|
This CNN story about Biden rebranding himself as the steward of a healthy economy struck me as funny for various reasons, not in the least bc even Biden himself doesn't seem too sure of it.quote:The White House is selling ‘Bidenomics.’ Is anyone buying? It's brave of them to rely on economic branding with two out of every three people disapproving of his handling of the economy and three out of every four people perceiving the economy as poor. They could probably use some cram sessions to make sure the president can describe it in a 3-pt elevator speech, though, lest he keep talking about the hardship of his family during the Reagan years or how he doesn't know what the hell Bidenomics means. Also, I've been trying to think of a more hapless press secretary during my lifetime than Jean-Pierre. Granted, her job is a thankless one, and she was preceded by an experienced smooth-talker, but I don't think I've ever seen her fielding questions & not felt sorry for her.
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:This CNN story about Biden rebranding himself as the steward of a healthy economy struck me as funny for various reasons, not in the least bc even Biden himself doesn't seem too sure of it. It says he isn't sure about the term "Bidenomics" and not that he isn't sure he wants to message about the economy. This was the full quote and follow-up question: quote:Biden: "Let's get it straight. The first time it was used was in the Wall Street Journal. Okay? And I don't go around beating my chest 'Bidenomics' so the press started calling it Bidenomics." quote:Biden: "I didn't come up with this, but I'll run with it. If Bidenomics is the most jobs created in a first term by a President ever, the strongest labor market in a generation, real wage gains for the bottom 50%, and inflation down by 50%, then that is Bidenomics." It seems like they are officially embracing it as of today, though: https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1674076443607719943 https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1674066408903155719
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
I can see some people caring as they are proud of their ancestry ( Tammy Duckworth is a member of the Daughters of the Revoulutionary War ) but others it's distant enough - seven generations removed! - that it becomes kinda meaningless. Like, 2 out of 128 ancestors of that generation owned people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Comparing US and EU racism doesn't really work because the situations are different. The US has a much larger minority population, and has thus had to grapple with the presence of minorities and the legacies of old racist policies in ways that the EU largely hasn't. This is a very good post. I have always felt that racism and the legacy of slavery is original sin of American politics, it is the fault line underlying everything, it is the fuel that powers the engine of our politics even now, centuries later. Felt like we were maybe trying to come to an actual reckoning with this in the post civil rights movement era but now with Trumpism, the embrace of white grievance and immigrant and CRT bashing we are running away from that reckoning as fast as we can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
'Bidenomics' seems like a failure, as a term, if he didn't coin it himself. At least Stephen Colber' was the one who actually used 'truthiness' first and got it into the dictionary. A shameful word play. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Who's enthusiastic about Joe Biden? Or John Kerry? Or Al Gore? Obama had a nice little brief wave there for a minute and seemed transformative and then, once elected, decided to appoint Tim Geitner and his gang to run the economy the very first week. That was the end of Hope and Change. If by enthusiasm you mean 80 million people voted for Biden, I’d say a bunch? Gore and Kerry may have lost but they found a lot more of the >23% of the electorate Thompson suggests just evaporated in 72 than McGovern did. If by enthusiasm you mean some arbitrary metric by which Hunter S Thompson wouldn’t have a burr up his rear end about politics anymore if he were alive today, good luck. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Jun 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 16:36
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:'Bidenomics' seems like a failure, as a term, if he didn't coin it himself. At least Stephen Colber' was the one who actually used 'truthiness' first and got it into the dictionary. A shameful word play. I think we are destined to have every President's last name turned into some policy portmanteau and for the -gate suffix to be applied to literally any scandal for the rest of history. The meaning also doesn't always stay the same as when it was originally introduced. Obamacare started out as a pejorative, but eventually became the default name for it and they had to switch to "socialized medicine" or "government health insurance." "Trickle Down Economics" was originally the positive name for it and people against it tried to make it "voodoo economics" at the time, but eventually "trickle down" became the pejorative name for it and "Reaganomics" became the default "good" word for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I read it more as a 50 year old example of Democrats running a progressive primary campaign, winning the nomination and then immediately tracking towards the center. McGovern more or less came out of nowhere, tapped a vein in the leftist electorate, beat a few "big name" front runners, spoke to things a lot of people cared about and then appeared to abandon all the policies that got him the nom in the first place and disappoint the people that got him there. Ideally, what you'd want is for the things that galvanize your base to also have wide appeal generally. If you go for things that galvanize your base and lose badly, that's pretty bad. It means that not only is your base not big enough to sustain a win, but also that basically everyone outside your base hates the stuff your base loves. Who's enthusiastic about Joe Biden? Apparently, enough people for him to solidly beat Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, both of whom were known for their highly enthusiastic bases but lacked wider appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:'Bidenomics' seems like a failure, as a term, if he didn't coin it himself. At least Stephen Colber' was the one who actually used 'truthiness' first and got it into the dictionary. A shameful word play. I'm honestly surprised that -nomics hasn't long taken its place alongside -Gate as "political phrasing that has been run into the loving ground and mashed into a fine paste"
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1673836540860981249 Your Honor - when those wiretaps recorded me saying "I'm going to go deal drugs to children now" I was lying to look good in front of my buddies. I actually didn't have any drugs. I was going to volunteer at a soup kitchen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
I have a tape from the early 80s of my brothers and me doing a fake news broadcast that includes the phrase “Reaganomics is working” if you’re curious about how fresh and bold this strategy is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
It's become a mainstream Republican position to endorse bombing Mexico or sending in the military to deal with fentanyl smuggling and the border crisis. This is a pretty crazy idea, but it is apparently the most popular Republican policy plank among the general public according to NBC News. https://twitter.com/JustinTLogan/status/1674060782437298183 Anti-woke wars are very popular among the GOP base, but not so much among the general public. Banning abortion after 6 weeks is somewhat popular with GOP primary voters, but extremely unpopular with the general public. Cutting social security is divisive among GOP primary voters, but extremely unpopular among the general public. Sending troops to the border/Mexico to stop fentanyl smuggling is the only major GOP platform policy that gets a solid majority of support among the general public. quote:Poll: Sending troops to U.S.-Mexico border is popular. Other GOP policy planks are struggling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
They can't even keep drugs out of prisons, but surely more punitive measures and actual war will fix the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
Just shoot the fentanyl as it tries to cross the border. Bing bong so simple.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I read it more as a 50 year old example of Democrats running a progressive primary campaign, winning the nomination and then immediately tracking towards the center. McGovern more or less came out of nowhere, tapped a vein in the leftist electorate, beat a few "big name" front runners, spoke to things a lot of people cared about and then appeared to abandon all the policies that got him the nom in the first place and disappoint the people that got him there. The thing is the "leftist electorate" is like 15% of voters now. That's enough to be influential within the Democratic party, but someone who campaigns entirely on appealing to 15% of voters is just not a serious candidate. I don't think there is any possible scenario in which someone who agrees with Hunter S Thompson on policy issues wins a Democratic primary and Thompson says "wow, finally Democratic voters chose a candidate I can support unreserved, bravo Democrats!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 17:27
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Meanwhile, a majority of GOP voters say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who supports providing more funding and weapons to Ukraine. Kind of surprised that among all registered voters polled a slight plurality say that a candidate proposing more aid to Ukraine makes them less likely to support the candidate:  Maybe it's a reflection of most voters feeling that the economy is the shitter,
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:The thing is the "leftist electorate" is like 15% of voters now. Based on what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 17:32
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Just shoot the fentanyl as it tries to cross the border. Bing bong so simple. Just put a bunch of police officers at the border, as they start to convulse we'll know who has the drugs. But also, what do people think "the military" would do at the border to stop drugs? Also, it's probably your kids white friend getting people hooked on opioids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's become a mainstream Republican position to endorse bombing Mexico or sending in the military to deal with fentanyl smuggling and the border crisis. tbh I doubt that any of the current GOP candidates actually want to bomb Mexico (except for maybe Trump) it's just that the first one who expresses even the slightest hint of pushback on this is gonna get called a wimp by all the others
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:The thing is the "leftist electorate" is like 15% of voters now. That's enough to be influential within the Democratic party, but someone who campaigns entirely on appealing to 15% of voters is just not a serious candidate. You'd be right about Thompson not saying "wow" under any scenario because he's been dead for almost 20 years. But you'd be wrong to paint him as a 15-percenter lefty. quote:Politically, Hunter was a fierce libertarian, a stalwart believer that the individual controlled his or her own destiny. If you trespassed onto Owl Farm — his property — you would get shot at. Period. Although he usually voted for Democratic presidential candidates (he wrote in Dick Gregory in 1968 and pulled the lever for Ralph Nader in 2000), he had limited sympathy for the poor or down-trodden or weak. He was not a bleeding-heart liberal or a U.N. enthusiast. He championed “freaks” and “anarchists,” however, because they had made a conscious decision to rebel against conformity. That, after all, like protesting an unjust war or demanding civil rights, took courage. A believer in social Darwinism, he admired craftsmen and workers who did their job well. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/hunter-s-thompson-contentment-was-not-enough-231836/
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
zoux posted:Based on what? Sanders and Warren got about 30% combined in the 2020 Democratic primary and Democrats are about half of the electorate. It's easy to make it smaller than that (non leftists might have voted for Sanders or Warren, independents who voted for Biden might be less likely to be leftists) but you can't really get larger unless you think there are a disproportionate amount of committed democratic socialists who didn't vote for the democratic socialist in the primary. James Garfield fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jun 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Sanders and Warren got about 30% combined in the 2020 Democratic primary and Democrats are about half of the electorate. It's easy to make it smaller than that (non leftists might have voted for Sanders or Warren, independents who voted for Biden might not count) but you can't really get larger unless you think there are a disproportionate amount of committed democratic socialists who didn't vote for the democratic socialist in the primary. What about people who live in closed primary states but aren't registered Dems? Anecdotally speaking, I knew a lot of Bernie supporters who were registered independent (hell, I was one of them) Hell, I even tried changing my registration so I could vote in the primaries in 2016, but there was always some sort of error that kept it from going through until it was too late.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:The thing is the "leftist electorate" is like 15% of voters now. That's enough to be influential within the Democratic party, but someone who campaigns entirely on appealing to 15% of voters is just not a serious candidate. As much as "Candidate Obama vs President Obama" gets talked about, he openly ran as the most centristy centrist to ever triangulate and I wouldn't be surprised if more of his voters stayed home in 2010 due to his real policies being left of his campaign (at least as reported in the media) than to the right. Calling that "change" sounds pretty rich from a leftist perspective, but only because the memories have faded of eight years of neocons and the religious right packing the White House. I mean, it's not like Obama was lying when he ran as a centrist, but he ended up a natural candidate for it since there really wasn't as much of an electorate substantially to his left as there is now, and he was successfully targeting a whole lot of the temporarily embarrassed conservative electorate besides: from all I've seen most of those famous "Obama-Trump voters" of 2016 were lifelong Republicans who soured on Bush when Iraq went south and the economy collapsed. That strategy really isn't as available today, though 2022 suggests you can embarrass some of them into staying home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
the_steve posted:I'm honestly surprised that -nomics hasn't long taken its place alongside -Gate as "political phrasing that has been run into the loving ground and mashed into a fine paste" Probably at least partially because it doesn’t append as well as “-gate.” Imagine trying to say “Bushnomics” seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:Sanders and Warren got about 30% combined in the 2020 Democratic primary and Democrats are about half of the electorate. It's easy to make it smaller than that (non leftists might have voted for Sanders or Warren, independents who voted for Biden might be less likely to be leftists) but you can't really get larger unless you think there are a disproportionate amount of committed democratic socialists who didn't vote for the democratic socialist in the primary. I guess I'd need to know how to define "leftist" in America because I doubt many, or even most, of the people who voted for those candidates consider themselves leftists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
zoux posted:Based on what? I agree with him, but based on a different set of data. There were polls during the Obama presidency that asked if he was Too Liberal -Too Conservative. The Too Conservative section was always around 15%.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
the_steve posted:What about people who live in closed primary states but aren't registered Dems? It's assuming that 30% of Democratic general election voters are leftists, so that would include you if you voted for Clinton in the general election. If you didn't vote in the general election you weren't a member of the electorate. Anyway, "supported Bernie Sanders but couldn't vote in the primary because of registration" isn't going to describe a significant number of people on the national scale, if it did Bernie would have significantly underperformed polls. zoux posted:I guess I'd need to know how to define "leftist" in America because I doubt many, or even most, of the people who voted for those candidates consider themselves leftists. You're probably right, it's an upper bound.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Just put a bunch of police officers at the border, as they start to convulse we'll know who has the drugs. People just answered the question as military = good and if they have any idea at all about what would happen it’s conservatives getting hype for action movie bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Your Honor - when those wiretaps recorded me saying "I'm going to go deal drugs to children now" I was lying to look good in front of my buddies. I actually didn't have any drugs. I was going to volunteer at a soup kitchen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
James Garfield posted:It's assuming that 30% of Democratic general election voters are leftists, so that would include you if you voted for Clinton in the general election. If you didn't vote in the general election you weren't a member of the electorate. Only a small percentage of voters vote in primaries, so that is not really a good way to get a measure of the total population. Plus, voters are incoherent and bad at self-identification. There was a small percent of primary voters (who are generally more engaged than the average person) who rated Bernie Sanders as more conservative than Biden because Biden backed an assault weapons ban and Bernie had been somewhat pro-gun until recently. According to Pew, the biggest group of non-voters and swing voters are people who are fairly left-wing on economic issues, but very conservative on social issues. I don't think many of them would call themselves leftists, but they probably would favor much more aggressive tax and spending policies than the average American. They would also be much more pro-life, anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-immigrant, and pro-religion in the public sphere than the average American and definitely the average self-identifying left wing person. So, despite being one of the largest ideological groups in the country, their views are also basically electoral poison and don't really fit in with any modern leftist or conservative group. Either way, it is kind of pointless to try and calculate the exact amount of people in any self-identification group because there is no 100% clear definition and many people wouldn't self-identify as one even if they did fit the criteria.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
Another way to look at it is that while US population increased by something like 65% from 1972 to 2020, Biden vote total over McGovern is about a 180% increase. Those are more stark numbers than trying to quantify how enthusiastic everyone is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Probably at least partially because it doesn’t append as well as “-gate.” Imagine trying to say “Bushnomics” seriously. Trying to say "Bushonomics" would immediately lead to Bushgate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 18:43
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I think we are destined to have every President's last name turned into some policy portmanteau and for the -gate suffix to be applied to literally any scandal for the rest of history. Reaganomics is a pejorative for most non regressives. Also Oceangate has nothing to do with Watergate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
Lumpy posted:Trying to say "Bushonomics" would immediately lead to Bushgate. George HW Bush used Bushonomics in the late 80's. There is also a rap song by Talib Kweli - which includes guest rapping by Cornel West - about W. Bush's economics plan called "Bushonomics." Sadly, the Kweli/West rap label never took off with the general public.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
Oceangategate
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Reaganomics is a pejorative for most non regressives. Reaganomics was the term he used and was not a pejorative. Reagan's approval rating has also hovered around 70% for the last 25 years or so. It's definitely not commonly used as a pejorative. Oceangate was the name of the company. I don't think people were actually saying "Ocean-gate" to mean a controversy in the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Probably at least partially because it doesn’t append as well as “-gate.” Imagine trying to say “Bushnomics” seriously. I'm disappointed we didn't get "Obamanomics." At least that's fun to say. We could write it in the Obamanomicon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:I'm disappointed we didn't get "Obamanomics." At least that's fun to say. We could write it in the Obamanomicon. Iä, Iä, Kennedy? I'm fresh out of references here, there are too many loving political dynasties in the US, and the worst offenders being the god damned Kennedies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 20:11
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Just put a bunch of police officers at the border, as they start to convulse we'll know who has the drugs. DeSantis recently announced an immigration policy in which the military would be authorized to use "deadly force" against "cartel operatives" that are "cutting through the border wall". He seems to be suggesting that there's an effective border wall but that Biden is just letting people cut holes in the border wall and freely move through it, and therefore DeSantis is promising to get tough by sending armed men to immediately address any breach, round up the breachers, and kill any of them found with drugs. There doesn't seem to be anything to it beyond an the familiar old tough-on-crime framing of "start killing suspected drug dealers on sight and soon there won't be any more drug dealers". It's vintage War On Drugs rhetoric. In that regard, there's no real reason to be specifically sending the military to do that (CBP is perfectly capable of shooting people, and they're plenty willing to), but the military has more of a "tough" image and therefore better matches the "get tough on crime" messaging.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 20:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:32 |
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:I'm disappointed we didn't get "Obamanomics." At least that's fun to say. We could write it in the Obamanomicon. We did for a while, but it never really caught on in the general parlance. Ron Paul was even involved with one of the books on "Obamanomics." Interestingly, it was used as both a positive and negative thing:  
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2023 20:19
|
|