US Politics: Birthing Again

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

I've never seen a study on perceived condescension - albeit that doesn't mean it's not out there, especially if it came out recently (haven't been too diligent on keeping up with the political behavior lit the past 3 or 4 years).  Trying to think of any that would kinda be like that..maybe on specific politicians, yes, but nothing like an overall comparison of something like "do you find Democratic speakers tend to be more condescending than Republican speakers, generally," which I think is what you're asking about.

You gotta admit, that's a pretty funny auto-correct error on my part.

And yes, that's specifically what I'm asking about. Think about the studies where identical resumes are submitted, with one having a generic white name and one having what would appear to be a traditional African-American name, and how the applicant with the white name was significantly more likely to get called back for an interview. Think about it the same way with a liberal and conservative speaker. If they said the same thing, how would people respond in a lab setting? I know how I feel, but I'm curious if you have any insight.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

You gotta admit, that's a pretty funny auto-correct error on my part.

I thought of making fun of the error, but I thought that would just highlight my own tendency towards condensation.

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Think about it the same way with a liberal and conservative speaker. If they said the same thing, how would people respond in a lab setting? I know how I feel, but I'm curious if you have any insight.

Yeah, it's certainly an interesting premise for a research design, I just don't know.  What would my priors be?  I mean, first of all, once controlling for partisanship there's obviously not going to be too much of an effect, so really we're mostly just asking about the 7-10% of actual swing voters.  My expectation would be that among that group, yes, they would tend to find the Dem speaker to be more condescending than the GOP speaker, all else being equal.  On the flip side, they also would probably report the Dem speaker to be more educated and eloquent even when delivering the exact same text.

[fionwe1987]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

 That being said, while I definitely agree with many that due to polarization Biden's "strength" in backdoor dealing will not ultimately matter much in passing legislation or persuading GOP members, that skill should not be completely discounted.  

No, especially because he also will have to negotiate with the Left. Both the Sanders-Biden task forces, and the regular calls with and adoption of some plans of Warren show that whole Biden may not have to use his dealing skills and political intelligence with the GOP much because they won't be receptive, he may have some ability to keep the Democratic coalition together.

This is a luxury problem to have, but if the Dems get the trifecta, they'll have a bunch of stuff they want to pass. The coronavirus is a priority, but what comes after that?

I can see Warren pushing for her anti-corruption bill, Sanders pushing on healthcare, or maybe he reads the lay of the land and pushes for the Green New Deal. And then there's whatever tweaks to Obamacare+public option they want to do, and definitely criminal justice reform, immigration reform and...

Man that's a lot of priorities. It's built up due to the governmental vaccum of the past four years. But since it'll be hard to get through all of it, the fractious caucus is gonna need some fairly skilled negotiation to manage. Pelosi will do her part, but Biden's gonna have his work cut out.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

Man that's a lot of priorities. It's built up due to the governmental vaccum of the past four years. But since it'll be hard to get through all of it, the fractious caucus is gonna need some fairly skilled negotiation to manage. Pelosi will do her part, but Biden's gonna have his work cut out.

This is true, but I think only emphasizes Biden's strength in comparison to the last two Dem presidents, particularly Clinton, who infamously squandered a golden opportunity to pass his agenda by being too insular, alienating Dem leaders to his right and left, and being unable to unite the party during first two years.  Obama did a better job of that, particularly be being much more deferential to congressional leaders in his first two years, but there's an argument to be made that his tendency to try and be above the fray also hampered successful advancement of his legislative agenda. 

As the article notes, Biden's political style is much more in the tradition of FDR and LBJ, which I think makes him better equipped to unite the party than either Clinton or Obama were.  Even dealing with the left, look at how his personal relationship has led to Bernie at least getting on board with the campaign.  I suspect if Obama was in the same situation (he really wasn't when elected, the new left had not emerged at the time and he was the darling of the left just because he wasn't Hillary - they basically gave him a pass on the clear ideological/policy differences), there would be more animus between the two camps because of the Obama team's perceived arrogance/disrespect/dismissiveness.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

31 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah, it's certainly an interesting premise for a research design, I just don't know.  What would my priors be?  I mean, first of all, once controlling for partisanship there's obviously not going to be too much of an effect, so really we're mostly just asking about the 7-10% of actual swing voters.  My expectation would be that among that group, yes, they would tend to find the Dem speaker to be more condescending than the GOP speaker, all else being equal.  On the flip side, they also would probably report the Dem speaker to be more educated and eloquent even when delivering the exact same text.

I agree with your expectations. An additional thing I have no idea how to control for is religious leanings. But regarding the bolded, the percentage is significantly more than what swung 2016. It's something that may be worth studying, given the margins from last time. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

An additional thing I have no idea how to control for is religious leanings. But regarding the bolded, the percentage is significantly more than what swung 2016. It's something that may be worth studying, given the margins from last time. 

Well that shouldn't be too hard - just include a couple items on religious identification and religiosity.  As for what the percentage of actual swing voters, yeah sure that can be debated all day.  I'm confident in saying it's still at least 5 percent but definitely no more than 10 percent.

[fionwe1987]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

This is true, but I think only emphasizes Biden's strength in comparison to the last two Dem presidents, particularly Clinton, who infamously squandered a golden opportunity to pass his agenda by being too insular, alienating Dem leaders to his right and left, and being unable to unite the party during first two years.  Obama did a better job of that, particularly be being much more deferential to congressional leaders in his first two years, but there's an argument to be made that his tendency to try and be above the fray also hampered successful advancement of his legislative agenda. 

As the article notes, Biden's political style is much more in the tradition of FDR and LBJ, which I think makes him better equipped to unite the party than either Clinton or Obama were.  Even dealing with the left, look at how his personal relationship has led to Bernie at least getting on board with the campaign.  I suspect if Obama was in the same situation (he really wasn't when elected, the new left had not emerged at the time and he was the darling of the left just because he wasn't Hillary - they basically gave him a pass on the clear ideological/policy differences), there would be more animus between the two camps because of the Obama team's perceived arrogance/disrespect/dismissiveness.

Yes. And Biden not having to go around giving fundraiser speeches has helped too, I think. He spent time on the task forces, the VP search.

I'm sure a transition team announcement will come soon.

If they're really clever, they'll roll out some big name Cabinet posts during the convention, especially those posts which they can use the vetting process of the VP search to fill. Imagine announcing Susan Rice for State, Duckworth for Defense and maybe Abrams for Homeland Security. They can't announce Warren for Treasury even if they plan to do that, of course, but there's plenty of other places they can make some strategic announcements. Then those folks become part of the campaign as they now will get media questions whenever an issue related to their field comes up.

Wishful thinking, probably, but I hope they adjust their thinking so they can hit the ground winning if they win. 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, fionwe1987 said:

If they're really clever, they'll roll out some big name Cabinet posts during the convention

I'm of two minds on announcing Cabinet picks before the election.  It's hard to tell whether the pros outweigh the cons, or vice versa.  My largest concern, though, is that it broadens who's being scrutinized.  So now any negatives pertaining to Rice, Duckworth, or Abrams all become a negative for the campaign.  Whereas, how much benefit are they really giving you?  Are more people gonna vote for you if they know you intend to make Susan Rice SoS?  I'm skeptical.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm of two minds on announcing Cabinet picks before the election.  It's hard to tell whether the pros outweigh the cons, or vice versa. 

There's no net gain imho. Whom would you motivate with that? More left leaning voters? The orange should suffice for that. Biden's biggest selling point is him being moderate and palatable to unhappy Republican voters. So announcing Warren will be put in charge of a department does very little on that end, rather the opposite.

27 minutes ago, DMC said:

look at how his personal relationship has led to Bernie at least getting on board with the campaign.

TBF Bernie was also onboard with Clinton, and pushed her platform quite a bit to the left. So it's not like Sanders pulled a Cartman (Screw you guys. I am going home.) four years ago. That's why I always thought, that the antagonizing of Sanders over HRC's defeat by some boarders has always been misplaced.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

TBF Bernie was also onboard with Clinton, and pushed her platform quite a bit to the left.

There was definitely more antipathy between Bernie and Hillary - for each other to their staffs to their supporter in the electorate - than there is between Bernie and Biden.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, DMC said:

There was definitely more antipathy between Bernie and Hillary - for each other to their staffs to their supporter in the electorate - than there is between Bernie and Biden.

Arguably, yes. But he and his team worked on the policy platform all the same, and he was campaigning for her and was basically the MC at her coronation at their national convention. So he was really not sitting on the sidelines. As for Hillary vs. Biden, I am not sure, how much it actually has to do with their actual selves, in contrast to their media depiction. As Obama (I think it was him) pointed out, there's a stark contrast between the real Hillary, and the one from the media. And Joe really has even less stakes in Bill's shenanigans than Hillary had (less than zero, if you will).

[DMC]

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Arguably, yes. But he and his team worked on the policy platform all the same

My point was not to disparage Bernie in any way, but rather to point out how Biden can be a better coalition builder than Obama or both Clintons, who all tend to be more technocratic and dismissive of they think that don't measure up whereas Biden is much more conciliatory.  I also have no idea what "Bill's shenanigans" have to do about anything that's been discussed.

[GrimTuesday]

Just another  little reminder that the Lincoln Project is not our friends, just in case you need it,

 

 

[Fragile Bird]

12 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Just another  little reminder that the Lincoln Project is not our friends, just in case you need it,

 

 

I’m missing something here.

You know congress can do nothing about the way the USPS is being run by Trump and his toady, right? Public scrutiny and the resultant anger over stuff being done has stopped a few things, like the removal of mailboxes in 14 western states, but you can be damn sure the undermining continues. If UPS and Fedex step into the breech of course that would be helpful, especially if they do it for free. What a great way to tell a big shareholder to go fuck himself.

[GrimTuesday]

2 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I’m missing something here.

You know congress can do nothing about the way the USPS is being run by Trump and his toady, right? Public scrutiny and the resultant anger over stuff being done has stopped a few things, like the removal of mailboxes in 14 western states, but you can be damn sure the undermining continues. If UPS and Fedex step into the breech of course that would be helpful, especially if they do it for free. What a great way to tell a big shareholder to go fuck himself.

Of course I do, the issue is these are the exact people who fucked over the Post Office back in the early 2000s and have been dreaming of privatizing the post office for decades. Peddling this idea that UPS and FedEx will save us is part of that.

[Gaston de Foix]

6 hours ago, DMC said:

My point was not to disparage Bernie in any way, but rather to point out how Biden can be a better coalition builder than Obama or both Clintons, who all tend to be more technocratic and dismissive of they think that don't measure up whereas Biden is much more conciliatory.  I also have no idea what "Bill's shenanigans" have to do about anything that's been discussed.

In the event the Dems don't retake the Senate they might - might - pass a skinny immigration bill with a DACA fix provided its larded with money for the wall and other goodies for right wing nutters.  Maybe infrastructure if doesn't increase taxes on Republican donors.  There will be a coronavirus Bill too, either in the post-Election session or as the stimulus was in 2009.  The rest of Biden's legislative agenda is dead in the water. 

Warren laid out a pretty good roadmap for the Dem party to follow in the event of taking control of the Senate link.  That package needs to be combined with voting rights and good government reforms to prevent another Trump.  This requires a whole bunch of technical stuff like fixing the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to prevent the "Actings".  Requiring Presidential candidates to disclose tax returns.  

But it all depends on no surprises in AZ and CO, Cunningham/Gideon winning their races and at least 2 of Greenfield, Bullock, Hegar or Bollier pulling off an upset.  Because the Republicans will filibuster on the basis that election law is a state issue and Manchin/Bennett will defect.  So you need a strong enough majority to abolish the filibuster taking those defections into account. 

In many ways post-Watergate America was a much more corrupt society, with many more forms of political corruption and abuses of power.  The big difference between then and now is that is that we've lost the capacity to recognize our flaws and work to fix them.  The 2020 election and its aftermath will not be a test of the proposition whether american politics is broken.  That's beyond dispute.  it will test the proposition of whether american democracy possesses the capacity to reform its broken politics or whether permanent political war is the new norm. 

[Inkdaub]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

What a great way to tell a big shareholder to go fuck himself.

In the short term maybe, but wouldn't the big shareholder expect investment in the future?

That's how I read the tweet, anyway. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

There's no net gain imho.

This is my belief as well. Rice seems like the obvious pick for SoS, but I'm not sure there's any gain in announcing that before the election. Same with Duckworth as SoD. It makes a lot of sense for Biden to say that he will go out of his way to a have diverse cabinet that reflects what America looks like, but naming individuals probably is a net loser.

Also, why would Abrams get a position? Especially at Homeland Security? 

[Martell Spy]

Huh. Maybe Republicans will like us if only a minute is given to AOC to speak? By that logic, we should gag her completely. Talk about cancel culture.

[DanteGabriel]

Just now, Martell Spy said:

Huh. Maybe Republicans will like us if only a minute is given to AOC to speak? By that logic, we should gag her completely. Talk about cancel culture.

I'm trying to decipher levels of irony here. Are you saying AOC has been cancelled because she is only getting a minute of speaking time (which I agree is dumb scheduling)?