Democratic Candidate 2020

[dyqik]

That's definitely plausible, in that it will certainly produce clamor to improve access to Medicaid/Medicare/health coverage, and for better safety nets generally. That's at least part of the change needed, but only the very start of what has to be done.

[secret squirrel]

You aren't making any sense here. The floating voters are those between Biden and Trump. Not the far-left over privileged a..eholes who are too busy being smug and pure to vote against the GOPs ongoing assault on civil rights and democracy.

Now see I'd like to be able vote for Biden, but this kind of toxicity from his supporters online is intolerable.

[secret squirrel]

I see a lot of people in this thread who definitely would have defended slavery.

That's because you are projecting onto other people. You just declared that you wouldn't vote against slavery if the alternative wasn't pure enough for you.

What kind of advanced dementia do you have that you cast voting for Biden vs Trump as voting to abolish rather than keep slavery? Voting for Biden is like voting for a 5% reduction in slavery. But by all means pat yourself on the back for it.

[dyqik]

You aren't making any sense here. The floating voters are those between Biden and Trump. Not the far-left over privileged a..eholes who are too busy being smug and pure to vote against the GOPs ongoing assault on civil rights and democracy.

Now see I'd like to be able vote for Biden, but this kind of toxicity from his supporters online is intolerable.

Fortunately, you don't get a vote. Which is good, because you are currently justifying why it's ok to not vote against Trump.

[secret squirrel]

You aren't making any sense here. The floating voters are those between Biden and Trump. Not the far-left over privileged a..eholes who are too busy being smug and pure to vote against the GOPs ongoing assault on civil rights and democracy.

Now see I'd like to be able vote for Biden, but this kind of toxicity from his supporters online is intolerable.

Fortunately, you don't get a vote. Which is good, because you are currently justifying why it's ok to not vote against Trump.

How is me not voting for Biden because I'm not eligible better than me not voting for him because he sucks? The outcome is the same no?

[dyqik]

I see a lot of people in this thread who definitely would have defended slavery.

That's because you are projecting onto other people. You just declared that you wouldn't vote against slavery if the alternative wasn't pure enough for you.

What kind of advanced dementia do you have that you cast voting for Biden vs Trump as voting to abolish rather than keep slavery? Voting for Biden is like voting for a 5% reduction in slavery. But by all means pat yourself on the back for it.

Again, you are projecting statements on to me that I'm not making. You are saying that you would vote against a 5% reduction in slavery*. I am saying that I will vote for the option that will give the most improvement that is on the ballot paper, while voting downballot for biggest improvement I can get there, and voting and donating in primaries for the option that will improve things fastest.

* in a two party system, you have two votes. You can cast one by not voting for someone, and one by voting for their opponent.

[dyqik]

Now see I'd like to be able vote for Biden, but this kind of toxicity from his supporters online is intolerable.

Fortunately, you don't get a vote. Which is good, because you are currently justifying why it's ok to not vote against Trump.

How is me not voting for Biden because I'm not eligible better than me not voting for him because he sucks? The outcome is the same no?

Pretty much, yes. But again, you are saying that you would not vote against Trump if you could.

[Bird on a Fire]

Seriously, you are a fantasist if you believe that substantial change can happen and stick in significantly less time.

Well, not with that atitude.

But seriously, given that the planet's future habitability depends on this view being incorrect, it's amazing how calmly and unapologetically so many people repeat it.

The next decade is crucial, and business-as-usual is tantamount to failure.

And how, exactly, re you going to get anything done if you can't persuade them it is essential. Dyqik's right. You are a fantasist.

It's not a question of persuasion. Hardly anybody actually disagrees on the necessity of confronting climate change with rapid, dramatic action, for example, especially among Democratic voters. There's broad agreement on the ultimate direction of travel, but not the pace.

The disagreement is on how to do it - purely via electoralism or via electoralism plus other means - and whether the urgency and continued failure of traditional methods means trying something out of the ordinary might be worth a shot.

[Bird on a Fire]

Ending slavery did require a war, though, not just voting. I think the example is a bit too emotive to be helpful, however.

[dyqik]

Well, not with that atitude.

But seriously, given that the planet's future habitability depends on this view being incorrect, it's amazing how calmly and unapologetically so many people repeat it.

The next decade is crucial, and business-as-usual is tantamount to failure.

And how, exactly, re you going to get anything done if you can't persuade them it is essential. Dyqik's right. You are a fantasist.

It's not a question of persuasion. Hardly anybody actually disagrees on the necessity of confronting climate change with rapid, dramatic action, for example, especially among Democratic voters. There's broad agreement on the ultimate direction of travel, but not the pace.

The disagreement is on how to do it - purely via electoralism or via electoralism plus other means - and whether the urgency and continued failure of traditional methods means trying something out of the ordinary might be worth a shot.

There isn't anything other than electoralism, although it far broader than who the president is. Legislatures are elected, executives are elected, including state governors and attorney generals, who are the ones who can bring court cases to change things, and who make and oversea regulations. Both are involved in appointing and approving judges (except where judges are also elected).

[secret squirrel]

Again, you are projecting statements on to me that I'm not making. You are saying that you would vote against a 5% reduction in slavery*. I am saying that I will vote for the option that will give the most improvement that is on the ballot paper, while voting downballot for biggest improvement I can get there, and voting and donating in primaries for the option that will improve things fastest.

* in a two party system, you have two votes. You can cast one by not voting for someone, and one by voting for their opponent.

What I'm saying is I wouldn't vote a small reduction in slavery if by doing so I felt I was reinforcing the status quo of some level of slavery being acceptable. The greedy algorithm isn't always the best one.

[Woodchopper]

Ending slavery did require a war, though, not just voting. I think the example is a bit too emotive to be helpful, however.

Probably, though I do think its pertinent to mention that the campaign for emancipation did take over 30 years before it was successful. Though I wouldn't recommend use of violence in the current struggles.

[dyqik]

Again, you are projecting statements on to me that I'm not making. You are saying that you would vote against a 5% reduction in slavery*. I am saying that I will vote for the option that will give the most improvement that is on the ballot paper, while voting downballot for biggest improvement I can get there, and voting and donating in primaries for the option that will improve things fastest.

* in a two party system, you have two votes. You can cast one by not voting for someone, and one by voting for their opponent.

What I'm saying is I wouldn't vote a small reduction in slavery if by doing so I felt I was reinforcing the status quo of some level of slavery being acceptable. The greedy algorithm isn't always the best one.

You are saying that you want more people to suffer for four more years than the alternative option. That's a decision you could only arrive at if you aren't the one subjected to it.

[dyqik]

Again, you are projecting statements on to me that I'm not making. You are saying that you would vote against a 5% reduction in slavery*. I am saying that I will vote for the option that will give the most improvement that is on the ballot paper, while voting downballot for biggest improvement I can get there, and voting and donating in primaries for the option that will improve things fastest.

* in a two party system, you have two votes. You can cast one by not voting for someone, and one by voting for their opponent.

What I'm saying is I wouldn't vote a small reduction in slavery if by doing so I felt I was reinforcing the status quo of some level of slavery being acceptable. The greedy algorithm isn't always the best one.

You are saying that you want more people to suffer for four more years than the alternative option. That's a decision you could only arrive at if you aren't the one subjected to it.

Oh, and remember, democracy and the mechanism for making further improvements in the future are also under assault by the person you won't vote against.

You are saying that you want Trump to choose the replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and probably another one of the more liberal judges on the Supreme Court, that you want Trump to choose another couple of hundred Federal judges, that you want Trump and the GOP to be in charge of future voting rights oversight, and other oversight.

[Woodchopper]

Well, not with that atitude.

But seriously, given that the planet's future habitability depends on this view being incorrect, it's amazing how calmly and unapologetically so many people repeat it.

The next decade is crucial, and business-as-usual is tantamount to failure.

And how, exactly, re you going to get anything done if you can't persuade them it is essential. Dyqik's right. You are a fantasist.

It's not a question of persuasion. Hardly anybody actually disagrees on the necessity of confronting climate change with rapid, dramatic action, for example, especially among Democratic voters. There's broad agreement on the ultimate direction of travel, but not the pace.

The disagreement is on how to do it - purely via electoralism or via electoralism plus other means - and whether the urgency and continued failure of traditional methods means trying something out of the ordinary might be worth a shot.

The easy answer is that of course its electoralism plus other means.

There are though difficult choices as soon as we realize that there are limited amounts of money, dedicated activists, airtime etc and choices have to be made. For example, do people support the Democrat party candidate because that supports the legislative strategy or the independent candidate because doing so will raise the profile of a particular cause.

[Bird on a Fire]

And how, exactly, re you going to get anything done if you can't persuade them it is essential. Dyqik's right. You are a fantasist.

It's not a question of persuasion. Hardly anybody actually disagrees on the necessity of confronting climate change with rapid, dramatic action, for example, especially among Democratic voters. There's broad agreement on the ultimate direction of travel, but not the pace.

The disagreement is on how to do it - purely via electoralism or via electoralism plus other means - and whether the urgency and continued failure of traditional methods means trying something out of the ordinary might be worth a shot.

There isn't anything other than electoralism, although it far broader than who the president is. Legislatures are elected, executives are elected, including state governors and attorney generals, who are the ones who can bring court cases to change things, and who make and oversea regulations. Both are involved in appointing and approving judges (except where judges are also elected).

That's not true. You've already given the example of "building media ecosystems", for example, which is clearly outwith electoralism. That's the kind of lines the Democrats need to be focusing on.

Communication and messaging. Grassroots organisation, yes for downticket elections but how about promoting and supporting labour organisation at the same time and wield the economy as a weapon? The GOP go on strike all the time and shut down the country - the Democrats desperately need some way to fight back against that now, rather than having to choose between holding out vs acquiescing.

You've already acknowledged that external shocks to the political status quo change political priorities. Is it really such a leap to note that orchestrating such shocks could also help to break a stalemate? (Before I'm willfully misinterpreted, I'm obviously not suggesting engineering a pandemic or anything else that would kill a lot of people - think strikes, boycotts and public pressure).

[Bird on a Fire]

Ending slavery did require a war, though, not just voting. I think the example is a bit too emotive to be helpful, however.

Probably, though I do think its pertinent to mention that the campaign for emancipation did take over 30 years before it was successful. Though I wouldn't recommend use of violence in the current struggles.

FWIW that's about the amount of time since Reagan started privatising prisons to accommodate all the black people incarcerated by the "war on drugs", thus kicking off the era of legal modern-day slavery in the USA.

I too would massively prefer non-violent solutions.

[Squeak]

I can't help but note the irony that the accusations of supporting slavery are directed at anybody not actively denouncing the candidate vastly preferred by black Americans. Perhaps they don't know what slavery looks like, at least not as well as secret squirrel does.

Or is slavery being used not literally but as an especially inflammatory analogy to some other issue, like climate change?

[Herainestold]

America is lost anyway, no matter who wins.
The fate of the planet depends on what happens in the remainder of the world. Who will take on the mantle of leadership?

The quicker America sinks, the sooner the rest of the planet can respond.

So, from that point of view a Trump victory is not necessarily a bad thing. Unless you live in America, that is.

[dyqik]

America is lost anyway, no matter who wins.
The fate of the planet depends on what happens in the remainder of the world. Who will take on the mantle of leadership?

The quicker America sinks, the sooner the rest of the planet can respond.

So, from that point of view a Trump victory is not necessarily a bad thing. Unless you live in America, that is.

Or anywhere that trades or interacts with the largest economy in the world, or is weaker than the largest military in the world.

[Herainestold]

America is lost anyway, no matter who wins.
The fate of the planet depends on what happens in the remainder of the world. Who will take on the mantle of leadership?

The quicker America sinks, the sooner the rest of the planet can respond.

So, from that point of view a Trump victory is not necessarily a bad thing. Unless you live in America, that is.

Or anywhere that trades or interacts with the largest economy in the world, or is weaker than the largest military in the world.

The quicker America sinks, the better the rest of the world will be.

Trump, for all his bluster and b.llsh.t has failed to affect the rest of the world. He is a paper tiger.

He has not acted against North Korea and his actions against Iran have been little more than symbolic. He killed Soleimani and claimed that as a propaganda victory but has refrained from anything more.

He blusters against China, but his trade war has fizzled and the response to the Corona virus has left China in the ascendant.

If I was in America, i would be alarmed, but a Trump victory leaves the rest of the globe in a better place.

[Pishwish]

short twitter thread

(Tom Nichols )
Remember, always, that Bernie people like this want Trump to win so they can teach you all a lesson about ignoring their tantrums.

You are not going to reason with people like this. Just like Trumpers, you outvote them.

[Bird on a Fire]

short twitter thread

(Tom Nichols )
Remember, always, that Bernie people like this want Trump to win so they can teach you all a lesson about ignoring their tantrums.

You are not going to reason with people like this. Just like Trumpers, you outvote them.

I might be missing something, as I don't see a thread, just the single tweet that you quoted, which in turn is quoting another person giving their opinion on a news clip.

What does this tell us about anything, other than that supporters of two opposing political candidates disagree with each other? Neither of them exemplify pragmatic alliance-building.

[Pishwish]

Well, I did say it was short....

What you might be missing is that the "other person" is Bernie's national press secretary, posting Daily Caller clips of Tucker Carlson explaining why Biden is a bad candidate, after Bernie threw in the towel.
Nichols is pragmatic, being a never Trump republican who left his party but is too right wing to be a Democrat. He's an interesting follow, he's taught me a lot about how the U.S. political system works.
Bernie was Trump's dream opponent--it's why Trump invested so much in attacking Biden with all the Burisma nonsense. Bernie was guaranteed to lose key swing states, Florida and Pennsylvania in particular (due to past support of Castro and opposing fracking, respectively).

[secret squirrel]

What I'm saying is I wouldn't vote a small reduction in slavery if by doing so I felt I was reinforcing the status quo of some level of slavery being acceptable. The greedy algorithm isn't always the best one.

You are saying that you want more people to suffer for four more years than the alternative option. That's a decision you could only arrive at if you aren't the one subjected to it.

Oh, and remember, democracy and the mechanism for making further improvements in the future are also under assault by the person you won't vote against.

You are saying that you want Trump to choose the replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and probably another one of the more liberal judges on the Supreme Court, that you want Trump to choose another couple of hundred Federal judges, that you want Trump and the GOP to be in charge of future voting rights oversight, and other oversight.

I'm not more concerned by Trump than the other Republicans as far as that goes. And of course I am concerned by the Republicans in general, but I'm also worried about the sustainability of the Democratic strategy of always being better than their contemporary Republicans, but hard to distinguish from the Republicans of a generation or so ago. Especially with the small window for averting catastrophe imposed by climate change. As I've said before, the Democratic strategy has steadily lost ground to the Republicans for decades.

In addition, for all the talk of building grassroots organizations and media networks to move the country Left down the road going on in this thread, as far as I can tell the Democratic establishment despises the people actually trying to do that right now.