US politics - Yes country for old men

[Kalbear]

@DMC has returned as the prophecy foretold! Lisan al Gaib! 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Lisan al Gaib! 

 

[DMC]

Kal entering the conversation reminded me of something I've talked about with him privately and want to emphasize -- the Joe Biden Economy is something to run on!  The economic news continues to be entirely positive at the macro-level.  And more importantly, a lot better than pretty much every fuck with an economics degree expected as recently as six months ago.

Seriously, if we had a Republican president right now - let alone Trump - this is ALL we would be hearing about.  Not just from partisan officeholders, but also from the mainstream media.  I mean, maybe there'd be some stories like "how does some dumbass octogenerian run such a competent economy?", but even that'd be good.

Instead, while mentioning it to posters on PM over the last couple of months, I don't think the positive economic news has been mentioned a single time on the threads.  Which reflects a bigger problem that is more sociological than political, but can have a huge ass electoral effect.  Leftists tend to complain even when they're the incumbents, right-wingers tend to spike the football.

To beat the fascists, we need to be more like the fascists.  I know there are myriad caveats on the economy, but if you do not want Donald Trump to be our president again, start bringing up how much better the economy is today than when he left office. 

Watched last week's Bill Maher, and this wannabe kept on asking the classic "are you better off now than you were four years ago?" question like it was a pwn on Biden.  Um..yes!  The country is demonstrably better than it was when Trump left office!  This is an eminently easy argument to make before the other side pivots to the border and leans into racial resentment.

[Bironic]

Towards the topic of electoral reform: Maine House has just passed a bill to join the national popular vote interstate compact. With Maine this would be 209 electors bound by national popular vote( up from 205). Next state on the list is Michigan with its 16 electors (if passed it would be 225). The interstate compact enters into effect once the threshold of 270 electors is reached. From then on the electoral college still exists but it will be bound by the national popular vote. 
It’s currently debated in the following parliaments: Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada, Virginia, both Carolinas, Kentucky, Kansas, Florida, Alaska… Colorado approved it after a referendum, so in states with ballot initiatives there is a way to circumvent the republicans state parliaments since all surveys show majorities amongst the general public for this issue… If the Americans really put an effort into it I could see it reach the 270 threshold, probably not in 2028 but maybe by 2032…

Edited March 10 by Bironic

[IheartIheartTesla]

The Democrats have more money right now, they should use the momentum of the SoTU to start throwing shade on Trump's cognitive decline in some attack ads (Biden has leaned into his age in his most recent bout of ads). The former also has the benefit of being true, and when Trump tries to defend himself, it results in some ridiculous meme-able moments. Cant wait for the next round of 'Man, woman, camera tv' ridiculousness.

I'm not sure trying to convince people the economy is doing great is productive in changing swing voter minds. It might shore up turnout of the base of course. Some of the swing voters seem to care about Trump's criminal charges, I'd throw that in the ads as well.

[Ormond]

9 hours ago, Bironic said:

Towards the topic of electoral reform: Maine House has just passed a bill to join the national popular vote interstate compact. With Maine this would be 209 electors bound by national popular vote( up from 205). Next state on the list is Michigan with its 16 electors (if passed it would be 225). The interstate compact enters into effect once the threshold of 270 electors is reached. From then on the electoral college still exists but it will be bound by the national popular vote. 
It’s currently debated in the following parliaments: Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada, Virginia, both Carolinas, Kentucky, Kansas, Florida, Alaska… Colorado approved it after a referendum, so in states with ballot initiatives there is a way to circumvent the republicans state parliaments since all surveys show majorities amongst the general public for this issue… If the Americans really put an effort into it I could see it reach the 270 threshold, probably not in 2028 but maybe by 2032…

Although I certainly agree more states should pass this and that it's worth a try, it's hard for me to see the present US Supreme Court not declaring this unconstitutional somehow when the inevitable court challenge is brought to it after the first Presidential election held under it. Though when that happends, hopefully it will then energize people to get rid of the Electoral College through an actual constitutional amendment.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

 

I'm not sure trying to convince people the economy is doing great is productive in changing swing voter minds. 

I tend to agree with the above. Though I love having DMC back and agree with him on most things, I don't see how loudly proclaiming the good economic statistics is going to impress the average swing voter, because I think the average American is going to think the economy sucks for quite a while from the memory of the recent high inflation. Average Americans aren't going to care that inflation in the USA was actually less than in many other developed countries. Most of them also aren't going to change their mind about the economy being bad just because the rate of inflation is now lower, even if it gets back to no higher than it was before the pandemic, because so much of the inflation was in food and housing costs, the two most basic items in everyone's budget. I am old enough to remember the high inflation of the 1970s and that we all survived it, but the great majority of voters are too young to remember that and really will believe the economy is "bad" unless and until we have a big deflation in food prices to get them back to pre-pandemic levels -- and unfortunately that is a completely unrealistic wish, so I don't see how it won't be at least several more years or even an entire decade before people are enough used to the new food prices to be able to see the economy as "good".

[Bironic]

I agree the Supreme Court is a threat to US democracy (not as an institution itself but because of the people sitting on it), so maybe try to reform that first...

[DMC]

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I'm not sure trying to convince people the economy is doing great is productive in changing swing voter minds. It might shore up turnout of the base of course. Some of the swing voters seem to care about Trump's criminal charges, I'd throw that in the ads as well.

23 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I don't see how loudly proclaiming the good economic statistics is going to impress the average swing voter, because I think the average American is going to think the economy sucks for quite a while from the memory of the recent high inflation.

Survey data indicates "swing" voters care about Trump's charges, but mostly in regards to if he is actually convicted.  I think it will become a larger issue regardless as the election approaches, but that can be fulfilled by free media and Trump himself.  Don't see much point in investing resources on it in any attempt to persuade.

Part of the great economic statistics lately is, literally, average Americans thinking more positively about the economy.  The big jumps were in December and January, but a slight increase continued in February.  Leaning into that is Campaigning 101 for any incumbent, it doesn't take James Carville to understand that's still the case -- particularly in a contest between two candidates the electorate already has such durable and long-held attitudes otherwise.  Compounded by polarization, there are scant preferences among voters that are remotely malleable - perceptions on the economy is one of the only ones that the campaign can hope to affect.

I do agree this is more important irt turnout rather than persuasion or "swing" voters - but that's the point!  You might not know it by reading these threads, but it's an empirical fact that the Democratic-coalition as currently constituted can and will get to 270 over the GOP-coalition if they continue to show up, particularly against Trump.  It's just a matter of making sure they do.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Ormond said:

Although I certainly agree more states should pass this and that it's worth a try, it's hard for me to see the present US Supreme Court not declaring this unconstitutional somehow when the inevitable court challenge is brought to it after the first Presidential election held under it. Though when that happends, hopefully it will then energize people to get rid of the Electoral College through an actual constitutional amendment.

Yeah I've always been a big proponent of the National Popular Vote Compact - including on these threads - but the fact of the matter is there's been very little progress over the last six to eight years.  I think @Bironic is right that after Maine, Michigan and Pennsylvania are the most realistic targets, but even that isn't going to get to 270.

And as Ormond points out, it's very obvious that even if it does eventually get to 270, the Supreme Court as currently constituted will certainly strike it down.  I still mention and link it to students, but unfortunately I don't have much of any hope of it being a realistic solution in the foreseeable future.

[DMC]

Sorry for the triple post, a bit scattershot thanks to daylight savings.  But I do want to emphasize that the Compact Clause - Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 - explicitly states that interstate compact require congressional approval.  So SCOTUS striking it down would not necessarily be a naked partisan decision.

[Bironic]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

Sorry for the triple post, a bit scattershot thanks to daylight savings.  But I do want to emphasize that the Compact Clause - Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 - explicitly states that interstate compact require congressional approval.  So SCOTUS striking it down would not necessarily be a naked partisan decision.

AFAIK the proponents of the compact are seeking congressional approval once the treshold is reached...

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Bironic said:

AFAIK the proponents of the compact are seeking congressional approval once the treshold is reached...

Yes, that's the idea.  Actually getting it is another thing though....

[A Horse Named Stranger]

So glad you can finally release all those pent up politics posts and fill those threads like...

[Centrist Simon Steele]

On 3/9/2024 at 10:42 AM, mormont said:

Not picking on Simon but this, for me, sums up the problem.

There is no division here. 'The voters the Democrats need' makes it sound like these voters are passive, an unshaped mass that is separate to the party and therefore not part of the solution. That's flat wrong.

Those voters are part of 'the Democrats'. If they don't like their choices, they need to change them. Policies, candidates, processes. Starting tomorrow and continuing for years to come.

If 'the voters the Democrats need' are sitting waiting for 'the Democrats' to give them what they want, they're part of the problem as much as the party higher-ups are.

Trump is vile, but he has power because he inspired a lot of his voters to get involved in the Republican party at lower levels. But it is not up to the higher levels of the Democrat party to go out and find a unique individual who can do the same. That's like asking them to come up with magic beans. The boring truth of the matter is that the party can't (not won't) do better until the voters do the work.

And it's way too late to do that now. The candidates in this election are already picked. If you think there's any way to ditch Biden that's not an electoral catastrophe, you're kidding yourself. But you can get involved now if you want to see a better candidate in 2028, or 2032. If you don't change things, you can't expect change.

I agree--especially because my phrasing "the Voters Dems need" is pretty vague, so it leaves a lot open to interpretation. I don't think you're wrong at all about those who are waiting to inspired won't vote.

I was thinking more about two specific groups: the Obama to Trump voters who, if I remember right, helped put Biden in office, and the young vote--which was big enough in 2020 and 2022 to not only stop Trump from winning with record turnout on his side, but stopped a red wave--allowing the Dems to gain an even stronger hold on the Senate, while giving Republicans newfound majority in the house a slim majority. 

I'm worried about the youth vote as they are particularly angry about Israel and Palestine. My son is 19--he's intelligent, thoughtful, kind--but when I try to talk to him about why voting for Biden is infinitely better for Palestine than Trump would be, he just can't accept it. I think a lot of young voters are in that conundrum. 

What seems so rational to me in my 40s would have been really hard for me to square in my 20s. I think Biden needs to get ahead of that one specifically if he wants those voters to keep turning out. He needs them, and we need them to be honest.

But to be clear, I don't know if young voters are expecting Biden to give them what they want so much as they just have trouble validating voting for a guy who is supporting Netanyahu's increasing aggression. I get it. I've heard Kamala starting to take on lead on this, and I think her voice will be really important in helping Biden secure a win. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

7 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

The Democrats have more money right now, they should use the momentum of the SoTU to start throwing shade on Trump's cognitive decline in some attack ads (Biden has leaned into his age in his most recent bout of ads).

I kind of feel like Trump's cognitive decline is overstated too, and that pushing it might result in a similar bind the Republicans now find themselves tied up in after the SOTU. Biden clearly is fine. I've seen Trump videos that claim to show his decline, but it seems like the same old idiotic bullshit as usual--and I think if Biden were to debate him and Americans saw Trump's decline as being trumped up (so to speak), then it would hurt Dems chances. Just my gut on this.

Trump has been an idiot since he rolled onto the scene, and I don't think that's going to hurt him now.

To your other point about the economy--I agree. Running on the economy, when lots of people are feeling squeezed dry, seems a bad idea. I know Biden can't do much in terms of deflation, but at the end of the day--wages are low, and people who rent are seeing skyrocketing rental rates, food is ridiculously overpriced--basic necessities feel out of reach. I'm not sure what the answer is on that, but I think running on the economy would feel like "oh, Biden doesn't care about our problems" whereas often what we hear is, "No, he cares, he just can't do much about it."

Edited March 10 by Centrist Simon Steele

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Running on the economy, when lots of people are feeling squeezed dry, seems a bad idea. I know Biden can't do much in terms of deflation, but at the end of the day--wages are low, and people who rent are seeing skyrocketing rental rates, food is ridiculously overpriced--basic necessities feel out of reach.

The first two of the bolded are simply not true.  While the latest jobs report showed some leveling off, wage growth has generally been outpacing inflation for quite a while now. 

And rental price growth is not nearly as high as even pre-pandemic levels anymore -- indeed, rent asking prices are actually dropping in many major cities.  On a personal level, as someone looking for a new apartment this summer frequently searching websites on rates in a major city, I can anecdotally confirm this.

Perhaps if the Biden campaign invested in advocating this positive information, less voters would have such inaccurate perceptions.

Edited March 11 by DMC

[DMC]

Sorry for another double post, multitasking is making me forgetful.

On a broader level, I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in the argument that Biden shouldn't run on the economy. 

The American public expects the incumbent president to be a cheerleader for the economy.  It's one of the primary roles of the office, especially when running for reelection.  Does that mean everything's great?  No.  But inserting some nuance into that is not that hard, and while I'm not the greatest advocate for the political knowledge of the American Voter, they can at least understand the distinction.

Indeed, an incumbent president running away from or ignoring the economy is the easiest way to lose reelection.  You know the most reliable way for a president to appear out of touch to voters that are hurting?  Ignoring the economy.  Either that or Carter's infamous malaise speech.  Voters don't wanna hear that shit from their president.

To be clear, I don't think "Bidenomics" is the way to go.  It's lame and whomever coined that should be fired along with whomever thought it'd be a good idea for him to go on TikTok.  But there are a lot simpler ways to message/spin things in a positive - or at least optimistic - manner.

[Maithanet]

Put more simply, I think that Biden shouldn't run that the economy is good, but that the economy is improving.  While some people are definitely still grumpy about inflation we saw in 21-22, it is under control.  Wages are rising, unemployment is low.  People can be a lot more forgiving if they think things are getting better.  The US economy was still kinda shit in 2012, but it was unquestionably improving and that was enough.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Put more simply, I think that Biden shouldn't run that the economy is good, but that the economy is improving.

Right.  "We still have more work to do, but we are on the right track!  With your help, we CAN Make America Great Again, while the other side is only interested in tax cuts for billionaires" and the like.