Democratic Candidate 2020

[Bird on a Fire]

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

It's odd, isn't it. Apparently the big clever strategy is to attempt only those things they think the Republicans will approve of, and then get upset that they aren't seen as a credible opposition by their most vulnerable constituents despite being literally the only game in town, and going as far as to mock people who expect better.

It seems that the entire political establishment is infected by this sense of contemptuous entitlement.

They've got some hashtags trending on Twitter though, so that's good.

[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.

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.

Those vested interests tend to control or have a lot of influence over the media, economy and civil society (on the latter just look at who provides the funding).

[EACLucifer]

The bigger question is how do the DSA twunts manage to maintain such a smug sense of superiority despite their only achievements being the occasional primaries in safe seats?

[Bird on a Fire]

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.

Those vested interests tend to control or have a lot of influence over the media, economy and civil society (on the latter just look at who provides the funding).

It's true. I'm not taking success for granted - obviously any approach would be enormously challenging.

But I do think it's important to challenge the apparently forgone conclusions as to which approaches should be tried (especially as everybody seems to agree on the limited possibilities of the methods traditionally used by the Democrats).

Things do change by pressure. For instance, Sanders' Stop BEZOS Act had no chance of ever becoming law, but Amazon still started paying its employees $15/hour. The details of the bill didn't even matter as much as its existence and the controversy it generated. It's a small example of success, but it does illustrate a game plan: pressure your opponents into changing their behaviour, then get them on side to change legislation.

Start introducing bills and executive orders to hobble the fossil fuel industry, while ramping up rhetoric in public statements. By the time the legal dust has settled you've (potentially) already made progress on changing public, investor and corporate behaviour. That way the inevitable failure of your legislation doesn't preclude achieving your policy goals, whereas relying on the Republicans to support you straight off the bat is an obvious non-starter.

[Bird on a Fire]

The bigger question is how do the DSA twunts manage to maintain such a smug sense of superiority despite their only achievements being the occasional primaries in safe seats?

It's probably because they're working towards goals that have enormous public support from voters of both parties, in the face of opposition and hostility from the GOP, and capitulation and sneering from the Democratic party.

I'm not enormously familiar with the DSA as they're a bit of a fringe group with little electoral relevance. But groups dedicated to working towards helping a huge number of people in a position of isolation do tend to get a bit smug.

That said, given the relative sizes and power of the organisations in question I don't see how that could possibly be "the bigger question"? It sounds more like reactionary whataboutery to me.

[EACLucifer]

There was one candidate's supporters who went after the only gay candidate over details of his sexuality - guess who

[secret squirrel]

I suppose to be fair, centrist Democrats have had a lot of success if you count undermining and belittling any movement to the left of Ronald Reagan.

[jimbob]

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.

Exactly.

An improvement is not the enemy of the good. It shifts the political weight to one side snd makes it easier to shift it further later.

The Overton Window is real.

George W Bush now seems like a moderate Republican

[secret squirrel]

Honestly, I wouldn't vote for Biden.

[bmforre]

Politics is for power

Honestly, I wouldn't vote for Biden.

Thomas Edsall has a very relevant opinion piece in NYTimes.
He quotes a political scientist who writes

that the Democratic left is threatened by a political side effect of the internet.

The web, he writes, has facilitated the growth — concentrated especially in the ranks of well-educated white progressives — of voters seeking “a shortcut to feeling engaged without being engaged,” voters for whom “emotion — righteous anger — is an end rather than a means to an end.”

Hersh calls these voters “hobbyists.”

He did some political science and found interesting contrasts:

Hersh compared voters who spend an hour or more a day on politics and do no volunteer work with those who spend an hour a day but also perform volunteer work — in other words, those who not only follow politics closely but also engage in grass roots activities.

There were some striking differences, Hersh wrote by email:

The people who spend an hour or more a day on politics but no time in volunteerism are 82 percent white, but those who do volunteering are only 60 percent white. The political hobbyists are 47 percent women but the volunteers are 64 percent women.

He comes to the unfortunate conclusion that hobbyist demands for purity inhibits alliance building that can achieve power to deliver actual change.

I strongly recommend Edsalls investigation here. In French I believe it would not be called an "opinion piece" but a "tribune".

[secret squirrel]

Politics is for power

Honestly, I wouldn't vote for Biden.

Thomas Edsall has a very relevant opinion piece in NYTimes.
He quotes a political scientist who writes

that the Democratic left is threatened by a political side effect of the internet.

The web, he writes, has facilitated the growth — concentrated especially in the ranks of well-educated white progressives — of voters seeking “a shortcut to feeling engaged without being engaged,” voters for whom “emotion — righteous anger — is an end rather than a means to an end.”

Hersh calls these voters “hobbyists.”

He did some political science and found interesting contrasts:

Hersh compared voters who spend an hour or more a day on politics and do no volunteer work with those who spend an hour a day but also perform volunteer work — in other words, those who not only follow politics closely but also engage in grass roots activities.

There were some striking differences, Hersh wrote by email:

The people who spend an hour or more a day on politics but no time in volunteerism are 82 percent white, but those who do volunteering are only 60 percent white. The political hobbyists are 47 percent women but the volunteers are 64 percent women.

He comes to the unfortunate conclusion that hobbyist demands for purity inhibits alliance building that can achieve power to deliver actual change.

I strongly recommend Edsalls investigation here. In French I believe it would not be called an "opinion piece" but a "tribune".

That was an interesting article, but I'm not sure what point you're making by directing me to it. If your point is that people wanting progressive change need to be more active in volunteering and such like then I agree. This is the whole point of the drive for grassroots leftist movements, unionization, strikes etc. Basically all leftist thinkers recognize grassroots mobilization as a necessary condition for change.

There is absolutely no justification for your claim that he comes to the conclusion that 'hobbyist demands for purity inhibits alliance building that can achieve power to deliver actual change' though, and if we are going to worry about 'demands for purity', what about the Liberal purity police that criticized Sanders for accepting endorsements from popular comedians with some dodgy opinions? Or the vague accusations of intangible but nevertheless extremely problematic sexism?

[secret squirrel]

Further to the above, this article is relevant to the purity politics of the Liberal establishment.

[Woodchopper]

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.

Those vested interests tend to control or have a lot of influence over the media, economy and civil society (on the latter just look at who provides the funding).

It's true. I'm not taking success for granted - obviously any approach would be enormously challenging.

But I do think it's important to challenge the apparently forgone conclusions as to which approaches should be tried (especially as everybody seems to agree on the limited possibilities of the methods traditionally used by the Democrats).

Things do change by pressure. For instance, Sanders' Stop BEZOS Act had no chance of ever becoming law, but Amazon still started paying its employees $15/hour. The details of the bill didn't even matter as much as its existence and the controversy it generated. It's a small example of success, but it does illustrate a game plan: pressure your opponents into changing their behaviour, then get them on side to change legislation.

Start introducing bills and executive orders to hobble the fossil fuel industry, while ramping up rhetoric in public statements. By the time the legal dust has settled you've (potentially) already made progress on changing public, investor and corporate behaviour. That way the inevitable failure of your legislation doesn't preclude achieving your policy goals, whereas relying on the Republicans to support you straight off the bat is an obvious non-starter.

I think that the best strategy would be to focus upon the Democratic party at a local level. Fight for every county and district. The first aim should be to get get Democratic majorities in most state legislatures. Difficult, but not impossible. The most important aim once that has happened is to get rid of voter suppression and gerrymandering. Once that has happened the Democrats at least will both be more responsive to the electorate and in a position to control the Presidency, Congress and Supreme Court. It'll take at least 20 years, but at that point we could be looking at meaningful reforms to healthcare, student debt, welfare, gun control etc that will last longer than an election cycle. But why not, the Republicans have successfully implemented long term strategies. We are living in the result.

What it needs is a grass roots organization and party leadership which is united around that goal, and crucially, are willing to devote resources long term and not just every 4-8 years.

Call me a Leninist, but IMHO its the party that matters and a mass national party is the only way to achieve long term meaningful change.

[Bird on a Fire]

Those vested interests tend to control or have a lot of influence over the media, economy and civil society (on the latter just look at who provides the funding).

It's true. I'm not taking success for granted - obviously any approach would be enormously challenging.

But I do think it's important to challenge the apparently forgone conclusions as to which approaches should be tried (especially as everybody seems to agree on the limited possibilities of the methods traditionally used by the Democrats).

Things do change by pressure. For instance, Sanders' Stop BEZOS Act had no chance of ever becoming law, but Amazon still started paying its employees $15/hour. The details of the bill didn't even matter as much as its existence and the controversy it generated. It's a small example of success, but it does illustrate a game plan: pressure your opponents into changing their behaviour, then get them on side to change legislation.

Start introducing bills and executive orders to hobble the fossil fuel industry, while ramping up rhetoric in public statements. By the time the legal dust has settled you've (potentially) already made progress on changing public, investor and corporate behaviour. That way the inevitable failure of your legislation doesn't preclude achieving your policy goals, whereas relying on the Republicans to support you straight off the bat is an obvious non-starter.

I think that the best strategy would be to focus upon the Democratic party at a local level. Fight for every county and district. The first aim should be to get get Democratic majorities in most state legislatures. Difficult, but not impossible. The most important aim once that has happened is to get rid of voter suppression and gerrymandering. Once that has happened the Democrats at least will both be more responsive to the electorate and in a position to control the Presidency, Congress and Supreme Court. It'll take at least 20 years, but at that point we could be looking at meaningful reforms to healthcare, student debt, welfare, gun control etc that will last longer than an election cycle. But why not, the Republicans have successfully implemented long term strategies. We are living in the result.

What it needs is a grass roots organization and party leadership which is united around that goal, and crucially, are willing to devote resources long term and not just every 4-8 years.

Call me a Leninist, but IMHO its the party that matters and a mass national party is the only way to achieve long term meaningful change.

I agree with all of this, FWIW, especially the bit in bold. I've certainly not intended to suggest that the party shouldn't be doing those things; my point is that it's not enough.

If the USA takes 20 years to drastically reduce its contributions to climate change, the planet is toast.

Twenty years is a generation. If I were a young USian saddled with insane quantities of debt, massive and growing inequality, unaffordable healthcare an increasingly f.cked climate, continuing mass incarceration and slavery (especially of minorities) and so on, I would find it hard to swallow that "we're working towards it gradually and hope to get there in 20 years" is the best the largest party in the country can manage. The difference between that and doing nothing genuinely isn't very significant if you need help now. It's throwing a whole generation under the bus. It's very difficult for young people to have hope for their lives when so many issues that affect them, such as inequality and the environment, are getting worse at a faster rate than politics seems able to keep up.

It's notable that the centre-right of the Democratic party tends to be older. It's a generation that didn't face the same problems to the same extent, has exacerbated them for the next generation, and won't be alive to have to cope with the worst consequences of climate change. They complain about young people's anger and mock their ambition, and then talk about the importance of building alliances, but apparently without actually offering anything of immediate tangible consequence, without listening, and without empathising.

So yes, great, let's chip away at electing more Democrats. But while they're working on that, what else are they doing?

Alternatively, if the Democratic party is determined to focus solely on winning elections, some other movement is needed to improve society and the environment. But if the Democrats want loyalty from the left they need to earn it, and being or supporting that movement seems to me a more promising approach than the kind of hostility seen currently.

[dyqik]

Honestly, I wouldn't vote for Biden.

This is white privilege in action.

[dyqik]

I agree with all of this, FWIW, especially the bit in bold. I've certainly not intended to suggest that the party shouldn't be doing those things; my point is that it's not enough.

If the USA takes 20 years to drastically reduce its contributions to climate change, the planet is toast.

Twenty years is a generation. If I were a young USian saddled with insane quantities of debt, massive and growing inequality, unaffordable healthcare an increasingly f.cked climate, continuing mass incarceration and slavery (especially of minorities) and so on, I would find it hard to swallow that "we're working towards it gradually and hope to get there in 20 years" is the best the largest party in the country can manage. The difference between that and doing nothing genuinely isn't very significant if you need help now. It's throwing a whole generation under the bus. It's very difficult for young people to have hope for their lives when so many issues that affect them, such as inequality and the environment, are getting worse at a faster rate than politics seems able to keep up.

It's notable that the centre-right of the Democratic party tends to be older. It's a generation that didn't face the same problems to the same extent, has exacerbated them for the next generation, and won't be alive to have to cope with the worst consequences of climate change. They complain about young people's anger and mock their ambition, and then talk about the importance of building alliances, but apparently without actually offering anything of immediate tangible consequence, without listening, and without empathising.

So yes, great, let's chip away at electing more Democrats. But while they're working on that, what else are they doing?

Alternatively, if the Democratic party is determined to focus solely on winning elections, some other movement is needed to improve society and the environment. But if the Democrats want loyalty from the left they need to earn it, and being or supporting that movement seems to me a more promising approach than the kind of hostility seen currently.

There's literally no other option than a 20-30 year effort to deprogram the US from the 30-40 year effort by the GOP and far-right to make themselves the establishment. Seriously, you are a fantasist if you believe that substantial change can happen and stick in significantly less time. You need to wait for judges to retire, build media ecosystems, build state level parties and take over state houses, state senates and state executives. Then significant change at the national level is possible.

[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.

[EACLucifer]

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.

[secret squirrel]

Honestly, I wouldn't vote for Biden.

This is white privilege in action.

Yes. Double down on this kind of rhetoric. It's a really good strategy. The floating voters love it.

[secret squirrel]

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

[EACLucifer]

Honestly, I wouldn't vote for Biden.

This is white privilege in action.

Yes. Double down on this kind of rhetoric. It's a really good strategy. The floating voters love it.

The floating voters and moderates seem, in polling, to be rather less impressed by Sanders than by Biden. While the way Dyqik expressed himself is perhaps one that wouldn't get much reach outside of the recently college educated, he's not wrong. Your tantrum is the kind that only happens with people who can afford to be "pure" and in opposition, just like we saw with wealthy middle class Corbynites who lost nothing by pushing policies to stroke their own egos at the cost of fighting the tories.

[EACLucifer]

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

No, you really don't. Get over yourself.

Your rhetoric is like that of someone who keeps saying how dreadfully important it is to end slavery, but then gets all squeamish because some of the Union soldiers putting an end to it aren't to your taste.

[dyqik]

Honestly, I wouldn't vote for Biden.

This is white privilege in action.

Yes. Double down on this kind of rhetoric. It's a really good strategy. The floating voters love it.

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.

[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.

[Squeak]

I agree with all of this, FWIW, especially the bit in bold. I've certainly not intended to suggest that the party shouldn't be doing those things; my point is that it's not enough.

If the USA takes 20 years to drastically reduce its contributions to climate change, the planet is toast.

Twenty years is a generation. If I were a young USian saddled with insane quantities of debt, massive and growing inequality, unaffordable healthcare an increasingly f.cked climate, continuing mass incarceration and slavery (especially of minorities) and so on, I would find it hard to swallow that "we're working towards it gradually and hope to get there in 20 years" is the best the largest party in the country can manage. The difference between that and doing nothing genuinely isn't very significant if you need help now. It's throwing a whole generation under the bus. It's very difficult for young people to have hope for their lives when so many issues that affect them, such as inequality and the environment, are getting worse at a faster rate than politics seems able to keep up.

It's notable that the centre-right of the Democratic party tends to be older. It's a generation that didn't face the same problems to the same extent, has exacerbated them for the next generation, and won't be alive to have to cope with the worst consequences of climate change. They complain about young people's anger and mock their ambition, and then talk about the importance of building alliances, but apparently without actually offering anything of immediate tangible consequence, without listening, and without empathising.

So yes, great, let's chip away at electing more Democrats. But while they're working on that, what else are they doing?

Alternatively, if the Democratic party is determined to focus solely on winning elections, some other movement is needed to improve society and the environment. But if the Democrats want loyalty from the left they need to earn it, and being or supporting that movement seems to me a more promising approach than the kind of hostility seen currently.

There's literally no other option than a 20-30 year effort to deprogram the US from the 30-40 year effort by the GOP and far-right to make themselves the establishment. Seriously, you are a fantasist if you believe that substantial change can happen and stick in significantly less time. You need to wait for judges to retire, build media ecosystems, build state level parties and take over state houses, state senates and state executives. Then significant change at the national level is possible.

Until the last couple of months, I would have agreed with you Dyqik. Covid does have the possibility of being sufficiently awful for the US to cause a step-change in political possibilities. Of course, that step-change could go on either direction.