Imposed on a system designed to preserve the supremacy of a white, land and slaveholding class, yes
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Someone Has To Do It: US Elections 2020
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Nefertiti2 View Post
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lurgee View Post
Under the USAian election system and governmental structure that is pretty much inevitable. the whole system seems built to encourage stasis at best, or entropy. A president can do little good, but a reasonable amount of harm.
If they were honest, the Dems would nominate Buttigieg and he'd run on a platform of "I won't change anything much but at least I won't be (such) a shambling, incoherent, embarrassing fool."
The Democrats have been the first line of defence against the wishes of their own voters for over a decade now, probably longer. It's not really been a winning strategy, not with the losses in local and state legislatures, the governorships, their inability to consistently hold onto the House and Senate, something people took for granted during the New Deal years. They'd held the Presidency a couple times with once-in-a-generation charismatic politicians who then ended up underachieving in office because they lost the midterms.
Something's gonna give. Either the Dems sack up, or they're a rump party for inner city liberals and brown people for good, unable to actually effect any meaningful change because they don't have the levers of power anymore. Reduced to caterwauling about norms on the Supreme Court for the benefit of their simpering audience, because they don't have the votes to do anything about it. Maybe the decline and fall of the Boomers will change things, who knows.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Flynnie View Post
And they would lose, if not now then in 2024 once somebody who can speak a sentence without turning it into self-aggrandizement runs. People want change and some security, it might be good politics to just fucking give it to them. There is always a danger the Republicans do so first, for their voters alone and damn everybody else. In which case the Dems are in huge trouble.
The Democrats have been the first line of defence against the wishes of their own voters for over a decade now, probably longer. It's not really been a winning strategy, not with the losses in local and state legislatures, the governorships, their inability to consistently hold onto the House and Senate, something people took for granted during the New Deal years. They'd held the Presidency a couple times with once-in-a-generation charismatic politicians who then ended up underachieving in office because they lost the midterms.
Something's gonna give. Either the Dems sack up, or they're a rump party for inner city liberals and brown people for good, unable to actually effect any meaningful change because they don't have the levers of power anymore. Reduced to caterwauling about norms on the Supreme Court for the benefit of their simpering audience, because they don't have the votes to do anything about it. Maybe the decline and fall of the Boomers will change things, who knows.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lurgee View Post
You'll note I suggested nominating Buttigieg and running on a platform of "I won't change anything much but at least I won't be (such) a shambling, incoherent, embarrassing fool" would be honest, not necessarily wise or successful. Even such a frank pitch requires - as you said - a once-in-a-generation charismatic front man (sic) to win against the 'Blame the foreigns and Make America Great!!"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Flynnie View Post
Oh I'm not personally attacking you, just using your post as a springboard for why this idea -- which is essentially the Democratic Party plan, just with Biden -- is such a bad one.
Comment
-
Flynnie raises an interesting point that I think has merit, which is that the "real" contest will be in 2024, given the obvious infirmities of both candidates this time around (and Biden's one term pledge).
It is certainly conceivable that the Senate could have flipped by then, which could actually harm the Democratic presidential candidate, given the electorate's apparent preference for divided government.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ursus arctos View PostIt is certainly conceivable that the Senate could have flipped by then, which could actually harm the Democratic presidential candidate, given the electorate's apparent preference for divided government.
Comment
-
The Senate isn't any more gerrymandered than it was 50 years ago (apart from some self-sorting by liberals moving to more liberal places). It's structurally biased to small and rural states and there is voter suppression which makes it hard for the Democrats. But I'd say at this point that there's probably something like a 1 in 4 chance that they can win the Senate in 2020 - there are enough seats that are in play at the moment to make it possible, if not likely. What happens in 2022 depends on who wins the Presidential election. Whoever wins will have a hard time in the subsequent mid-terms because the economy will be utterly fucked. If Trump wins a second term, we'll have a Democratic senate from 2022 onwards. If Biden wins we probably won't.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TonTon View PostStates are a gerrymander, really.
Recall that the Constitution provided for the Senate to be elected by state legislatures rather than the very limited electorate of the time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TonTon View PostDemocrats do need some kind of longer-term strategy which takes into account the way the Senate is elected and how it works, and the increasing difficulty that causes them in trying to win it.
Comment
-
Sure. I get the history of it. I mean, I think it's a nonsense, but I also get that it's very deeply embedded. It is very much a problem, for Democrats, and I don't see or hear (from paying a little bit of attention sometimes, many thousands of miles away) much in the way of thinking that might address it, from Democrats.
Hehe, crosspost, yeah longer term strategy doesn't seem to be the Democrats strong point.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TonTon View PostDemocrats do need some kind of longer-term strategy which takes into account the way the Senate is elected and how it works, and the increasing difficulty that causes them in trying to win it.
Comment
-
There's one obvious possible strategy for the modern Democrats, which is increasing the number of states - adding DC and Puerto Rico in particular. Some 2020 candidates were talking about that seriously (Buttigieg, for all his supposed centrist views, was very much in favour of structural democratic reform to break down the inherent barriers).
Another plausible strategy is increasing/restoring the franchise. But that is hard when the governments of the states, not of the Republic, are responsible for the franchise, and those are the states with Republican governments. It would be easier with a supreme court who believed in democracy, but I'm not sure I know when we had one of those - certainly not in the last 2 decades.
A third, even harder strategy, is reducing the number of flyover states: is there any reason for the Dakota's to be separated, or for West Virginia to not be part of either Virginia or Kentucky? But I can't see a process where we get there.
The fourth strategy is trying to appeal to the current restricted electorates of the red states. Unfortunately, that usually means pandering to the racist and the god bothering, the ones who want to restrict womens and gay and trans rights, the ones who want less government interference. If you can find a message that appeals to them that doesn't include tolerance-for-vileness, you're a cleverer person than anyone I've yet heard or read comment.
Comment
Comment