US Politics - The Conceit of Not Conceding

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well I got compared to Don Quixote.  That's pretty cool.

Play your cards right and we can have you painted in gold. 

[HoodedCrow]

It’s going to take a while to restore sanity, and the Republicans will use fear, lies, unconstitutional grounds, and slander. I had a left wing American ask me how left wing Canada is and I said more than she can imagine. Then I started to give her some trial socialist ideas, and she was immediately horrified. Go slow, and build the movement, because there is a lot of deliberate and ingrained bs to push through. There needs to be a recovery phase. Trump was defeated with incredible effort. Does that make me a moderate? 
You can be a communist in Canada, but you wouldn’t win. The Green Party, the left wing liberal and the NDP do well. The conservatives sneak through the vote splitting sometimes. Don’t do that!  Some parts of the country are more left than others.

The Romans had the “ The Senate and the people of Rome”. The American founders changed it to “we, the people”!

[Lollygag]

 2 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I'm not saying that swing voters and moderates don't exist, what I'm saying is that their political views are determined by how the political landscape looks rather than deeply held beliefs. Why the hell do you think that independents and swing voters remain pretty much constant even during the rightward shift of the Republican party? This is something that Republicans understand better than Democrats, namely that they can take an extreme and unpopular position, take a beating in the next election, and within the next few cycles, that position is normalized and has become part of the DNA of the Republican party leaving them back in the hunt.

I don't disagree. I'd add the lack of deeply held beliefs is often skepticism of being able to achieve those beliefs and of doing more damage than good.

5 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Literally anything Democrats do is handing the GOP "the political equivalent of an AR-15". There is nothing so large or so small that the Republicans are not going to paint it as the greatest assault on American liberties since whatever the last insignificant thing the Democrats proposed. If you only do things that you have deemed to be safe and risk free, you're not going to get anything done and what little you do manage to achieve get destroyed by the GOP next time they are in power.

Nope. That's a fatalistic excuse. Some are clearly worse. Yeah, they'll try and paint whatever in the worst way, but a lot of times, it fails to have the effect they want. There's a very long list of attacks the Republicans have leveled that haven't affected their base the way they'd have liked.

[Lollygag]

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

Well I got compared to Don Quixote.  That's pretty cool.

Don Quixote is well-meaning and likeable, but he has pretty crap reads of the battlefield sometimes.

[GrimTuesday]

10 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

I don't disagree. I'd add the lack of deeply held beliefs is often skepticism of being able to achieve those beliefs and of doing more damage than good.

Nope. That's a fatalistic excuse. Some are clearly worse. Yeah, they'll try and paint whatever in the worst way, but a lot of times, it fails to have the effect they want. There's a very long list of attacks the Republicans have leveled that haven't affected their base the way they'd have liked.

Ok, so me saying that Republicans are going to slam even the smallest ounce of Democratic legislation as communism and then because they have normalized the belief that it is bad among their base, they are able to destroy them without political repercussion is fatalistic? Am I getting that right? Because it's more in line with reality than when you sit there and cry about how we shouldn't even try moving to the left because it is going to alienate your brain-dead cousins in rural Ohio who weren't going to vote for a Dem anyway.

[Lollygag]

7 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Ok, so me saying that Republicans are going to slam even the smallest ounce of Democratic legislation as communism and then because they have normalized the belief that it is bad among their base, they are able to destroy them without political repercussion is fatalistic? Am I getting that right? Because it's more in line with reality than when you sit there and cry about how we shouldn't even try moving to the left because it is going to alienate your brain-dead cousins in rural Ohio who weren't going to vote for a Dem anyway.

 

28 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

 

Nope. That's a fatalistic excuse. Some are clearly worse. Yeah, they'll try and paint whatever in the worst way, but a lot of times, it fails to have the effect they want. There's a very long list of attacks the Republicans have leveled that haven't affected their base the way they'd have liked.

I've never said we shouldn't try to move left. But I do blow up the forum about how Dems self-sabotage by doing it in such stupid ways.

 

[GrimTuesday]

3 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

 

I've never said we shouldn't try to move left. But I do blow up the forum about how Dems self-sabotage by doing it in such stupid ways.

 

It's even more stupid to refuse to embrace the policies that will make reality those ideas you claim to believe in because you fear that your political enemies (and I mean enemies) will attack you for it. Republicans know that we will attack them whenever they roll out whatever new sicko shit they have decided to go for, and they don't fucking care.

[Lollygag]

5 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

It's even more stupid to refuse to embrace the policies that will make reality those ideas you claim to believe in because you fear that your political enemies (and I mean enemies) will attack you for it. Republicans know that we will attack them whenever they roll out whatever new sicko shit they have decided to go for, and they don't fucking care.

Can't embrace any policies if you get voted out of office. And like I said, it's not the attack, it's the effectiveness of the attack.

[GrimTuesday]

1 minute ago, Lollygag said:

Can't embrace any policies if you get voted out of office. And like I said, it's not the attack, it's the effectiveness of the attack.

That's the point, Republicans take positions that are psycotic and unpopular all the time, they take a beating at the ballot box, and then after the initial shock of their adoption of these policies dwindles, they end up right back in power with those exact same policies. The reason that Democrats are not able to do this is because the center/establishment put a lot of effort into making sure that left wing policies are undermined and seen by the Democratic base as not feasible.

[Lollygag]

1 minute ago, GrimTuesday said:

That's the point, Republicans take positions that are psycotic and unpopular all the time, they take a beating at the ballot box, and then after the initial shock of their adoption of these policies dwindles, they end up right back in power with those exact same policies. The reason that Democrats are not able to do this is because the center/establishment put a lot of effort into making sure that left wing policies are undermined and seen by the Democratic base as not feasible.

Are you discussing something specific?

[Lollygag]

4 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

He’s gotten us confused. Probably difficult to keep track of all the wimmin here on the politics thread. 

We do both have birds going on.

I might confuse folks sometimes. I align progressive on most issues, but only if it's done with intent and deliberation. If I go on a wild ride, I want to know the Duke boys (Bubba Wallace?) are driving and not Thelma and Louise and progressives all too often don't seem to care about addressing that for whatever reason.

[GrimTuesday]

25 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

He’s gotten us confused. Probably difficult to keep track of all the wimmin here on the politics thread. 

Yeah, I'm totally just getting you mixed up because you're both women and not referencing the fact that throughout the entire election Lollygag was crying about how we can't go with a leftwing candidate and we can't run on left wing policies because her conservative relatives would be scared and alienated. Don't even come at me with that disingenuous leftist men hate or disregard the opinions of women bullshit. 

[Lollygag]

1 minute ago, GrimTuesday said:

Yeah, it's totally because you're both women and not because throughout the entier election Lollygag was crying about how we can't go with a leftwing candidate and we can't run on left wing policies because her conservative relatives would be scared and alienated. Don't even come at me with that disingenuous leftist men hate or disregard the opinions of women bullshit. 

I think Warren had a very good shot at winning a general with a change in delivery style. Wasn't worried about that happening as she's from OK and spent a lot of time in TX and has a personality that works well for the middle states.

[Freshwater Spartan]

Before the election I was sure that all of the Dem hopefuls minus Sanders could beat Trump. I rolled my eyes at Clyburn' s endorsement. I now think Clyburn was right. I really like Warren but she loses to Trump.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

50 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

He’s gotten us confused. Probably difficult to keep track of all the wimmin here on the politics thread. 

I mean, you're all so nasty. 

[Freshwater Spartan]

16 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

Warren was too for to the left for me.

I loved Buttigieg, Klobuchar was my second choice, and Biden my third. Tom Steyer got points for his toe selection.

Loved Buttigeig. I spent a couple of months in 2019 reading Pete articles to cheer up.  I think the person who lost most from the Iowa debacle was Pete.  Who knows what would have happened if he got his definitive news cycles of "Mayor Pete wins Iowa".

After him I was just hoping for someone not named Sanders or Biden. I was quite bummed post Nevada. though I was never sure about Amy. A little too moderate for me and I value winning almost more than anything.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

39 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Yeah, I'm totally just getting you mixed up because you're both women and not referencing the fact that throughout the entire election Lollygag was crying about how we can't go with a leftwing candidate and we can't run on left wing policies because her conservative relatives would be scared and alienated. Don't even come at me with that disingenuous leftist men hate or disregard the opinions of women bullshit. 

But we should defund the police, right? Because that's what will help in swing districts.

19 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

I actually wrote to Klobuchar after Buttigieg bowed out and begged her to suspend her campaign. 

Why? You do realize some intern read it and chucked your letter/deleted your email, no? 

[Maithanet]

In the primary I didn't want Biden or Sanders.  I definitely wanted someone closer to the "middle" of the Democratic party, and being younger than Trump obviously seemed like another plus (I liked Harris and Booker and Bullock and eventually Warren).  I thought that both Biden and Sanders would have more trouble uniting the Democratic party.  I believed (maybe I still do?) that the Democrats are the bigger party and thus when we turn out, we win.  I absolutely scoffed at Biden's electability argument in the primary (and Sander's electability argument was just as bad). 

And now, I do think that Sanders or Warren would have lost.  Harris probably loses as well, although it's possible her coalition looks a little different and she still wins GA + MI + PA.  Maybe Bullock or Booker could have pulled it off, but neither of them even sniffed the nomination, so who the hell knows.  But on the whole I'll admit that my skepticism of the Biden coalition was wrong.  It's quite possible he's the only guy who could have won.  And I'm damn glad he did. 

[GrimTuesday]

52 minutes ago, Chataya de Fleury said:

You said it buddy, not me. I wasn’t going to go there. I do seem to recall you asking me a question and then pivoting my innocent answer into an attack.

 

I mean, that's what you were implying, and given it is the hip new thing to do when faced with criticism from men on the left, it's something I've become rather weary of seeing.

I simply restated your answer in accurate but less than charitable terms.

39 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But we should defund the police, right? Because that's what will help in swing districts.

I'm still amused that people like you are completely overlooking the fact that part of the reason that Republicans are able to effectively weaponize shit like this is because people like you, the "reasonable" folks, are also attacking it using the same language. That sort of thing signals to moderates that this is something that is bad since both the Republicans and the Democrats are attacking it. Moderate Democrats attacking the left only legitimizes Republican attacks.

[DMC]

I must say I find this myth-making that only Biden could've beaten Trump incredibly amusing.  The pandemic certainly lent narrative structure to the legend - a return to normalcy in such uncertain times.  And there's the valid aspects concerning his strength with uneducated whites and seniors as well.  But let's not kid ourselves - the election was wholesale a referendum on Trump.  One need only to look at the countervailing winds of the congressional races to elucidate that fact.

Now there are certain candidates I would have felt squeamish about.  I don't think Sanders could ever win the presidency, and I've felt that long before Trump came on the scene.  I think Buttigieg would have encountered difficulties, particularly considering with covid people were looking for reassurance and he looks younger than me.  Klobuchar too, simply because she's a thoroughly bad candidate.  But the rest?  Warren and Harris?  Booker and Castro?  Bullock and Inslee?  Hell even Gillibrand.  All would be very likely to enjoy the support Biden received, and most if not all have more interesting ways in which to tap into other constituencies.

None of us have any idea, of course, and never really will.  But I can't help but observe that this rapidly constructing folklore on Biden's victory - when not eight months ago virtually everyone agreed Biden was one of the least desirable candidates even as he was securing the nomination - is not only highly dubious but genuinely ludicrous.