|
evilweasel posted:i see no reason that the end result of another trump term is "eight years of a solid democrat". to the extent there is a significant impetus for action in 2024 it will be stronger if Biden has been president than trump, because things will have been done to make it better and the economy will not have collapsed. the "overton window" to use a common thread term will have shifted towards the left, leaving the question more "how much" rather than "do we do anything". a biden administration will have been able to do things that make more extreme action easier - it is harder to promise someone you're killing their job but you'll supply a new one later, it is easier to implement the new jobs then kill off the remaining jobs. Why is overton window in quotes like it's not a real thing?
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
So if biden wins and goes on to be such a terrible president for the next two years that the republicans take the house in 2022, then there's nothing to stop them from chain impeaching until they get a republican in the white house right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:23
|
|
|
Booourns posted:So if biden wins and goes on to be such a terrible president for the next two years that the republicans take the house in 2022, then there's nothing to stop them from chain impeaching until they get a republican in the white house right? Decorum and respect for the institutions of this nation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah this just gets back to "actually, the way to win is to lose" it's just a crazy idea. the biden campaign is campaigning on climate change is real, we need to do something about it. trump is campaigning on its a hoax, we're going to make it worse. the shift from "it's real, we should do something about it, but our ideas were not radical enough" is a pretty small one and it is incredibly easy to see how the party evolves that way. it's how it has been evolving. on the other hand the special pleading you need to get from trump winning a second term, sabotaging all international efforts to combat climate change, and going to "well we're going to do incredibly damaging things to our economy to fix this thing that, until recently, our national policy was it's a hoax" I don't know if it applies to Biden or to the presidency, but this is astoundingly ahistorical. Republicans failed to win the senate in 2010 and 2012 because they nominated a bunch of extremists. Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Linda McMahon, Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin, etc. They all lost winnable races and were generally considered to be the reason why Republicans didn't take over the senate earlier. But it is absolutely undeniable that republicans' willingness to lose with radicals over winning with moderates moved their entire party right and in the long run enforced party discipline to the point where no one is willing to cross the extreme right and made it possible for them to pass stuff even with slim majorities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:27
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:This is what I mean when I say this is a risk-averse strategy that doesn't even take the risk seriously. in addition to my previous post, your math is very wrong. there are at least four: 1) Nixon I/NixonII/Ford (8 years, R) + Carter (4 years, D) + Reagan I (4 years, R), that's 12r-4d 2) Shift out Nixon I for Reagan II - still 12r-4d 3) Shift out Nixon II/Ford for Bush 1 - still 12r-4d 4) Shift out Carter for Clinton I - still 12r-4d and had 600 votes gone the other way in Florida in 2000, we'd have a bunch more 16 year periods not split 8-8. this is obviously not some rule that lets you figure out exactly who is going to be president in the future. edit: it also goes without saying that if trump loses, we're also suddenly setting a lot of new 16 year periods not split 8-8. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
RevolverDivider posted:You’re not going to suddenly get a socialist candidate for president after four more years of trump. does this argument entail you believing you're going to get one after four years of Joe "we must chemically lobotomize black children to keep the streets clean" Biden
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:30
|
|
|
If even dumbest man alive Chris Cillizza can see that this is a bad situation for Rapey Joe, then it's clear political malpractice for the DNC to keep on going forward with Biden's candidacy and they should pull the same strings to end it that they did for Bernie's campaign. Unless, of course, they weren't interested in winning in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:33
|
|
|
having Biden address the allegations directly might not be such a good idea. he might get flustered and say some poo poo like "yeah, so what if I did it, vote Trump if you dont like it"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I don't know if it applies to Biden or to the presidency, but this is astoundingly ahistorical. Republicans failed to win the senate in 2010 and 2012 because they nominated a bunch of extremists. Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Linda McMahon, Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin, etc. They all lost winnable races and were generally considered to be the reason why Republicans didn't take over the senate earlier. But it is absolutely undeniable that republicans' willingness to lose with radicals over winning with moderates moved their entire party right and in the long run enforced party discipline to the point where no one is willing to cross the extreme right and made it possible for them to pass stuff even with slim majorities. This doesn't really map at all to general elections, though - you didn't generally have the Republican base refusing to turn out for the moderates. It's also completely irrelevant to evilweasel's post. The comparable argument would be "bernie's unelectable but should get the nomination because it'll move the party left" which I don't think anybody's making (because bernie's electable). We can also, however, take some amount of strategic insight and hope from how the Tea Party lunatics were able to take over - maybe not the "have your own insane media bubble for decades until the base are gibbering cannibals and so are the candidates" component, but they successfully worked within the party to devour its innards and wear its skin. i got owned posted:having Biden address the allegations directly might not be such a good idea. he might get flustered and say some poo poo like "yeah, so what if I did it, vote Trump if you dont like it" well heck, i think he needs to give a press conference then
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:This doesn't really map at all to general elections, though - you didn't generally have the Republican base refusing to turn out for the moderates. It's also completely irrelevant to evilweasel's post. Didn't the Tea Party still have billionaire backing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:in addition to my previous post, your math is very wrong. there are at least four: What in God's name is wrong with you, the point isn't literally about randomized 16 year intervals, it's that you probably get 8 years and you probably don't get 4 or 12.I am not trying to prove a mathematical relationship in presidential years, it's not numerology, it is just "you probably get re-elected and your party probably doesn't continue in power after you," christ. But then again I am talking to someone who belives that a world in which Kerry is ending his 2nd term in 2012 is by definition better than the one we got. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
punishedkissinger posted:Didn't the Tea Party still have billionaire backing? I believe we've got evidence these days that - there's enough money sloshing around non-evil people to adequately fund the left, and - there are diminishing returns on campaign spending, with the possible exception of going Maximum Bloomberg but we (fortunately) never got the "buy literally all the ad space in the country for a month" gambit to test so I don't think their ability to harness / be harnessed by a couple wealthy madmen is particularly relevant to our interests.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I don't know if it applies to Biden or to the presidency, but this is astoundingly ahistorical. Republicans failed to win the senate in 2010 and 2012 because they nominated a bunch of extremists. Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, Linda McMahon, Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin, etc. They all lost winnable races and were generally considered to be the reason why Republicans didn't take over the senate earlier. But it is absolutely undeniable that republicans' willingness to lose with radicals over winning with moderates moved their entire party right and in the long run enforced party discipline to the point where no one is willing to cross the extreme right and made it possible for them to pass stuff even with slim majorities. the republicans worked very hard after those incidents to squash nutcases from important races in the primaries for the senate, and mostly succeeded until that little incident in alabama. two of those seats they have never regained (angle and buck) and could have been handy when, say, repealing obamacare and giving them like a hundred extra judges, mcmahon was a sacrificial candidate in a state they were unlikely to win, and mourdock and akin were immense own-goals that took them six years to recover from. the real reason nobody dares to cross the extreme right these days is trump, and they tried real hard to squash him but he eked out a victory which severely discredited anyone trying to moderate their candidates (especially since trump now personally hated them). they promptly lost congress as a result. but as greyjoy said, what you're pointing to doesn't even really map onto my argument. why the tea party has a lot of power is because the vast majority of legislators (of either party) hail from safe seats. you can control a caucus by replacing their safe seats and tolerating people who are occasional apostates in swing states or hostile states (e.g. Collins). everyone in the republican party basically agreed on "leave the people in blue/purple states alone, and we'll let the nutcases have all the red seats" the way you follow that philosophy is primaries in blue states evilweasel fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:43
|
|
|
It is really pretty telling that there are still libs arguing that we have to work within the party while the party literally cancels elections to prevent the left from getting delegates for the convention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
punishedkissinger posted:It is really pretty telling that there are still libs arguing that we have to work within the party while the party literally cancels elections to prevent the left from getting delegates for the convention. Have we considered taking over trumps party? Winner take all primaries......
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:48
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:What in God's name is wrong with you, the point isn't literally about randomized 16 year intervals, it's that you probably get 8 years and you probably don't get 4 or 12.I am not trying to prove a mathematical relationship in presidential years, it's not numerology, it is just "you probably get re-elected and your party probably doesn't continue in power after you," christ. ok, you told me that "Taking the Biden win now means, with almost absolute certainty, foregoing a better Democratic administration for the next sixteen years. In the last sixtysomething years in U.S. elections, there's only been one period of 16 years in which power wasn't split 8 to 8" in addition to pointing out in post one that "almost absolute certainty" was hilarious levels of overinterpretation from scant data such that you could not draw that conclusion from the data, i then realized that your claim about the data was wrong. so: (a) even if your data was right you cannot draw that conclusion; (b) also your data is wrong. it is about as comprehensive a response you could get. how would you prefer i respond to it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
Tell Trump how mad the libs will be and how cool he'd look if he gave everybody healthcare, (and take him to cheesecake factory more than the insurance lobbyists)
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
Syenite posted:I'm just following Biden's instructions to not vote for him if I want people's material conditions to improve. I plan to do my part come November.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
I mean, whatever circular logic evilweasel wants to use to justify their voting for a rapist isn't going to make sense at this point. I don't know why people engage with them when every point that gets challenged gets walked back immediately after.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
I think my favorite thing about Biden is how you can tell just by looking at him that he's a rapist It really makes not voting for him so much easier justify. Just look at him. Rapist for sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
He probably doesn't even remember rapi... [wanders off camera]
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:55
|
|
|
Trust women. Believe the... you know the thing...
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
punishedkissinger posted:It is really pretty telling that there are still libs arguing that we have to work within the party while the party literally cancels elections to prevent the left from getting delegates for the convention. 1) not everyone who posts a thing you disagree with is a lib, they might be a trot 2) my position on working within the party is more "por que no los dos" after seeing how mindnumbingly easy it is, for example, to become one of the 5000 delegates at Texas' state convention
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:00
|
|
|
Remember how so many people said that Trump winning was better for the left than Hillary, because the Democratic Party would obviously move to the left, and be pushing a truly progressive agenda? It didn’t happen after 2016, and it won’t happen in 2020. The more ground you lose, the more people will be willing to settle for a return to the pre-Trump status quo. And you can be sure that a Trump with no re-election to worry about is going to let the ghouls who work for him go wild. You are also looking at at a 6-3 Supreme Court that will shut down any progressive policy that does get passed if the Democrats win in 2024. I’m not saying Biden is not a terrible candidate. He was a terrible candidate before the rape story, and was probably going to anyway, and is almost certainly going to lose unless we see 10x the number of corona deaths between now and the election. Pretending that Trump winning is somehow going to work out better in the long run is an idea that is detached from reality. If the Democrats lose in 2020, they are not moving to the left, and the party nominee will likely be one of the defeated centrists from this cycle - most likely Mayor Pete now that he is a household name. On the progressive side, someone completely new is going to have to prove their credentials, gain name recognition, earn people’s trust, and build a campaign operation from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
Working within the party is cool so long as it doesn't make you complacent or involve voting for a rapist
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:I mean, whatever circular logic evilweasel wants to use to justify their voting for a rapist isn't going to make sense at this point. I don't know why people engage with them when every point that gets challenged gets walked back immediately after. You misread my point because you didn’t follow what the conversation was. But “evilweasel changes his positions I’m too easily in response to an argument” is, uh, a new one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:If even dumbest man alive Chris Cillizza can see that this is a bad situation for Rapey Joe, then it's clear political malpractice for the DNC to keep on going forward with Biden's candidacy and they should pull the same strings to end it that they did for Bernie's campaign. Winning was never the point. The reason they don’t resist as hard against Trump is because they are ok with what is going on. They are the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
Just thinking about that time (less than a year ago!) that Biden suggested that black people don't know how to raise their kids and recommended they put the record player on at night to make them smarter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:This doesn't really map at all to general elections, though - you didn't generally have the Republican base refusing to turn out for the moderates. It's also completely irrelevant to evilweasel's post. Why doesn't it? This is quibbling over the particular method where it happens and ignoring that yes, many times the way to win long term is to lose in the short term. I explicitly said that it didn't necessarily apply to Biden or the general, just the general attitude of saying that losing to win doesn't exist. But if you want to go that way, do you think the average republican faithful would have preferred 8 years of Romney over the 4 of Trump? evilweasel posted:the republicans worked very hard after those incidents to squash nutcases from important races in the primaries for the senate, and mostly succeeded until that little incident in alabama. two of those seats they have never regained (angle and buck) and could have been handy when, say, repealing obamacare and giving them like a hundred extra judges, mcmahon was a sacrificial candidate in a state they were unlikely to win, and mourdock and akin were immense own-goals that took them six years to recover from. I think it would be very hard to come with any sort of clear criteria as to why Todd Akin counts as a nutcase but Hawley doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
Skyl3lazer posted:I mean, whatever circular logic evilweasel wants to use to justify their voting for a rapist isn't going to make sense at this point. I don't know why people engage with them when every point that gets challenged gets walked back immediately after. I wonder if anything could ever convince them not to vote for Biden. I wonder if anything could ever convince them not to vote for the Democrats. I'm very hopeful that "the Democrats are always at least a little bit better than the Republicans and that's enough" isn't axiomatic to their worldview but I've never seen anyone pull the old "you didn't reason yourself into your position" maneuver who isn't wildly projecting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Remember how so many people said that Trump winning was better for the left than Hillary, because the Democratic Party would obviously move to the left, and be pushing a truly progressive agenda? sadly this is the position I've come around to myself. Americans will frantically grasp for the safety of an imagined past in the face of crisis and will continue to embrace revanchism
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
punishedkissinger posted:It is really pretty telling that there are still libs arguing that we have to work within the party while the party literally cancels elections to prevent the left from getting delegates for the convention. But if the party platform doesn’t matter because no one believes Biden will actually follow it, what does it matter? People here really love arguing in bad faith about exacting concessions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:07
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Remember how so many people said that Trump winning was better for the left than Hillary, because the Democratic Party would obviously move to the left, and be pushing a truly progressive agenda? Considering the democrats didn't move to the left after Clinton's and Obama's wins, this is more of an argument against electoralism than for voting for the lesser evil. TyrantWD posted:But if the party platform doesn’t matter because no one believes Biden will actually follow it, what does it matter? It's not because of the platform that delegates matter. It's because of the rules and bylaws committee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
Democrats wanted to put the people responsible for DOMA back into the White House, one of which was impeached for getting head from an intern, and also had close ties to now dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Meanwhile, they're attempting to put in a man who has been caught being creepy on camera way too many times and supported keeping black kids segregated in the 70's into the White House. Hard to call them "progressives" when their policies have been largely regressive on the national stage. Nah, but "they've changed", so now it's okay! BANNED USER fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
The argument is that the Dems have proven that they will use any power they're given given to destroy the left and do nothing to impede the right. Trump, on the other hand, is largely free to ignore both the left and fiscal responsibility nonsense. Biden will use both covid spending and the debt ceiling as an excuse to gut literally everything public or a safety net at all levels If you're a sunrise kid or M4A advocate, you're as likely to get past chief of staff Mnuchin as Rahm, and for the same reasons
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:my answer to "why is biden better than trump" is that it's so loving obvious anyone who reads a newspaper knows it instinctively, unless they have extremely motivated reasoning - reasoning i discussed at length. we both know you didn't reason yourself into that position and no discussion of platforms is going to get you out of it. so that would be hours of work that would be wasted. How could you argue that Trump is worse on criminal justice than Biden is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
Also, Biden and Dem leadership isn't even promising to do any of that good stuff, or even listen to what advocates have to say. In fact the only things he has been clear on is that he'd never in a million years pass it
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:11
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:But if the party platform doesn’t matter because no one believes Biden will actually follow it, what does it matter? The party platform is like your starting offer during negotiations, neither of you expect to actually get that, but it's theoretically your bold starting place that sets the agenda. The fact that they're not even allowing the left coalition- a quite substantial movement of quite passionate people who genuinely want things to get better- to have a voice in that platform means that they are no longer interested in even pretending to listen to the voices who want things to improve. The left is no longer loving able to work within the party. There is no loving place for us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:12
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:But if the party platform doesn’t matter because no one believes Biden will actually follow it, what does it matter? A while ago I read a political science meta-article / literature review concluding that party platforms and candidate platforms seem to somewhat matter - which is to say, there'll generally be some amount of effort to implement the things on it, and some amount of that effort will succeed (if the party/candidate has a majority). The exact amount... varies. i feel like we'll be able to make a better guess on particular platform planks as time goes on or, god forbid, after biden's nominated joepinetree posted:Considering the democrats didn't move to the left after Clinton's and Obama's wins, this is more of an argument against electoralism than for voting for the lesser evil. yeah, i don't think the platform matters zero but setting the rules for the current convention and the 2024 primary is more important
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:21 |
|
|
Kreeblah posted:Like, if we keep going down this "Dems chasing the GOP to the right" for another 20 years and somehow climate change doesn't destroy us before then, I'm curious what people would put up with from Democrats just to keep the GOP out. If the Republicans ran on reinstituting segregation, and the Democrats ran on putting all immigrants (including legal ones) in cages because they're going after the same racist voters, I can't say I'd be voting for either of them. For the immigration issue right now Biden is actively trying to outflank Trump from the right via his yellow peril ads, to the point where the Chinese nationals he wants to keep out of the country are also citizens or green card holders, so this has already begun
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 23:15
|
|
