US Politics 47 - Biden Time (To Be Litigious)

[Zorral]

It's all about that establishment 'center' of the Dems refusal to accept they aren't the party of WHITE RICH WHITE (MEN) PEOPLE because they want all the perks and the money, but can only have them if the OTHERS come in and work and vote and do everything, and yet they don't want us. So they beg for our work and our money, but blame us when they don't reciprocate -- and don't even frackin' work.  Why don't they just go rethug coz that's who they are.  Feh.

 

[Sci-2]

5 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

There is no nuance here, if Clyburn thinks that the Republicans are going to do a damn thing to he the Biden administration, he is just plain delusional. If one of the Justices drops dead on January 21st, that seat will remain vacant until either the Dems take the senate, or a Republican takes the white house. We are not going to see any stimulus because if it helps the economy, it hurts Republicans electorally. Dems need to accept that the Republican party as it currently stands are a bunch of inhuman demons who care nothing for anything other than imposing a capitalist theocracy on the American people.

Yup, Clyburn must be an idiot...he can't possibly be putting his comments into the ether for indeps, perhaps black voters who broke from Trump in particular. He can't possibly be thinking to frame the public view of the coming contention over the stimulus...

 

[Lollygag]

36 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Yes, but there's no reason to believe that this is best achieved by collectively rejecting what remains a simple label used as a political weapon.

There's a lot of reason especially as that"s how the polling is going and how voters are reporting their decisions. Socialism in the US is linked to authoritarianism which US socialists have not made significant efforts to separate themselves from. And there's so much brainwashing on just that word. A lot of Republicans' fear mongering isn't about creating new fears (difficult), but on exacerbating ones which already exist.

36 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

It strikes me as a weird thing, in the aftermath of a victory, to suggest that the most radical elements of a party should renounce some of their convictions. Taking a step back, it would be true of almost any party I can think of. Why would it be assumed that the radical elements didn't play their part in the victory? Why would it be assumed that rejecting them or demanding more restraint from them would actually translate into electoral gains?
Moderation certainly is required to make electoral gains in some places. It does not follow that the party as a whole needs some discipline to moderate its image. You're assuming that it is possible, that it would work, and that it would gain more votes than it would lose. That's a lot of assumptions. And that's not even getting to the point of whether this is actually desirable in terms of policy.
I'd be curious to know what specific kind of gains would the Democrats make with this strategy. Which candidates do you think were recently harmed by the accusation of socialism, that wouldn't be if they didn't have to associate with actual socialists? What kind of demographics are you aiming for?
Say you want to win Florida, or Texas, will the voters you're after be convinced by your attempt to change your image? Will the right-wing media they consume be unable to continue such attacks?

My read of the complaints isn't that socialists exist in the party so much as their evangelicalism and whether they're the secret dude behind the curtain (BIG, BIG, BIG fear on the right for a lot of reasons) who is playing a con on them or will strong arm their moderate into submission and refusal to even acknowledge the problems with socialism's stigma.

Bold: this is what moderates want acknowledged but a socialist movement/revolution which primaries its own undermines this. Personally, I think the most successful way is to allow them to vote their districts - and importantly - build trust to voters to believe that. That's the tough part especially given the movement and distrust of parties' representation in general.

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/11/white-women-had-doubts-but-they-voted-for-trump-anyway/

This article makes the disclaimer that it may take months before we really understand what happened, but white women polled as going to Biden, but it seems at the last minute went back to Trump who's big points were defund the police/law and order, the old idea that Dems are bad with the economy and socialism/communists/radical left. Republicans think campaigning against socialism works and it's hard to argue with their results.

Sorry if this doesn't make sense. I'm still sleep deprived and a crash is coming on.

[Fragile Bird]

1 minute ago, Sci-2 said:

Yup, Clyburn must be an idiot...he can't possibly be putting his comments into the ether for indeps, perhaps black voters who broke from Trump in particular. He can't possibly be thinking to frame the public view of the coming contention over the stimulus...

 

Yup, as I said, there are a lot of conservative black voters. I don’t know how many times over the years I’ve seen stories about young black people moving back to the south and not knowing how to deal with Thee question: where do you go to church?

Fuck off I’m an atheist doesn’t go over well...

[Lollygag]

It's so cute that Dems still think elections are just about racking up votes.

The Lincoln Project got in Trump's, his campaign's, and his family's heads so they screwed up all over the place and couldn't capitalize on anything. And Biden just sat back and watched the fireworks.

[Myshkin]

23 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It's all about that establishment 'center' of the Dems refusal to accept they aren't the party of WHITE RICH WHITE (MEN) PEOPLE because they want all the perks and the money, but can only have them if the OTHERS come in and work and vote and do everything, and yet they don't want us. So they beg for our work and our money, but blame us when they don't reciprocate -- and don't even frackin' work.  Why don't they just go rethug coz that's who they are.  Feh.

 

Go ask your trans and gender non-conforming friends today whether they think Biden intends to leave them behind. Stop with this centrist/establishment dems are no better than republicans bullshit, because it’s an egregious fucking lie. For Christ’s sake, the most dangerous, bigoted, hateful president in our history has just been voted out of office and already you’re bitching about how shitty Biden is. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

54 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

This isn't a political litmus test. People like me are on the verge of being homeless if we lose our jobs, or if we get sick. For you it may be different, but those of us begging for help are not playing some game of "you're not left enough." Income inequality has substantially increased since the 1980s. The rich pay nothing in taxes. And I mean the filthy rich. Look at the Patriotic Millionaires. They go into great detail about how their not being taxed is destroying this country. Not that long ago, this wasn't such a crazy thing for Democrats to point out. 

I’m a long damn way from “rich”.  I drive uber to make ends meet and end up working somewhere in the range of 60-70 hours a week.  I assure you, I pay taxes.  

I will ask again.  What rightward leaning policies are being advocated for by any Democratic Representatives, or Senators?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

That’s a riot coming from the guy who fills the political threads up with wrestling abd sports talk most of the time like a drunk frat boy 

What?

[Myshkin]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What?

Don’t listen to him. I love you.

[Lollygag]

52 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Your source says nothing about hostile takeovers, or Sanders who you said advocated for that. AOC said what I already mentioned: she and Biden wouldn't be in the same party in another country. AOC is the Democrat as much as Biden. She always has been. I really can't follow your point. 

And we've argued about the "literal" socialist that is Bernie Sanders before--and you ignore about 90 percent of why that's not true.

My source wasn't for hostile takeovers. Go a few pages back for that.

AOC is a democratic socialist. Biden is a democrat. Really? If they're the same thing, save everyone the grief and give up the socialist label.

I'm not discussing what a socialist is or isn't because that's nailing jello to a tree. That's what he calls himself and what Republicans successfully fear monger off of.

 

[Sci-2]

6 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Yup, as I said, there are a lot of conservative black voters. I don’t know how many times over the years I’ve seen stories about young black people moving back to the south and not knowing how to deal with Thee question: where do you go to church?

Fuck off I’m an atheist doesn’t go over well...

I don't know if they are explicitly conservative, maybe socially conservative. Religion might be a non-factor, I mean Omar is obviously religious.

It's more that as much as the Left wants to frame the Democratic party as some corrupt collection of rich straight white male fat cats the reality is there are lots of PoC that are happy to be Dems or at least vote Dem. And a good chunk of those Dems are the very black voters that got Biden through the primary and then over the finish line.

Why some people look askance when some Leftists makes it seem criticisms of the Squad are also criticism by "establishment Dems" of Abrams or even the BLM movement.

 

[Myshkin]

2 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

You have no power over me.

My Dodgers and Lakers are World Champions, I have power over everybody!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Don’t listen to him. I love you.

True love is when you can look your partner in the eye in the shower, hand them a razor blade, and they know you want them to shave that space you just can't get on your own. And both people are cool with it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, Myshkin said:

My Dodgers and Lakers are World Champions, I have power over everybody!

Clearly not over the Chargers.....

[Myshkin]

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

My source wasn't for hostile takeovers. Go a few pages back for that.

AOC is a democratic socialist. Biden is a democrat. Really? If they're the same thing, save everyone the grief and give up the socialist label.

I'm not discussing what a socialist is or isn't because that's nailing jello to a tree. That's what he calls himself and what Republicans successfully fear monger off of.

 

Particularly since, you know, they’re not actually socialists. I remain convinced that Bernie confused Social Democrat with Democratic Socialist, and then got in too deep to make the correction.

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

There's a lot of reason especially as that"s how the polling is going and how voters are reporting their decisions.

Well, what polls are we talking about? Exit polls? Do we have any that specifically looked at the impact of the "threat" of socialism on voters?

5 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

This article makes the disclaimer that it may take months before we really understand what happened, but white women polled as going to Biden, but it seems at the last minute went back to Trump who's big points were defund the police/law and order, the old idea that Dems are bad with the economy and socialism/communists/radical left. Republicans think campaigning against socialism works and it's hard to argue with their results.

That article does not make any of the links you do. In fact, if I read it right, it merely says Biden didn't do better with women than Hillary.

It does say this:

Quote

Initial exit polls are an imperfect way to assess the behavior of the electorate. The information is gathered in voluntary interviews as voters leave polling places. In 2020, when many voted early or by mail due to the COVID-19 pandemic, more telephone polls than usual were done of absentee voters. Exit polls are nevertheless the best first look at how voters behaved in an election.

At best your theory may be a bit premature. But that's being very generous, assuming you have any kind of data to support it, which I doubt.

I found this:

Quote

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/business/socialist-biden-trump.html

Why Trump’s Efforts to Paint Biden as a Socialist Are Not Working

A wide range of polls, including some conducted for nonpartisan media outlets and for conservative and liberal interest groups, shows that Mr. Trump has so far been unsuccessful in lashing Mr. Biden to policy proposals like Medicare for All, the Green New Deal and a federal tax on the net worth of high-wealth Americans, all of which Democratic voters and leaders have increasingly embraced in recent years, but which Mr. Biden has stopped short of adopting in his platform.

Evidence also suggests the socialist label does not necessarily carry as much negative weight as Mr. Trump assumed. When pollsters ask Mr. Biden’s critics to name their concerns about him, “socialism” ranks low on the list.

“It’s a word that people bring up more now. It doesn’t mean that it has an impact,” said Margie Omero, a principal at the Democratic polling firm GBAO, which has polled for progressive groups this year but is not working for Mr. Biden’s campaign. “If Trump’s attacks worked, he would be doing better. But he’s not.”

Still, Mr. Trump and his campaign appear to see the issue as a potential winner, particularly among Latino voters who came to the United States from Latin American countries that were governed by socialist or communist rulers. Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. led a “Fighters Against Socialism” bus tour in Florida last weekend.

 

So to prove your theory you need to show how many latino votes could have been lost because of socialism. But that would be inaccurate, because a better question may be how many more votes did Trump win because of it, unless you can prove that these latino votes could have gone to Biden (tough).
Based on this you could then attempt to speculate as to whether Biden might have won, say, Florida without this issue.
You might quickly encounter a serious problem though: that many Cuban-Americans would be at least as much critical of Biden for the Obama administration's stance on Cuba and China, than any association with Bernie, AOC, BLM or "defund the police." So even if you can show it is something of a vote-loser, you'll find it difficult to show that there is a way for Democrats to conclusively distance themselves from socialism.

Plus, you also need to factor in the votes that your strategy may lose on the left.

Quote

 

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/287459/public-opinion-review-americans-word-socialism.aspx

Gallup most recently found that 39% of Americans have a positive opinion of socialism, compared with 57% who have a negative opinion. Pew Research's most recent survey showed 55% with a negative opinion of socialism, and an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed a 19% positive/53% negative split. A Monmouth poll found that 57% of Americans believe socialism is not compatible with American values.

These net-negative views of socialism seem to be quite stable. Gallup asked Americans to evaluate the term five times between 2010 and 2019; positive responses remained within a narrow range of 35% to 39% across the nine-year span.

[...]

One of the defining characteristics of our age is political polarization. Attitudes toward socialism are no exception to this phenomenon. We (and other researchers) find a wide gulf in the views of Democrats and Republicans about socialism, with 65% of Democrats in Gallup's latest update saying they have a favorable view, contrasted sharply with 9% of Republicans and 41% of independents.

The data also show significant differences by generation. A recent Gallup analysis showed that 49% of millennials and Gen Zers have a positive view of socialism, contrasted with 39% of Gen Xers and a still lower 32% of baby boomers and traditionalists (those aged 55 and older).

 

So the problem you have here, is that while socialism is certainly unpopular in the US, pushing back against socialism might nonetheless make you lose votes.

Do you think you can prove that it is worth it?

[Myshkin]

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Clearly not over the Chargers.....

Who? You talking about them boys from San Diego? Rams 4 Life! Jim Everett is a Golden god!

[The Anti-Targ]

 

4 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Particularly since, you know, they’re not actually socialists. I remain convinced that Bernie confused Social Democrat with Democratic Socialist, and then got in too deep to make the correction.

I preferred the term justice Democrat over democratic socialist, or socialist for the left-wing of the Democratic party. It is a slogan more people can get behind without having to get over the socialism phobia and no one can argue against wanting justice (they just argue about what it is).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 minutes ago, Myshkin said:

Who? You talking about them boys from San Diego? Rams 4 Life! Jim Everett is a Golden god!

Oh shit. Bipartisanship time! @mcbigski:

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

no one can argue against wanting justice

Guilty people can.  And you will find we are strong!