Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Someone Has To Do It: US Elections 2020

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Imposed on a system designed to preserve the supremacy of a white, land and slaveholding class, yes

    Comment


      The progressive legislation and SCOTUS judgments of circa 1963-1973 now seem like a historical outlier rather than the true curve of US liberal democracy.

      Comment


        [URL]https://twitter.com/guillotineshout/status/1244665397950976002?s=21[/URL]

        Comment


          can anyone disagree with this?

          https://twitter.com/rebeinstein/status/1244463200159977472?s=20

          Comment


            Also the ones about Sanders being an old, white male, I presume.

            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."
              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 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.
                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 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!!"
                  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


                    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.
                    I didn't feel particularly attacked. I just wanted you to understand the absolute depths of my cynicism and despair.

                    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


                        Depends maybe on if the GOP go for a more centrist candidate?

                        Comment


                          Depends on a host of factors, but that is definitely one.

                          A significant number of pundits believe that it will take the loss of the Senate to break Trump's grip on the party.

                          Comment


                            Right now I'm more worried about electoral subversion keeping Trump in office than popularity. We've entered an "all bets off" period.

                            Comment


                              I am exactly in the same place, but genuinely find it difficult to talk about.

                              Netanyahu's increasingly desperate attempts to cling to power are, I'm afraid, a harbinger of what we are likely to see here.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
                                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.
                                How likely do you think it is that the Senate will flip? My understanding was that the Republicans had it locked in thanks to gerrymandered districts and common or garden-variety voter suppression.

                                Comment


                                  One can't really gerrymander an entire state.

                                  The tactics for Senate races have therefore focused on suppressing the vote, which was likely the reason why they kept the Georgia seat in 2018, but isn't a viable strategy in the longer term.

                                  Comment


                                    States are a gerrymander, really.

                                    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


                                        Democrats 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


                                          Originally posted by TonTon View Post
                                          States are a gerrymander, really.
                                          Well, yes. But that is a different question that has its roots in the Founders' devotion to preserving "states' rights" and with that their privilege, including the maintenance of slavery.

                                          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 Post
                                            Democrats 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.
                                            A longer term strategy of any sort would be welcome, but that has never been the party's strength

                                            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 Post
                                                Democrats 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.
                                                They had one, it was Howard Dean's 50-state strategy which basically said all states are viable places for the Democrats to win (which is clearly true via any historical reading). It resulted in 2008. A lot of party insiders hated it, because it decentralised power, and they got rid of it and Dean.

                                                Comment


                                                  The circular firing squad had been the natural formation of the Democratic Party for my entire life

                                                  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

                                                    Working...
                                                    X