[Discussion] The (likely) Depressing Road to the 2020 Election Thread

It's going to be a circus.

Will 45 get impeached or step down or challenged? All 3? MAYBE.

Will the democrats eat themselves alive and hobble literally every potential candidate before the primaries are done? PROBABLY.

Talk about that junk here.

DSGamer wrote:

Nah. I don't feel personally victimized.

Well then stop posting like someone who does.

DSGamer wrote:

The whole point of a primary is to decide the better candidate and I still feel that wasn't done.

Then you must hate democracy, DS, because primary voters overwhelmingly rejected your candidate.

Bernie had no path to the nomination. Although it took him weeks longer to admit it than it should have, even he finally acknowledged that given the polls in the states that hadn't had a primary yet he'd never be able to claw out enough delegates to even come close to securing the nomination.

There wasn't a grand conspiracy against Bernie. He just ran a campaign that ignored core Democratic voters in favor of young people, who his campaign failed horribly at turning out.

DSGamer wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

This thread will be a dumpster fire because of it. We all knew it. The scope of the thread assumed it. Stop crying about it. This the the f*cking world we created in 2016. It’s not over. And anyone that is not 100% behind removing Trump gets zero respect from me. You might as well be a Klan member.

~mod~

I've specifically asked Jayhawker to step away and disengage from this and other threads for a time because this kind of thing is unacceptable and goes against our code of conduct, so I will now explicitly tell you to not invoke said content so you can play the victim despite words that seem to say the contrary. If you continue to air grievance publicly, you and I will need to continue this conversation via PM to clarify why this isn't okay. Please discontinue derailing this thread with this and stick to the topic of discussion.

Moving along.

OG_slinger wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

The whole point of a primary is to decide the better candidate and I still feel that wasn't done.

Then you must hate democracy, DS, because primary voters overwhelmingly rejected your candidate.

I don't hate democracy. I think often democracy chooses bad candidates. My point (since we were actually talking about the sexual assault allegations) was that Biden wasn't given a thorough vetting.

I know he wasn't most people's first choice in this thread, but I feel even among people here who are well-read and informed there was a willingness to overlook a lot of stuff with Biden if he was the inevitable nominee. And now here we are being forced to overrule our conscience when we vote.

OG_slinger wrote:

Bernie had no path to the nomination. Although it took him weeks longer to admit it than it should have, even he finally acknowledged that given the polls in the states that hadn't had a primary yet he'd never be able to claw out enough delegates to even come close to securing the nomination.

There wasn't a grand conspiracy against Bernie. He just ran a campaign that ignored core Democratic voters in favor of young people, who his campaign failed horribly at turning out.

Agreed. I never said there was a grand conspiracy. We just chose a bad candidate. We'll see how that goes in November.

DSGamer wrote:

Agreed. I never said there was a grand conspiracy. We just chose a bad candidate. We'll see how that goes in November.

I mean, I agree with you on policy, Biden doesn't go far enough. I agree with you in terms of style, I hate the whole "Let's come together, bipartisanship Ra Ra" thing he dose. I agree with you in that I absolutely hate that we nominated someone with the accusations against them that he has. I think Biden is a bad choice for a lot of reasons.

But the public had 20+ choices and overwhelmingly went with him. Which leads me to believe he might be the best candidate in terms of getting votes, and that what I want and what the American public want are two different things.

And not singling anyone in this thread out, but I'm getting real tired of people who seem like that WANT Trump to beat Biden so they can continue to believe that the public isn't want it is. Like the impression I get is that in some peoples minds if Biden loses it wont be because a significant chunk of the country agrees with Trump, it will be because the Democrats didn't go left enough (with "left enough" half the time meaning Sanders and ONLY Sanders). Somehow the biggest issue isn't that the Republicans are f*cking evil and a bit under half the country are all about it, it's that the Democratic party is insufficiently good.

Or that if the country doesn't want Sanders then it deserves Trump.

Zona wrote:

But the public had 20+ choices and overwhelmingly went with him. Which leads me to believe he might be the best candidate in terms of getting votes, and that what I want and what the American public want are two different things.

I hope that's true. I fear that between his trouble speaking in public, the allegations and the inevitable Ukraine stuff they're bound to throw at him that it will be 2016 all over again.

And not singling anyone in this thread out, but I'm getting real tired of people who seem like that WANT Trump to beat Biden so they can continue to believe that the public isn't want it is.

I don't know that anyone here wants Trump to win. The last 4 years has been a nightmare. Especially the past 2 months. The sooner it's over the better.

Zona wrote:

But the public had 20+ choices and overwhelmingly went with him. Which leads me to believe he might be the best candidate in terms of getting votes, and that what I want and what the American public want are two different things.

Depends on why they voted for him. If they're "vote blue no matter who" then those voters propelling someone to victory is a wash. The best candidate would be the one with characteristics like "their voters will only vote for them" or "is the one exception that the 'vote blue no matter who,' crowd won't rally around."

I could see an argument for both Sanders and Biden. I can *really* see an argument for Warren.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I could see an argument for both Sanders and Biden. I can *really* see an argument for Warren.

Preach it!

Sadly, she consistently seemed to poll much much worse against Trump for some reason. We might never ever know what reason that could be... oh wait.

Glasses. It is because she wears glasses isn't it?

The public had a chance, but the more mainstream Democrats outplayed the progressives by dropping out en masse right after South Carolina. Where Trump got the nom because the GOP candidates were naïve enough (as were we all!) to think Trump didn't stand a chance and only dropped out too slowly, one by one.

While I will (as I've stated a gazillion times before) vote for Biden over Trump in the general election, I am not by any means going to pretend or overlook that he also isn't a sexual pervert, and that is regardless over whether or not this particular allegation is true. It's only one drop in that bucket.

If Amash were to enter the race AND he had an actual shot at winning verses just giving the election over to Trump, I *might* consider him despite disagreeing with some of his policies. At least he so far seems like an ethical person (which is very important to me in a candidate) and he was one of the few who stood against indefinite detention.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

The public had a chance, but the more mainstream Democrats outplayed the progressives by dropping out en masse right after South Carolina. Where Trump got the nom because the GOP candidates were naïve enough (as were we all!) to think Trump didn't stand a chance and only dropped out too slowly, one by one.

That’s a bingo!

I’ll hop in. I hate hopping in this thread lately.

Biden isn’t even my fourth choice; however, he’s now my first choice. I honestly have to say that I’ve been pleasantly surprised by him to lately. He’s actually open to more progressive ideas, at least in countenance and depending on his vp pick (especially if he picks a progressive woman), I think he’ll have a good working relationship with his vp, a solid advisor he’ll listen to that has his ear on policy, and (I do not wish for anyone to die, but for someone as old as Biden, you should consider it) someone I’d be happy to take the reigns if he passes.

I’m tired of watching Democrats play along while the Republicans aren’t. It’s time to simply drop the hammer on that bs. While I respect Obama, domestically, his biggest mistake was trying to ‘go high’ over the judges that he could’ve placed. If the Senate wont hear of confirmation hearings, then simply start placing them. I guarantee the minute you place one, they’ll start up hearings. Heck, it may be shady but it has more legal standing than McConnell’s ‘I’m just not going to play at all because it’s not explicitly in the constitution’ bit he pulled.

Long tangent, but my biggest fear is Biden will still try and play in a board game that’s missing almost the pieces because the Republicans have willfully swallowed them so they can wait it out and put them back on the board later, only after they’re covered in sh*t.

bekkilyn wrote:

If Amash were to enter the race AND he had an actual shot at winning verses just giving the election over to Trump, I *might* consider him despite disagreeing with some of his policies. At least he so far seems like an ethical person (which is very important to me in a candidate) and he was one of the few who stood against indefinite detention.

I think it's important to remember that while Amash appears to be a moral, decent and principled person, he's also very much a conservative. So a lot of the things Trump has done like deregulating the EPA would also happen under an Amash presidency assuming he had any chance of winning.

If Amash had a chance of winning then the question posed that Farley linked would be a very live question. Do you vote for the decent guy whose policies you disagree with (Amash is no Bernie Sanders) or the guy whose policies you agree with who might be a sex criminal?

DSGamer wrote:

I think it's important to remember that while Amash appears to be a moral, decent and principled person, he's also very much a conservative. So a lot of the things Trump has done like deregulating the EPA would also happen under an Amash presidency assuming he had any chance of winning.

If Amash had a chance of winning then the question posed that Farley linked would be a very live question. Do you vote for the decent guy whose policies you disagree with (Amash is no Bernie Sanders) or the guy whose policies you agree with who might be a sex criminal?

Yes, I know and I would look very carefully at his policies if I ever thought he had a good chance of winning. Now that he's not part of the GOP, he may go a different route on some things, so it would be worth looking into. I think it's all theoretical at this point though since I really don't think he would even have a chance and I don't plan on throwing my vote away.

BlackSheep wrote:

I’m tired of watching Democrats play along while the Republicans aren’t. It’s time to simply drop the hammer on that bs. While I respect Obama, domestically, his biggest mistake was trying to ‘go high’ over the judges that he could’ve placed. If the Senate wont hear of confirmation hearings, then simply start placing them. I guarantee the minute you place one, they’ll start up hearings. Heck, it may be shady but it has more legal standing than McConnell’s ‘I’m just not going to play at all because it’s not explicitly in the constitution’ bit he pulled.

Right there with you. Moscow Mitch is destroying the country, breaking all the rules with no repercussions. f*ck him. Obama should have recess appointed Merrick Garland on the way out the door.

Moscow Mitch is the dumbest slam man

just corny as hell

Stele wrote:
BlackSheep wrote:

I’m tired of watching Democrats play along while the Republicans aren’t. It’s time to simply drop the hammer on that bs. While I respect Obama, domestically, his biggest mistake was trying to ‘go high’ over the judges that he could’ve placed. If the Senate wont hear of confirmation hearings, then simply start placing them. I guarantee the minute you place one, they’ll start up hearings. Heck, it may be shady but it has more legal standing than McConnell’s ‘I’m just not going to play at all because it’s not explicitly in the constitution’ bit he pulled.

Right there with you. Moscow Mitch is destroying the country, breaking all the rules with no repercussions. f*ck him. Obama should have recess appointed Merrick Garland on the way out the door.

They got around that possibility by making sure that the Senate was never technically in recess. If I remember right we've been doing the same thing, but it just slows Trumps appointment of Federal Judges since McConnell and the Bottom Feeders* in the GOP just wave them through once they get back.

*Good band name

The sad part is that if there was ever a moment for the Democratic Socialist promising Medicare 4 All, this was the time.

By November, Bernie Sanders is going to look like a moderate when it comes to government intervention in the economy.

I never understood why consumer confidence rebounded the way it did after the Great Recession. The whole thing looked like we were just ignoring long term problems to focus on short-term self-care. And now this Coronavius looks like it's pulling down all the facades.

It feels like the Great Recession hitting when it did without any real recovery put so much of life out in the real world on such a precarious footing. That the only thing sustaining it was how we clung to our habits of going out and our memories of better times. Now this comes along and I have no idea what the world outside our doorsteps is going to look like. I think in the other thread I said something like the whole world is going to feel like wandering around a Dead Mall.

It's a shame that when the Democratic Party had a choice between someone who has been pushing to make the changes necessary to deal with how we've never recovered from the Great Recession, we chose they guy who promised us a return to 'normal' when 'normal' is on a makeshift ventilator at this point. I mean, I get it--we could have all used a breather for a couple of years and rolling the dice on some normal before the real work began wasn't a senseless risk, but talk about a case of Right Church, Wrong Pew when it came to the Democratic Primary.

I don't blame the party, The Public didn't want a revolution, but we can probably get them to accept change. Change that even at the most moderate will look remarkably like a scaled down version of what was offered as revolution, with a strong framework to build on it.

As much as I'm sure we all hate it, marketing matters, and the revolution marketing didn't sell. Without abandoning democracy you either conform to what the public will accept, figure out a way to change their minds, or lose.

Option one is disappointing, option two is incredibly difficult, and option three is unacceptable. Try to change minds, but if that fails swallow that disappointment because the only alternative is... look at the last 4 years.

Zona wrote:

I don't blame the party, The Public didn't want a revolution,

yeah, that's probably the more accurate way to put it.

Even on the left, none of us are permanently underemployed and overworked, we're just temporarily embarrassed members of the upper middle class.

but we can probably get them to accept change. Change that even at the most moderate will look remarkably like a scaled down version of what was offered as revolution, with a strong framework to build on it.

As much as I'm sure we all hate it, marketing matters, and the revolution marketing didn't sell. Without abandoning democracy you either conform to what the public will accept, figure out a way to change their minds, or lose.

Option one is disappointing, option two is incredibly difficult, and option three is unacceptable. Try to change minds, but if that fails swallow that disappointment because the only alternative is... look at the last 4 years.

True. I was focusing on how a medical catastrophe that has necessitated an unprecedented government intervention into the economy is sure going to change those minds. That if there was ever a time when the Revolution wouldn't have gotten out over its skis in governing, it's now.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Zona wrote:

I don't blame the party, The Public didn't want a revolution,

yeah, that's probably the more accurate way to put it.

Even on the left, none of us are permanently underemployed and overworked, we're just temporarily embarrassed members of the upper middle class.

but we can probably get them to accept change. Change that even at the most moderate will look remarkably like a scaled down version of what was offered as revolution, with a strong framework to build on it.

As much as I'm sure we all hate it, marketing matters, and the revolution marketing didn't sell. Without abandoning democracy you either conform to what the public will accept, figure out a way to change their minds, or lose.

Option one is disappointing, option two is incredibly difficult, and option three is unacceptable. Try to change minds, but if that fails swallow that disappointment because the only alternative is... look at the last 4 years.

True. I was focusing on how a medical catastrophe that has necessitated an unprecedented government intervention into the economy is sure going to change those minds. That if there was ever a time when the Revolution wouldn't have gotten out over its skis in governing, it's now.

Is it? That seems like the same sort of thinking that was SURE four years of Trump would have people yearning for a Sanders presidency. People might just want competent leadership and a steady hand. It's not like Biden's support got lower in Wisconsin after the states GOP forced the election to go forward to try and win a Court seat. And even in the event that it did get people wanting more radical efforts the track record for this sort of emergency resulting in positive change is... spotty. For every New Deal in history there's plenty of Mussolinis'.

Zona wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

True. I was focusing on how a medical catastrophe that has necessitated an unprecedented government intervention into the economy is sure going to change those minds. That if there was ever a time when the Revolution wouldn't have gotten out over its skis in governing, it's now.

Is it? That seems like the same sort of thinking that was SURE four years of Trump would have people yearning for a Sanders presidency. People might just want competent leadership and a steady hand. It's not like Biden's support got lower in Wisconsin after the states GOP forced the election to go forward to try and win a Court seat.

Oh, I think this will go way beyond a Trump level event. No, remember that Trump kept the plates spinning that have been up since the non-recovery from the Great Recession. No, I'm not talking about outrage at something like GOP dirty tricks.

I'm talking about, well, the image that keeps coming back to me is a country that's just one giant Dead Mall. We've come up with some ways to get through it until now, like Netflix and Chill, or Anthony Bourdain episodes, or our Instapots, and Dank Memes on Cell Phones.

No, I think all the stopgap measures that have been holding the country together for a decade are going to fail all at once. I think consumer confidence is going to tank for a long, long time. I have no idea why it's been so high for so long, but I think it's coming down and not going back up until there are *major* changes. Changes that make Bernie look like a moderate.

It makes sense that Biden's stability is more appealing when it's still just fear of what's going to happen. It's not real yet. This isn't the end, this isn't even the end of the beginning. Once the feeling that there's no way back to normal anytime soon, though, that equation changes.

And even in the event that it did get people wanting more radical efforts the track record for this sort of emergency resulting in positive change is... spotty. For every New Deal in history there's plenty of Mussolinis'.

That's what worries me. That the Democratic Establishment may be the next Weimar Republic, and the Coronavirus just killed the Cabaret Era.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Zona wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

True. I was focusing on how a medical catastrophe that has necessitated an unprecedented government intervention into the economy is sure going to change those minds. That if there was ever a time when the Revolution wouldn't have gotten out over its skis in governing, it's now.

Is it? That seems like the same sort of thinking that was SURE four years of Trump would have people yearning for a Sanders presidency. People might just want competent leadership and a steady hand. It's not like Biden's support got lower in Wisconsin after the states GOP forced the election to go forward to try and win a Court seat.

Oh, I think this will go way beyond a Trump level event. No, remember that Trump kept the plates spinning that have been up since the non-recovery from the Great Recession. No, I'm not talking about outrage at something like GOP dirty tricks.

I'm talking about, well, the image that keeps coming back to me is a country that's just one giant Dead Mall. We've come up with some ways to get through it until now, like Netflix and Chill, or Anthony Bourdain episodes, or our Instapots, and Dank Memes on Cell Phones.

No, I think all the stopgap measures that have been holding the country together for a decade are going to fail all at once. I think consumer confidence is going to tank for a long, long time. I have no idea why it's been so high for so long, but I think it's coming down and not going back up until there are *major* changes. Changes that make Bernie look like a moderate.

It makes sense that Biden's stability is more appealing when it's still just fear of what's going to happen. It's not real yet. This isn't the end, this isn't even the end of the beginning. Once the feeling that there's no way back to normal anytime soon, though, that equation changes.

And even in the event that it did get people wanting more radical efforts the track record for this sort of emergency resulting in positive change is... spotty. For every New Deal in history there's plenty of Mussolinis'.

That's what worries me. That the Democratic Establishment may be the next Weimar Republic, and the Coronavirus just killed the Cabaret Era.

For the bolded, I disagree. I think that even the stop gaps of a Biden administration would go some way to undoing the damage, and if we can actually get 4 years of control with both branches start actually fixing things.

As to the italics, I long ago gave up trying to predict the reactions of the American public, except to have the sneaking suspicion that it will be the opposite of what I would expect based on my own thinking. With that in mind I'm hesitant to believe that the public will suddenly start clamoring for radical change, because that's how I would react.

If the choice is between Biden as President and loss of the Republic, I know which outcome I'd choose.

The American experiment will not survive four more years of Trump.

Malor wrote:

If the choice is between Biden as President and loss of the Republic, I know which outcome I'd choose.

The American experiment will not survive four more years of Trump.

The experiment ended with Citizens United. These are post-mortem spasms.

I am by no means "rich", but I do own a luxury automobile, have a mortgage in a good school district, and have a functional 401k. I am generally pretty socially liberal and have a white hot hatred for the Republican Laffer Slope orthodoxy. I may be a bit better off than many Americans, but I am not the 1% and I certainly don't think I am the problem.

I also recognize that in the grand history of "revolutions", it is folks like me that end up taking it in the crotch while the very rich run off to guarded tax havens or nations who pander to their capital. So yeah, I'm not terribly enthusiastic about all this "revolution" talk.

Revolutions are almost never a good idea. The American and French Revolutions were extremely atypical; what you usually end up with is something like Egypt or, in some cases, total systemic collapse.

Considering how Trump behaves right now, getting an American Somalia out of a revolution might be the best outcome we can hope for. It could be much worse than that.

French Revolution was insanely bloody and directly led to Napoleon and years of Continent-wide war.

Zona wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:

Oh, I think this will go way beyond a Trump level event. No, remember that Trump kept the plates spinning that have been up since the non-recovery from the Great Recession. No, I'm not talking about outrage at something like GOP dirty tricks.

I'm talking about, well, the image that keeps coming back to me is a country that's just one giant Dead Mall. We've come up with some ways to get through it until now, like Netflix and Chill, or Anthony Bourdain episodes, or our Instapots, and Dank Memes on Cell Phones.

No, I think all the stopgap measures that have been holding the country together for a decade are going to fail all at once. I think consumer confidence is going to tank for a long, long time. I have no idea why it's been so high for so long, but I think it's coming down and not going back up until there are *major* changes. Changes that make Bernie look like a moderate.

It makes sense that Biden's stability is more appealing when it's still just fear of what's going to happen. It's not real yet. This isn't the end, this isn't even the end of the beginning. Once the feeling that there's no way back to normal anytime soon, though, that equation changes.

And even in the event that it did get people wanting more radical efforts the track record for this sort of emergency resulting in positive change is... spotty. For every New Deal in history there's plenty of Mussolinis'.

That's what worries me. That the Democratic Establishment may be the next Weimar Republic, and the Coronavirus just killed the Cabaret Era.

For the bolded, I disagree. I think that even the stop gaps of a Biden administration would go some way to undoing the damage, and if we can actually get 4 years of control with both branches start actually fixing things.

At this point I think you might be right. The conversation has had to shift so far left with what a Lockdown Due to Plague requires in terms of government intervention in the retail economy and the health care system, the establishment Democrats might stumble into doing what needs to be done.

What's really on my mind is that this is a situation where Sanders looks a *lot* less scary to Americans who might otherwise be easily swayed by the idea that he's some radical.

As to the italics, I long ago gave up trying to predict the reactions of the American public, except to have the sneaking suspicion that it will be the opposite of what I would expect based on my own thinking. With that in mind I'm hesitant to believe that the public will suddenly start clamoring for radical change, because that's how I would react.

sorry if I was unclear, but I'm thinking less about some grand ideological awokening, and more about how when people are facing real catastrophe, they're not going to quibble about whether it's technically socialism or not. They're just going to want someone to *do* something. Like I said, I think even people on the left don't see themselves as overworked and underpaid, they see themselves as temporarily embarrassed members of the upper middle class. When any hope of a return to that kind of 'normality' is gone, I don't think they'll really care about the label on the relief check.

Like, I read a lot from that Rachel Bitecofer, and one of the things she pointed out is that it's not so much about Democrats being too socialist or too centrist, it's that they run as if they're embarrassed to be Democrats. They spend way too much time doing the Republican's job for them, beating up on their own left flank.

She points out that Democrats have never grasped what Republicans have: that in today's world of hyper-polarization, your voters will follow where you lead them. When you spend time being embarrassed of being a Democrat you tamp down their enthusiasm. Instead, do what Republicans have figured out: you tell them they're on the right side, and then you start telling them what you're going to do, and they'll follow. When you try and chase some elusive All Things to All Voters platform, you just make your supporters feel like you're not a leader and you're embarrassed of the party they've already identified with.

Paleocon wrote:

I am by no means "rich", but I do own a luxury automobile, have a mortgage in a good school district, and have a functional 401k. I am generally pretty socially liberal and have a white hot hatred for the Republican Laffer Slope orthodoxy. I may be a bit better off than many Americans, but I am not the 1% and I certainly don't think I am the problem.

I also recognize that in the grand history of "revolutions", it is folks like me that end up taking it in the crotch while the very rich run off to guarded tax havens or nations who pander to their capital. So yeah, I'm not terribly enthusiastic about all this "revolution" talk.

Well, let's hold up here.

We're talking more about revolutions like the Reagan Revolution, or the Republican Revolution in the 90s. Whatever ill-effects those 'revolutions' had was not due to civil disorder or some kind of radical upheaval disrupting the peace.