated by a whole lot of people.

15 minutes ago, Triskele said:

So to summarize I think that "Obama led the Dems so poorly," while I'm not saying there's nothing there, I think is also a bit of a huge bit of circumstance in that the GOP was always virtually guaranteed to have a big 2010 and then they ratfucked that particular year to great advantage which paid dividends for years after.  On the latter, that is not newly-elected Obama's job to deal with.  

He is the leader of the Democratic party at that point; it is literally his job to deal with that. And he didn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It was somewhat Obama's fault that he prioritized using all his political capital on the ACA,

That was what my undergrad thesis was directly about.

Thanks Obama, literally! 

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Now I has curious.  

What alternative did you argue for?

 

It was about political capital, and how people should not overestimate theirs when they win. 

ETA: Read this, ape. It's where I began:

http://people.tamu.edu/~b-wood/Presidency/Dahl.pdf

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

It was about political capital, and how people should not overestimate theirs when they win. 

Should have just written about how Joseph Lieberman should have been beaten into submission and/or sent of the first suitless space walk. That would have freed up some serious political capital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's that the dem party prioritized winning reelection over literally everything else. 

I don't mean to pick on Kal - I actually agree with much of your post - but this is just..so, now we're blaming a president and his party for prioritizing his own reelection?  Reading the last page of "thanks, Obama" criticism is surreal.  Did I travel back in time ten years?  Anyone that thinks Obama is/was politically incompetent has zero understanding of politics.  Did he make mistakes?  Sure! 

The most glaring, as has been mentioned, is his stewardship over the DNC.  And not just installing DWS - the fact Anita Dunn's firm, SKDKnickerbocker, was still on the payroll in 2016 is some combination of gross neglect, incompetence and corruption.  I was also frequently frustrated with his tendency to defer to Congress, particularly in his first two years where he had a huge members advantage (and when most meaningful legislation is passed for any president).  To this day I think he should have made a much stronger push for an energy/environmental bill rather than allowing Pelosi to pass a cap and trade bill that was DOA in the Senate.  Another correlated problem I always had with him was he liked to portray himself as "above the fray" too much which led to not stacking the courts during his first term.  Albeit responsibility there is shared with the Senate Dem leadership of Harry Reid and Dick Durbin, otherwise known as the feckless milquetoast duo.

But bringing up the ~1000 seats Obama "lost" during his tenure isn't even revisionist history, it's just dumb history.  Obama came in on the strength of not one but two straight "wave" elections.  The Democratic strength in officeholders was literally at maximum capacity.  The Dems were always going to lose a considerable amount of seats during his tenure - without even taking into account the fact presidents almost always lose seats in Congress during midterm cycles.

As for blaming him for choosing Biden, just...wow.  Obama had to pick a safe white guy - literally everyone agreed on that at the time.  The other two finalists were Evan Bayh and Tim Kaine.  Anyone rather have them?  Frankly, Biden is clearly the most "progressive" or leftist of the three.  Moreover, Obama knew going in that Hillary was going to run again in 8 years - if not 4 against himself.  Nominating someone that looked good to takeover in 2016 would have royally pissed off the Clintons, who still were quite influential within the party at the time.  THAT would have been politically incompetent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I didn’t know what this was either.  I couldn’t stand waiting for the explanation any longer so I looked it up, and of course there’s a Vox explainer on it.  

Thanks.  That is...very strange.  Kinda surprised I missed that, kinda happy I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Should have just written about how Joseph Lieberman should have been beaten into submission and/or sent of the first suitless space walk. That would have freed up some serious political capital.

No, that's not exactly how things work.

But if he was fired. Out of a cannon. Into the sun, I wouldn't be sad.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't had much to say about the Biden gaffe, but this talk about Obama and 2008 made me realize that I haven't heard Dems talk much about what their vision is for the near term and how they'll rebuild the country after kicking out Trump.

I'm worried that Biden will make the same mistakes Obama did in the aftermath of the GFC. I heard Biden on a talk show recently saying that he would appoint Republicans to his Cabinet. I can't think of a single Republican that I would want in his Cabinet. Democrats, if they win the Presidency and the Senate, need to be prepared to consolidate power. I'm not convinced that there's a plan to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I haven't had much to say about the Biden gaffe, but this talk about Obama and 2008 made me realize that I haven't heard Dems talk much about what their vision is for the near term and how they'll rebuild the country after kicking out Trump.

I'm worried that Biden will make the same mistakes Obama did in the aftermath of the GFC. I heard Biden on a talk show recently saying that he would appoint Republicans to his Cabinet. I can't think of a single Republican that I would want in his Cabinet. Democrats, if they win the Presidency and the Senate, need to be prepared to consolidate power. I'm not convinced that there's a plan to do so.

Eh. The whole cross-cabinet thing is meaningless. It's the kind of thing that still sounds good to certain voters, so why not say it? I'm sure Biden could find some harmless anti-Trump retired Republican congressman to be Commerce Secretary or something. 

Pre-Trump, it was normal to have one cabinet Secretary from the opposite party. Obama had Robert Gates and Chuck Hagel; Bush had Norman Mineta; Clinton had William Cohen; H.W. Bush had Lauro Cavazos; Reagan had William Bennett; and so on back all the way to FDR naming a Republican as Treasury Secretary in 1933. Gerald Ford was the only president since who didn't have at least one; until Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm worried that Biden will make the same mistakes Obama did in the aftermath of the GFC. I heard Biden on a talk show recently saying that he would appoint Republicans to his Cabinet. I can't think of a single Republican that I would want in his Cabinet. Democrats, if they win the Presidency and the Senate, need to be prepared to consolidate power. I'm not convinced that there's a plan to do so.

This is one of my pet peeves as a typical non-falsifiable complaint that a candidate should have "more vision."  More vision to do what exactly?  What precisely is Biden supposed to be pushing that he isn't - and why would articulating such a plan actually enhance its chances of success?  The response is usually "well that's not my job to figure out," which I guess is fair, but it dismisses the fact that those whose job it is would love to emphasize some strategy that would ensure more policy outcome success once taking power - if only it existed. 

And, like Fez said, saying you'll appoint a GOP cabinet member is a gesture that can only help him with voters.  And so is actually doing it.  There's plenty of departments where you can place a nominal Republican at the top of with minimal, if any, actual policymaking harm done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that's bullshit. If Biden wins, and Democrats take the Senate, Republicans will launch an obstruction campaign that will make their GFC obstructionism look tame, and they'll be doing it during the likely 2nd wave of a pandemic which will probably be worse than the one we just experienced. They'll be doing with double digit unemployment and a possible depression. I think it's not beyond the pale to ask what Dems plan to do to counter that. Pack the courts? Abolish the filibuster? We need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2020 at 12:37 AM, Tywin et al. said:

Oh, also, the guy who voiced the character who I believe has the greatest arc ever in anime wrote me a little message when he signed my poster at an event when I was a kid. I still have the thing framed, somewhere.

Sorry to throw back to the off topic conversation, but...Dante Basco?

7 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Saying the problem is with the voters instead of the candidate is a good way to carry moral certitude into a long period of political powerlessness.

I think it's fair to say that the problem is with Bernie for why he couldn't convince more voters, however I do think there is a point to be made that the problem is with voters that from a large field which included a great many better options than Biden the voters still picked Biden. My answer to this would not be any reduction in democracy though, please don't parse it that way. And I suspect the reason why is already answered in this thread, the overwhelming fear of more Trump pushed people to pick who they felt was the safest bet. I disagree with them, but that perception of safeness is self reinforcing in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Triskele said:

This is very interesting, and I suspect where you're coming from is the whole "During Obama the Dems lost X number of state houses, etc..."

I have seen some of the arguments as to why this is a fair criticism, but I think there's a counterargument that doesn't get enough attention which is the cyclical nature of our politics combined with the ratfucking of 2010.  

Was it Obama's fault that the GOP had a massive year in 2010?  I hardly think so.  I think that a lot of 2008 voters thought the work was done which sucks plus then the very fired up GOP base to vote in those midterms like crazy.  Did anyone see the evil genius ratfucking of 2010 for future years coming before that election?  Probably not, but would it have mattered one bit if they had?  

Given that Obama will won re-election and in decently handy fashion in 2012 the fact that they lost so much at the lower levels feels a bit like the work of greater forces.  

Did the Dems have a genius strategy in the 2018 midterms or was it kinda sort the inverse of 2010?  The latter seems likelier to me.  

So to summarize I think that "Obama led the Dems so poorly," while I'm not saying there's nothing there, I think is also a bit of a huge bit of circumstance in that the GOP was always virtually guaranteed to have a big 2010 and then they ratfucked that particular year to great advantage which paid dividends for years after.  On the latter, that is not newly-elected Obama's job to deal with.  

 

Fair points. It's true that the first term midterm often serves as a correction against the president. I can forgive 2010 but wow what a scale of a loss and it just never stopped.  What happened in the early twenty teens goes well beyond correction. I think part of the problem was he never saw the opposition's true colors and was never willing to risk his legacy it it meant playing with brass knuckles.

Your post reminded me of the night Obama won reelection and I can vividly remember Maddow's smug face as the returns came in. She was so chipper. Meanwhile all I wanted to know is how MI state returns went. Not good. Republicans still controlled the legislature. Right to work laws soon passed. Flint would soon be poisoned. But Obama won a second term so liberal world was supposed to be overjoyed. Never mind that Congress hadnt changed and nothing of consequence would pass for four years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...