Democratic Candidate 2020

[Bird on a Fire]

Nope, what you want is a landslide, to increase the chance that the Senate will flip. That's more important than proving some point about what might have been.

Well that's true. I assume the election of senators generally follows the presidential election pretty closely?

[Bird on a Fire]

Nope, what you want is a landslide, to increase the chance that the Senate will flip. That's more important than proving some point about what might have been.

And that's also a result whereby Sanders plus Warren could end up holding some significant power in the Senate - a Democratic proposal with a majority of 2 or 3 would allow them to override the right of the Democratic party (Manchin and Jones (if he holds Alabama)), but demand concessions to do so.

Unless Biden vetoes it, like he's already said he'd do with Medicare for All. (He is backed by insurance companies, and fossil fuel investors, after all)

[bolo]

There is no scenario in which Medicare for All gets to Biden's desk for a veto.

[Bird on a Fire]

Nope, what you want is a landslide, to increase the chance that the Senate will flip. That's more important than proving some point about what might have been.

This. Sanders's supporters need to get over themselves and drop the tribalism. If they really care about kids in cages, etc - and I'm sure most do - then rally behind the campaign that can put an end to it.

Yes, for sure. I hope they do.

But votes are earned, not granted automatically by entitlement, and the language around this is often strange. When Sanders fails to secure votes from the right of the Democratic base, he's blamed for being excessively ideological - but when Biden fails to appeal to the left of the Democratic base, the base is blamed for being tribalistic. The reality is more complex, with so-called 'moderates' tribally voting against their own interests because they're afraid of the word socialism, and people lacking healthcare and worried about the climate crisis not seeing much difference in practical terms between somebody who will do nothing and somebody who will do next to nothing, but paying lip service to the idea of gradually doing something in a few elections' time, except of course that the Republicans will get in again in the meantime, undo a lot of the progress and cause more damage.

[Bird on a Fire]

There is no scenario in which Medicare for All gets to Biden's desk for a veto.

Which makes it all the odder to publicly say he'd veto it. It would have been a consequence-free olive branch to the left. "Oh yes, I'd love to support a well-worked proposal with broad support yada yada".

Apparently he is actually opposed to the idea of healthcare for the vulnerable, which I suspect will cost him a few votes.

[bolo]

He's not opposed to the idea of healthcare for the vulnerable. He's opposed to Medicare for All, which isn't a well-worked proposal with broad support, but a half-worked proposal with support only on the left and clear opposition among the centrist swing voters who actually decide elections.

[Bird on a Fire]

And yet he hasn't worked his own proposal either, instead continuing to force vulnerable people to pay money to monstrously unethical insurers and/or accept exploitative working conditions so as not to jeapordise healthcare for their family.

The argument goes, if people really care about X they should really behind whatever candidate offers X, even if imperfectly.

[bolo]

It matters almost not at all what the Democratic presidential candidate proposes with respect to healthcare. If the Senate remains Republican, nothing will happen. If it flips Democratic, something will probably happen, but what that is will depend on how big the margin is and what the Senate is able to agree on. Under any plausible margin, it won't be Medicare for All. There's no point in Biden coming out strongly for a proposal that will turn off centrist voters, when he won't have much control over how actual healthcare legislation gets negotiated even if he wins. Biden understands this, having spent more than 30 years as a senior and influential Senator. Sanders either doesn't, or maybe does but doesn't care, having spent 13 years as a Senator who mostly just gives speeches and opposes things.

[Bird on a Fire]

It matters almost not at all what the Democratic presidential candidate proposes with respect to healthcare.

I'm not sure that this is the rallying "Vote Democrat 2020" message that's needed right now.

If theSenate remains Republican, nothing will happen. If it flips Democratic, something will probably happen, but what that is will depend on how big the margin is and what the Senate is able to agree on. Under any plausible margin, it won't be Medicare for All. There's no point in Biden coming out strongly for a proposal that will turn off centrist voters, when he won't have much control over how actual healthcare legislation gets negotiated even if he wins. Biden understands this, having spent more than 30 years as a senior and influential Senator. Sanders either doesn't, or maybe does but doesn't care, having spent 13 years as a Senator who mostly just gives speeches and opposes things.

Like everybody else, I'm aware of the paralysing dysfunction at the heart of current US politics. What I'm looking for is a solution to it. The Republicans have been enormously successful at using the system as it's currently implemented to their advantage, achieving the wishes of a small special interest group of Republican donors against the policy preferences of the USian public. It's not much of a plan to aim to compromise with them for a term or two, trying to achieve less than you'd like to and actually achieving less than that, while leaving the systematic imbalances intact and inevitably returning the reigns of power after 4-8 years. Trump was elected only 8 years after Obama ran with Hope and Change.

It was dissatisfaction with this status quo that lead to Trump's election. Clinton's longstanding presence at the centre of the murky web of amoral compromise that has characterised Democratic policymaking over the last decades hurt her campaign, and Biden's will too. He's just looking to roll back the clock to where things were when people wanted Donald Trump to be president. Even if he succeeds in the short-term (as I expect and hope he will) it does nothing for the long-term prospects of the US.

[dyqik]

It matters almost not at all what the Democratic presidential candidate proposes with respect to healthcare.

I'm not sure that this is the rallying "Vote Democrat 2020" message that's needed right now.

If theSenate remains Republican, nothing will happen. If it flips Democratic, something will probably happen, but what that is will depend on how big the margin is and what the Senate is able to agree on. Under any plausible margin, it won't be Medicare for All. There's no point in Biden coming out strongly for a proposal that will turn off centrist voters, when he won't have much control over how actual healthcare legislation gets negotiated even if he wins. Biden understands this, having spent more than 30 years as a senior and influential Senator. Sanders either doesn't, or maybe does but doesn't care, having spent 13 years as a Senator who mostly just gives speeches and opposes things.

Like everybody else, I'm aware of the paralysing dysfunction at the heart of current US politics. What I'm looking for is a solution to it. The Republicans have been enormously successful at using the system as it's currently implemented to their advantage, achieving the wishes of a small special interest group of Republican donors against the policy preferences of the USian public. It's not much of a plan to aim to compromise with them for a term or two, trying to achieve less than you'd like to and actually achieving less than that, while leaving the systematic imbalances intact and inevitably returning the reigns of power after 4-8 years. Trump was elected only 8 years after Obama ran with Hope and Change.

How do you think the US can change enough in 6 months to offer an alternative to this? What do you think could realistically happen to give progressive Democrats a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? Or even all Democrats?

Avoiding compromise would need them to win at least 12 extra Senate seats in red conservative states, by attracting voters who watch Fox News and read conservative local newspapers. How does a left wing nominee do that? Note that Bernie couldn't even win the same set of left wing Democrats that he did in 2016.

[secret squirrel]

Nope, what you want is a landslide, to increase the chance that the Senate will flip. That's more important than proving some point about what might have been.

This. Sanders's supporters need to get over themselves and drop the tribalism. If they really care about kids in cages, etc - and I'm sure most do - then rally behind the campaign that can put an end to it.

Kids will still be in cages under Biden though, as they were under Obama. I'm not saying Trump isn't worse on matters of substance. He is, but he's like 10% worse, and he's probably even better than Bush Jr., who Liberals love now somehow.

[secret squirrel]

How do you think the US can change enough in 6 months to offer an alternative to this? What do you think could realistically happen to give progressive Democrats a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? Or even all Democrats?

Avoiding compromise would need them to win at least 12 extra Senate seats in red conservative states, by attracting voters who watch Fox News and read conservative local newspapers. How does a left wing nominee do that? Note that Bernie couldn't even win the same set of left wing Democrats that he did in 2016.

These are fair points. But I don't see how continuing a strategy that has lost ground to the Republicans consistently for 40 years under a man committed to 'not changing anything fundamental' is a winner either.

I mean really, America is just a write-off at this point. If the near collapse of the global financial system 10 years ago, and the global crisis unfolding right now isn't enough to get the Democrats to offer something other than Republican-lite, then they are spent as a worthwhile political force at the national level.

[Bird on a Fire]

It matters almost not at all what the Democratic presidential candidate proposes with respect to healthcare.

I'm not sure that this is the rallying "Vote Democrat 2020" message that's needed right now.

If theSenate remains Republican, nothing will happen. If it flips Democratic, something will probably happen, but what that is will depend on how big the margin is and what the Senate is able to agree on. Under any plausible margin, it won't be Medicare for All. There's no point in Biden coming out strongly for a proposal that will turn off centrist voters, when he won't have much control over how actual healthcare legislation gets negotiated even if he wins. Biden understands this, having spent more than 30 years as a senior and influential Senator. Sanders either doesn't, or maybe does but doesn't care, having spent 13 years as a Senator who mostly just gives speeches and opposes things.

Like everybody else, I'm aware of the paralysing dysfunction at the heart of current US politics. What I'm looking for is a solution to it. The Republicans have been enormously successful at using the system as it's currently implemented to their advantage, achieving the wishes of a small special interest group of Republican donors against the policy preferences of the USian public. It's not much of a plan to aim to compromise with them for a term or two, trying to achieve less than you'd like to and actually achieving less than that, while leaving the systematic imbalances intact and inevitably returning the reigns of power after 4-8 years. Trump was elected only 8 years after Obama ran with Hope and Change.

How do you think the US can change enough in 6 months to offer an alternative to this? What do you think could realistically happen to give progressive Democrats a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? Or even all Democrats?

Avoiding compromise would need them to win at least 12 extra Senate seats in red conservative states, by attracting voters who watch Fox News and read conservative local newspapers. How does a left wing nominee do that? Note that Bernie couldn't even win the same set of left wing Democrats that he did in 2016.

I think people with power within the Democratic party need to realise that straightforward electoralism isn't the only weapon at their disposal. The Republicans get this, and they rewrite geography and eviscerate institutions and hold hostage the presentation of information to the public. The Democrats also need to think outside the ballot box. They have a huge numerical advantage, with youth and essential workers (sensu coronavirus) on their side.

The US populace is held hostage by the class that controls it's economy, so you target that class strategically. A president doesn't need any votes from anyone to issue orders for "Carbon Neutral by 2030" or "No new oil" or whatever, and while those measures are challenged in appeals courts (and probably loses because once again the Republicans were playing the long game, dirtily) the uncertainty crashes sectors of the market. Wherever, downticket, the Democrats can actually permanently make changes at a lower level, they should. Strikes in a few key workplaces owned by influential donors to particular legislators whose votes you need. The government can always promise to protect workers, as it has access to enormously cheap debt. Play the Trump game of messaging first and getting the legal aspects sorted second, because the media and economy both move faster than legislation ever can.

I'm not a political strategist but that's the kind of thing I think could actually work. The current paradigm obviously doesn't. Play the Republicans at their own game using the levers of power that they've reinforced: 24 hour news, economic warfare. Public opinion is generally aligned far more closely with Democratic positions, as long as they aren't presented as partisan issues. So you make them non-partisan: jobs, families, the value of hard work. Those are all things that socialism valorises and neoliberalism fragilises, and they're all top of the US politics bingo card. And if the politically homeless see actual systemic change in progress, maybe just maybe they wouldn't be so quick to abandon its architects at the midterms.

Thinking purely in terms of who can vote for what is not only defeatist, it's intellectually lazy. You don't play chess against a pigeon, but you don't play it against the GOP either. You fight hard using the appropriate weapons for the game you're playing and the century you find yourself in.

[Bird on a Fire]

I mean really, America is just a write-off at this point. If the near collapse of the global financial system 10 years ago, and the global crisis unfolding right now isn't enough to get the Democrats to offer something other than Republican-lite, then they are spent as a worthwhile political force at the national level.

Not all America, just the USA. I think there will be exciting things coming out of Latin America during the next decades, especially if whatever mysterious force keeps contributing to so much political instability finds itself considerably weakened. It really does look like the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora is imploding, though. Interesting times.

[secret squirrel]

I mean really, America is just a write-off at this point. If the near collapse of the global financial system 10 years ago, and the global crisis unfolding right now isn't enough to get the Democrats to offer something other than Republican-lite, then they are spent as a worthwhile political force at the national level.

Not all America, just the USA. I think there will be exciting things coming out of Latin America during the next decades, especially if whatever mysterious force keeps contributing to so much political instability finds itself considerably weakened. It really does look like the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora is imploding, though. Interesting times.

Yes, I meant the USA. Though ultimately the US is still hugely powerful, and will continue to project that power for the benefit of the people for whose benefit the US government acts. As the global situation deteriorates with the advance of climate change expect that projection of power to be more and more brutal. The USA will not go gently.

[Bird on a Fire]

I mean really, America is just a write-off at this point. If the near collapse of the global financial system 10 years ago, and the global crisis unfolding right now isn't enough to get the Democrats to offer something other than Republican-lite, then they are spent as a worthwhile political force at the national level.

Not all America, just the USA. I think there will be exciting things coming out of Latin America during the next decades, especially if whatever mysterious force keeps contributing to so much political instability finds itself considerably weakened. It really does look like the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora is imploding, though. Interesting times.

Yes, I meant the USA. Though ultimately the US is still hugely powerful, and will continue to project that power for the benefit of the people for whose benefit the US government acts. As the global situation deteriorates with the advance of climate change expect that projection of power to be more and more brutal. The USA will not go gently.

It's been interesting having a slight window onto USian ruthlessness with their response to coronavirus. It's fun to imagine what a competent administration would do to solve a crisis they actually care about.

[Woodchopper]

It matters almost not at all what the Democratic presidential candidate proposes with respect to healthcare.

I'm not sure that this is the rallying "Vote Democrat 2020" message that's needed right now.

If theSenate remains Republican, nothing will happen. If it flips Democratic, something will probably happen, but what that is will depend on how big the margin is and what the Senate is able to agree on. Under any plausible margin, it won't be Medicare for All. There's no point in Biden coming out strongly for a proposal that will turn off centrist voters, when he won't have much control over how actual healthcare legislation gets negotiated even if he wins. Biden understands this, having spent more than 30 years as a senior and influential Senator. Sanders either doesn't, or maybe does but doesn't care, having spent 13 years as a Senator who mostly just gives speeches and opposes things.

Like everybody else, I'm aware of the paralysing dysfunction at the heart of current US politics. What I'm looking for is a solution to it. The Republicans have been enormously successful at using the system as it's currently implemented to their advantage, achieving the wishes of a small special interest group of Republican donors against the policy preferences of the USian public. It's not much of a plan to aim to compromise with them for a term or two, trying to achieve less than you'd like to and actually achieving less than that, while leaving the systematic imbalances intact and inevitably returning the reigns of power after 4-8 years. Trump was elected only 8 years after Obama ran with Hope and Change.

How do you think the US can change enough in 6 months to offer an alternative to this? What do you think could realistically happen to give progressive Democrats a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? Or even all Democrats?

Avoiding compromise would need them to win at least 12 extra Senate seats in red conservative states, by attracting voters who watch Fox News and read conservative local newspapers. How does a left wing nominee do that? Note that Bernie couldn't even win the same set of left wing Democrats that he did in 2016.

There doesn't just have to be a Democrat majority and a Democrat President in 2021, there has to be a President and majority in favour of the reforms forever.

The Republicans under Trump have gutted Obamacare. Even if President Sanders or Warren were to someday enact universal healthcare, it would only last as for long as the Republicans were kept out of power. The only way to meaningfully reform healthcare in the US is to get the Republicans to support it. (That's not impossible, eg if Romney had won in 2012 he might have been able to persuade the Republicans to back something like Obamacare).

[bmforre]

Trump turns emission limits back

President Trump’s rollback on Tuesday of stringent automobile mileage and emissions standards torpedoes the biggest single step any nation has taken to fight the climate crisis. In dispensing with Obama-era rules in the name of imaginary regulatory reform, he will damage the health of the planet, our pocketbooks and even the very auto industry he thinks will benefit.

The Obama administration set the standards in 2012 to cut emissions and improve gas mileage roughly 5 percent a year from 2021 to 2025. Thirteen automakers agreed to them.

Now Mr. Trump’s decision will slash required fuel-efficiency improvements to just 1.5 percent a year, beginning in 2021, but that won’t even be achieved because of various credits automakers can receive for making vehicles that run on natural gas or employ more efficient air-conditioning refrigerants — even if emissions aren’t reduced. The 2025 new-vehicle fleet would average 31.8 real-world m.p.g., compared with 37.5 m.p.g. under the rules Mr. Trump is eviscerating, according to Consumer Reports.

And various supreme courts will confirm that such rollbacks are fine and dandy legal.

Which decidedly reduce the value of impressive looking declarations and decisions.

[Bird on a Fire]

I'm not sure that this is the rallying "Vote Democrat 2020" message that's needed right now.


Like everybody else, I'm aware of the paralysing dysfunction at the heart of current US politics. What I'm looking for is a solution to it. The Republicans have been enormously successful at using the system as it's currently implemented to their advantage, achieving the wishes of a small special interest group of Republican donors against the policy preferences of the USian public. It's not much of a plan to aim to compromise with them for a term or two, trying to achieve less than you'd like to and actually achieving less than that, while leaving the systematic imbalances intact and inevitably returning the reigns of power after 4-8 years. Trump was elected only 8 years after Obama ran with Hope and Change.

How do you think the US can change enough in 6 months to offer an alternative to this? What do you think could realistically happen to give progressive Democrats a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? Or even all Democrats?

Avoiding compromise would need them to win at least 12 extra Senate seats in red conservative states, by attracting voters who watch Fox News and read conservative local newspapers. How does a left wing nominee do that? Note that Bernie couldn't even win the same set of left wing Democrats that he did in 2016.

There doesn't just have to be a Democrat majority and a Democrat President in 2021, there has to be a President and majority in favour of the reforms forever.

The Republicans under Trump have gutted Obamacare. Even if President Sanders or Warren were to someday enact universal healthcare, it would only last as for long as the Republicans were kept out of power. The only way to meaningfully reform healthcare in the US is to get the Republicans to support it. (That's not impossible, eg if Romney had won in 2012 he might have been able to persuade the Republicans to back something like Obamacare).

That depends on the reforms. For example, four years of no new fossil fuel infrastructure in the USA would massively damage domestic industry and force the rapid adoption and development of alternatives. Given trends in the industry it's highly likely that matters would overtake polluters and they wouldn't be able to claw their way back into power. I expect something similar could be possible to circumvent price gouging by insurers.

The "business as usual" gradualist approach of continually trying to roll back the Republican ratcheting of exploitation is unsustainable. Reforms need to be designed to cause actual long-lasting damage to the vested interests that have hijacked US democracy, not just try to out-vote them for a few years.

[Bird on a Fire]

Trump turns emission limits back

President Trump’s rollback on Tuesday of stringent automobile mileage and emissions standards torpedoes the biggest single step any nation has taken to fight the climate crisis. In dispensing with Obama-era rules in the name of imaginary regulatory reform, he will damage the health of the planet, our pocketbooks and even the very auto industry he thinks will benefit.

The Obama administration set the standards in 2012 to cut emissions and improve gas mileage roughly 5 percent a year from 2021 to 2025. Thirteen automakers agreed to them.

Now Mr. Trump’s decision will slash required fuel-efficiency improvements to just 1.5 percent a year, beginning in 2021, but that won’t even be achieved because of various credits automakers can receive for making vehicles that run on natural gas or employ more efficient air-conditioning refrigerants — even if emissions aren’t reduced. The 2025 new-vehicle fleet would average 31.8 real-world m.p.g., compared with 37.5 m.p.g. under the rules Mr. Trump is eviscerating, according to Consumer Reports.

And various supreme courts will confirm that such rollbacks are fine and dandy legal.

Which decidedly reduce the value of impressive looking declarations and decisions.

Exactly. Technocratic micromanaging is extremely vulnerable to this kind of thing. The time has come to simply declare war on the fossil fuel industry. It is too resistant to reform, so it has to be removed in the next decade if we're to avoid climate catastrophe. Four years of continually starving it of subsidies, permits and a market while simultaneously removing its workforce through generous retraining and resettlement funds plus visa restrictions should do it.

[Woodchopper]

That depends on the reforms. For example, four years of no new fossil fuel infrastructure in the USA would massively damage domestic industry and force the rapid adoption and development of alternatives. Given trends in the industry it's highly likely that matters would overtake polluters and they wouldn't be able to claw their way back into power. I expect something similar could be possible to circumvent price gouging by insurers.

The "business as usual" gradualist approach of continually trying to roll back the Republican ratcheting of exploitation is unsustainable. Reforms need to be designed to cause actual long-lasting damage to the vested interests that have hijacked US democracy, not just try to out-vote them for a few years.

The problem is that reforms leading to "actual long-lasting damage to the vested interests that have hijacked US democracy" would be very unlikely to get past the Supreme Court.

Possible to change the Constitution, but easier said than done.

[bolo]

I'm not a political strategist

Probably a wise career choice.

You fight hard using the appropriate weapons for the game you're playing and the century country you find yourself in.

This, as amended, I can agree with.

[Bird on a Fire]

That depends on the reforms. For example, four years of no new fossil fuel infrastructure in the USA would massively damage domestic industry and force the rapid adoption and development of alternatives. Given trends in the industry it's highly likely that matters would overtake polluters and they wouldn't be able to claw their way back into power. I expect something similar could be possible to circumvent price gouging by insurers.

The "business as usual" gradualist approach of continually trying to roll back the Republican ratcheting of exploitation is unsustainable. Reforms need to be designed to cause actual long-lasting damage to the vested interests that have hijacked US democracy, not just try to out-vote them for a few years.

The problem is that reforms leading to "actual long-lasting damage to the vested interests that have hijacked US democracy" would be very unlikely to get past the Supreme Court.

Possible to change the Constitution, but easier said than done.

So you find a way around the Supreme Court where necessary, using for example the media, the economy, civil society groups etc.

The courts take time. Time = uncertainty = bad for businesses.

[secret squirrel]

Serious question. How do centrist Democrats remain so smug about their political nous in the face of such consistent failure?

[Bird on a Fire]

You fight hard using the appropriate weapons for the game you're playing and the century country you find yourself in.

This, as amended, I can agree with.

Yes, there is an odd sort of American exceptionalism behind this. Is 21st century USA really so uniquely and immutably dysfunctional that the strategies used in other countries to break political deadlock don't apply there? I think that's a pretty harsh assessment, and take a more optimistic view than you.