Jump to content

U.S. Politics / bounced checks and negative balances


Recommended Posts

do very basic things despite the winning party winning by 8% more votes

should i be more impressed by this than i am?  it's kinda a soporific factoid, isn't it? it's similar to the lament that occurs when the winner of the national popular vote is nevertheless not sworn as president--the aggregate popular total doesn't determine the winner of state contests. it's anti-majoritarian in effect, but it is consistent with the rules that we have in a federalist system. those rules could be changed, and that'd be fine. but is it coming apart at the seams? it appears by contrast to be operating exactly according to specification. that's frustrating from a policy perspective--but there's a value, i think, in de-escalating apocalyptic talk to the extent that people who think the world is ending are vulnerable to lumpenization which means a) more violence and b) less voting. we saw both with trump's cultists.  this sort of apocalyptic lumpenization is obvious on the right--but lefties who think the sky is falling contribute in their own way.

 

 response to losing is to undermine elections nationwide

they prefer policies that have a tendency to suppress turnout, sure.  do those polices, which don't quite turn the clock back to 1960, much less 1860, therefore undermine the election process or damage an abstractly conceived democracy? that is, it was democratic at its foundation, despite the three-fifths compromise and coverture and property requirements for voting.

i ask because these complaints are made routinely--that the institutions are in crisis, that the country itself may be endangered--but four years of the trump regime didn't amount to much difference from what went before him--i awaited his gotterdammerung but missed it if it arrived. his supreme court blitzkrieg resulted in a pro-choice ruling, a pro-LGBTQ ruling, a pro-native ruling. his exercise of the fuhrer prinzip failed almost at every critical moment when persons below him resigned or disobeyed rather than act contrary to law. the attempt to overturn the election, however unprecedented, was a 61-1 rout in the courts--it was not ever close or ever in doubt; the only victory was a consent judgment. as outlandish as the substance of the fascist allegations were, the formal process was without error--and that's what matters, isn't it? if we care about elections, then all that matters is that they have a set of formal rules and that those rules are followed, irrespective of which policy preferences prevail?

regarding those policy preferences, however--the trump cultists said that biden is a apocalyptic socialist, but that's been just more variance around the historical mean.  am accordingly not seeing much qualitative distinction before or after the trump regime, aside from notable aesthetic differences as well as well known positions on a handful of glib cultural issues. trump's major legislative change was literally a quantitative amendment to the tax code, of course in a pro-capitalist direction, along with the CARES act's liberality to large concerns, again a quantitative matter.

Edited by sologdin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sologdin said:

do very basic things despite the winning party winning by 8% more votes

should i be more impressed by this than i am?  it's kinda a soporific factoid, isn't it? it's similar to the lament that occurs when the winner of the national popular vote is nevertheless not sworn as president--the aggregate popular total doesn't determine the winner of state contests. it's anti-majoritarian in effect, but it is consistent with the rules that we have in a federalist system.

Yeah, I think that you should be more impressed by that as far as a leading indication things are falling apart.

1 minute ago, sologdin said:

 response to losing is to undermine elections nationwide

they prefer policies that have a tendency to suppress turnout, sure.  do those polices, which don't quite turn the clock back to 1960, much less 1860, therefore undermine the election process or damage an abstractly conceived democracy? that is, it was democratic at its foundation, despite the three-fifths compromise and coverture and property requirements for voting.

i ask because these complaints are made routinely--that the institutions are in crisis, that the country itself may be endangered--but four years of the trump regime didn't amount to much difference from what went before him--i awaited his gotterdammerung but was missed it if it arrived. 

I think you very much missed it. We got very different behavior on nominating justices, we got absurd foreign policy, rampant corruption and covering up of crimes at a far higher level than before, and we got an actual insurrection attempt after the election. I'm not sure what you're looking for more than that, but I think those are kind of big deals!

1 minute ago, sologdin said:

his supreme court blitzkrieg resulted in a pro-choice ruling, a pro-LGBTQ ruling, a pro-native ruling. his exercise of the fuhrer prinzip failed almost at every critical moment when persons below him resigned or disobeyed rather than act contrary to law. the attempt to overturn the election, however unprecedented, was a 61-1 route in the courts--it was not ever close or ever in doubt; the only victory was a consent judgment. as outlandish as the substance of the fascist allegations were, the formal process was without error--and that's what matters, isn't it? if we care about elections, then all that matters is that they have a set of formal rules and that those rules are followed, irrespective of which policy preferences prevail? 

Don't mistake outcome for process. 

1 minute ago, sologdin said:

regarding those policy preferences, however--the trump cultists said that biden is a apocalyptic socialist, but that's been just more variance around the historical mean.  am accordingly not seeing much qualitative distinction before or after the trump regime, aside from notable aesthetic differences as well as well known positions on a handful of glib cultural issues. trump's major legislative change was literally a quantitative amendment to the tax code, of course in a pro-capitalist direction, along with the CARES act's liberality to large concerns, again a quantitative matter.

If all you care about is legislative changes, sure! I think there were a whole lot more things that changed, and I think that this is both an indicator of myopic thinking and an indicator of things being very fucked - namely, laws are just not the way that the US is routinely governed any more.

And if we are not a nation of laws, that seems like a problem!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, there is a 'both sides' issue here that can't be dodged even in a 'trifecta' type situation.  Like it or not, a solid third of the US is of a conservative bent, while most of another third, is at best only tad left of center. Progressives, actual leftists, are maybe a tenth of the populace. 

Way I see it, the way the math works out, both th republicans and the democrats could win or maintain another 'clean sweep.'  However, push a given agenda too hard, be it conservative or liberal, and there WILL be major grassroots blowback.  Imagine some sort of twisted repeat of 1/6 with eight or ten congress people dead, or repeats of the demonstrations/riots that rocked US cities last year, only spreading to conservative areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kalsandra said:

Because after the election we are fighting to do very basic things despite the winning party winning by 8% more votes.

I know this doesn't have to do with your point but nobody won by 8 percent in 2020 - Biden won by four and a half and the House Dems won by 3.

11 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Like it or not, a solid third of the US is of a conservative bent, while most of another third, is at best only tad left of center. Progressives, actual leftists, are maybe a tenth of the populace. 

This simply isn't true.  The ideology breakdown is about 35/35/25 between conservative, moderate, liberal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 1066 Larry said:

Re: bolded- Out of curiosity, are you saying that Biden made promises he never intended to keep, and that other candidates made him do that?

I think both Clinton in 2016 and Biden in 2020 were pulled further to the left than they'd otherwise have liked, and that in turn led to them make campaign promises they probably didn't actually support that strongly in private. And I think some of the people who pulled them to the left did so by also making promises they knew they would never be able to deliver on if they actually won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

I know this doesn't have to do with your point but nobody won by 8 percent in 2020 - Biden won by four and a half and the House Dems won by 3.

This simply isn't true.  The ideology breakdown is about 35/35/25 between conservative, moderate, liberal.

I said about a third counted as conservative.  We seem to agree there.  I said another third, were at best a tad left of center -  moderates and some progressives.  We seem to agree on that, though some in this group are 'weak leftists' - at least so it seems to me.  I do see 'solid' leftists as being much smaller than the other two groups, which you appear to agree with to a point, though you put those numbers higher.

My concern is the 'perils of the political clean sweep,' - the party that takes that as a mandate for radical change automatically generates blowback on a massive scale, enough to destroy the country.  So either limit the change, acknowledge that a major slice of the populace views the world very differentlty, or get st for a half assed civil. War with no winners

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ThinkerX said:

I do see 'solid' leftists as being much smaller than the other two groups, which you appear to agree with to a point, though you put those numbers higher.

Yes my objection was with you saying "progressives" or "actual leftists" were only about a tenth.  They're about a quarter, which is a pretty significant difference.  Moreover, the trends over the past twenty years are less moderates and more liberals with conservatives remaining constant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yes my objection was with you saying "progressives" or "actual leftists" were only about a tenth.  They're about a quarter, which is a pretty significant difference.  Moreover, the trends over the past twenty years are less moderates and more liberals with conservatives remaining constant.

I haven't checked in a while and I'm sure you know the numbers. What does it look like when you look at engagement instead of identification? 

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

We are pretty far from Russia yet. Also, we were even further from that in the 1990's, when the Democratic party achieved very little progress and in some cases actively unwound progress.

It is concerning though that Trump might run to the left of Biden economically though if they slice up Biden's agenda too much.

Trump can run on whatever agenda or platform he wants and his cult would eat it up regardless of what it stood for. And his detractors would likely see it for the snake oil that it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Not sure what you mean by this?

I'm not going to dispute the 35/35/25 split, but we also know a large percentage of those folks who self-identified don't actually give a shit. Sometimes it feels like that crowd is actually the plurality. Perhaps it would be better to track behavior than how individuals identify, especially when those labels can mean different things to different people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Sometimes it feels like that crowd is actually the plurality. Perhaps it would be better to track behavior than how individuals identify, especially when those labels can mean different things to different people.

Ah.  Well, it's true, Gallup - rather famously (or infamously) within the industry - often tracks just "adults" rather than "likely voters" or even "registered voters."  However, when it comes to ideological breakdown, the difference between adults and the other two checks has consistently been found to be negligible.  To be clear, that's certainly not the case on everything, but I'll take Gallup's numbers on this over anyone else's to give you the best portrait of the electorate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, in terms of the ideology labels meaning "different things to different people," I think it should be noted that only 4 percent of self-identified Republicans identify as liberal and only 12 percent of self-identified Democrats identify as conservative.  I'd say the respondents are doing a pretty damn good job properly placing themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

First, I'd ask what of substance are they going to accomplish with him? An extra 1.5 trillion, and I say "extra" assuming the bipartisan bill goes through. But that will be stripped of the meaningful climate provisions and include heavier restrictions on the child tax credit than what Republicans were calling for. 

I'd argue nothing of significance is happening at this point. No matter what is in the 1.5 trillion "compromise" will be drowned out by what was removed from the 3.5 trillion bill. Dems need to play the long game with some strategy. Democratic voters seem demoralized a year out from primaries, and if you want something like Georgia to happen again, you can't be demoralized. The Dems, if they can't pass anything, if it looks like they control the Senate, then that is worse, in my opinion, than the narrative of betrayal. 

In what world is 1.5 trillion of spending insignificant? There are some really good programs in that bill! Is it everything one might want? No, of course not. I'm especially disappointed about the gutting of the clean power initiatives. But holy fucking hell, it's not nothing and I sure as shit want it to pass!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DMC said:

I know this doesn't have to do with your point but nobody won by 8 percent in 2020 - Biden won by four and a half and the House Dems won by 3.

81 million vs 75 million. Difference is 6 million more votes. 6m/75m is about 8% more votes. 

I chose the words for a reason. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kalsandra said:

81 million vs 75 million. Difference is 6 million more votes. 6m/75m is about 8% more votes. 

I chose the words for a reason. 

 

First, Biden won by a little over 7 million votes not 6 - around 81.2 to 74.2.  Regardless, that's a terribly misleading statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DMC said:

First, Biden won by a little over 7 million votes not 6 - around 81.2 to 74.2.  Regardless, that's a terribly misleading statement.

Even better then - close to 9%  

And I think its misleading only if you're talking about voter share. When you start talking about the absolute values - and the magnitude - talking about it as a percentage greater is more meaningful of an indicator of how much more it is.

 

Another way to say it is that Biden won a game 100 to 91 ( or really 81 to 74) Normally you wouldn't say he got 54% of the points scored - you would say he won by 7. Or you'd say he did 9% better than the other guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...