US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

High Plains Drifter

... drifting...
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
3,651
Reaction score
4,363
Location
Austin, Texas
I mean... his core zombies will obviously go down with the ship but I dunno... I would think that these very real recordings might at least convince some with a conscience or integrity to say "no more".
 

Captain Butterscotch

SS.org Regular
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
1,944
Reaction score
625
Location
Fayetteville, AR
I mean... his core zombies will obviously go down with the ship but I dunno... I would think that these very real recordings might at least convince some with a conscience or integrity to say "no more".

jeez, I wish I had your optimism anymore. There have been so many moments where I thought “certainly this is the last straw,” and then it turns out that people still support the hell out of him.
 

SpaceDock

Shred till your dead
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
3,826
Reaction score
2,148
Location
Windsor, CO
jeez, I wish I had your optimism anymore. There have been so many moments where I thought “certainly this is the last straw,” and then it turns out that people still support the hell out of him.

IMO it is because we now live in a post truth society. I don’t want to blame Trump for all of it, but he has been a huge factor in the erosion of trust in objective reality. We now only trust what supports our agenda and feel all others operate the same.
 

Randy

✝✝✝
Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
24,382
Reaction score
14,051
Location
The Electric City, NY
At risk of being even a little too cynical for my OWN comfort, I suppose that's an improvement over four years of vice-signaling by hiring a slate of rich white men who are ALSO tyrants and swamp monsters. I mean, brown children deserve to know that they too can grow up to be tyrants if they just try hard and believe in themselves, you know?

Not looking to demonize Wall Street, as at this point the bulk of the lives of people in this country rely on it (whether it's via jobs or retirements), but my bigger concern is doing things 2 degrees different than the Republican Party and then 4 years down the road, people being frustrated with the economy and the Democrats not being able to draw enough contrast between them and the Republicans on policy. That's one of the things that bit them on the ass in 2016, I could make an hour long compilation of Trump complaining about Wall Street and Goldman Sachs, etc. that played in his favor regardless of how hypocritical it ended up being.

Other than the fact I think economic inequality is the biggest common denominator (I bet neither George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake, Daniel Prude or any of the people killed in the protests over the last couple weeks 1. made over $100,000/yr. or 2. owned the house they were living in), there's the fact that looking like the 'latte liberal' party is the most effective tool that gets used against them.

The Democratic Party of the last 40+ years has been fairly good at balancing being empathetic and recognizing working class people have a lot on their plate when it comes to just surviving day-to-day. Luckily those aren't mutually exclusive concepts, but Trump was very good at putting a wedge there (this is what you saw in swing states) where he basically said, you have a choice, saving yourself or saving illegal immigrants/gays/minorities etc. And not that they're a traditionally selfish demographic but the frustrations were there enough and he baited fear enough that it was a trade-off they were forced to make.

The fortunate thing about running against Trump in 2020 is that he made this choice a lot easier by making life harder for most Americans AND treating vulnerable populations in abhorrent, subhuman ways. So I'm sure there's a lot of midwestern, moderate-type voters that aren't falling for it this time, but be weary of a corporatist Democratic Party having to run against another Republican populist that's less of a compromise in 2024. Biden over Trump is an easy choice, Biden over John Kasich or Mitt Romney might not be.
 
Last edited:

Drew

Forum MVP
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
32,196
Reaction score
9,022
Location
Somerville, MA
Biden over Trump is an easy choice, Biden over John Kasich or Mitt Romney might not be.
Not to minimize an excellent post (that I broadly agree with) by focusing on the ending... but, frankly, a day when a presidential election was a choice between Biden on one hand and Kasich or Romney on the other - between old, white, boring moderate members of their respective parties - frankly sounds like a wonderful fantasy at the moment.


(impromptu less flippant answer below)

And, I guess, actually, I think the fact Trump IS who the Democrats were running against, and not Kasich or Romney or someone of their ilk, kind of matters here too. The last 3 1/2 years have been something of an existential crisis for liberals - speaking personally, I've always believed that human history was an arc, and that no matter how bad things are today, we would make them better tomorrow, and again the day after, and that the arc of human history has been one of slow, incremental, but unstoppable progress. Trump shook that belief to the core. I don't think it's a coincidence that three years after Trump was elected and after he'd begun to gut our democratic norms, the #1 priority in a candidate for almost all Democratic voters was some variation of "electability" or "ability to beat Trump." These are poorly defined concepts, sure... but when you look back at the primary, we actually had a fairly wide array of fairly decent candidates, and while Biden seemed like an early favorite, as we got into the debates and it got closer to the vote, we had a whole slew of different frontrunners. Warren had her moment, Harris looked strong very early on, Buttigieg surged after Iowa... and it was only when Sanders became the sudden favorite, but one who looked likely to win a plurality rather than a majority of the vote, and Biden had a strong night in South Carolina showing that Sanders never really managed to make inroads into the Black vote, than in a span of about 48 hours essentially the entire party, from elites to rank-and-file voters in the next wave of states to vote, all lined up behind him because, whatever "electable" meant, they all decided he was it.

So, take Trump out of there as the catalyst... And I honestly don't know WHO the nominee would have been, but it wouldn't have been Biden, I'd bet. Maybe we as a party would have decided it was worth the risk of running a woman again, against Romney, and Warren would have pulled through. Maybe the prospect of Sanders winning while failing to even unify the Democratic party wouldn't have felt like such a gamble. Maybe Buttigeg wouldn't have been seen as crippled by failing to win New Hampshire after upsetting Sanders in Iowa. Who knows, but I don't think the primary would have gone down in NEARLY the same manner.

I just think if you're running against Trump, someone like Biden - old, white, experienced, pretty closely in line with the center of the Democratic party, while still offering some crossover appeal - is the kind of candidate you run, whereas when running against someone who's more of the Republican version of Biden, then you start to see voters considering someone more like a Sanders or a Warren or a Buttigieg. Differentiation is critical in, well, in a lot more things than politics, but politics is definitely one of them, and while there are a lot of disadvntages against running against an incumbent, the one major advantage you DO have is your opponent is a known quantity. It's easy to think about how your candidate will differentiate themselves from the other party's candidate, when they're not also running a competitive primary.

Idunno. tl;dr - if Romney was the president today, I don't think Biden would be our nominee. That kind of a matchup and the risk you point to is still possible in a situation like 2016 when bth parties are holding competitive primaries, but in 2020, if someone like Romney or Kasich had won in 2016, I think the Democratic party would have had a very different set of priorities.
 

Drew

Forum MVP
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
32,196
Reaction score
9,022
Location
Somerville, MA
I mean... his core zombies will obviously go down with the ship but I dunno... I would think that these very real recordings might at least convince some with a conscience or integrity to say "no more".
Maybe at the margins it'll cost him a few, especially when these clips make it into campaign ads, and god knows Trump's path to victory is already narrow enough...

...but my girlfriend's reaction, I think, was telling - paraphrasing, "saying he downplayed it because he didn't want to cause a panic is probably the best possible reason he COULD have presented for downplaying it, because that's actually a pretty reasonable, human concern. If he'd said he'd downplayed it because he didn't want to hurt his polling numbers, that might be a different story, but there's no real obvious way to attack his motives here."

She's got a point - yeah, it's empirically clear he lied, and there will be some real awkward ads where he's talking about a "Democratic hoax" and then cutting to a clip from this from a day or two before... But he gave a pretty plausible, if WILDLY irresponsible, reason for lying, that suggests he did it out of concern for Americans. I think some of the other clips, calling "his generals" a "bunch of fucking pussies" because they cared more about alliances than trade deals, and suggesting Woodward was nuts for thinking they should be cognizant of their white privilege, are ultimately more damaging.
 

Randy

✝✝✝
Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
24,382
Reaction score
14,051
Location
The Electric City, NY
Not to minimize an excellent post (that I broadly agree with) by focusing on the ending... but, frankly, a day when a presidential election was a choice between Biden on one hand and Kasich or Romney on the other - between old, white, boring moderate members of their respective parties - frankly sounds like a wonderful fantasy at the moment.


(impromptu less flippant answer below)

And, I guess, actually, I think the fact Trump IS who the Democrats were running against, and not Kasich or Romney or someone of their ilk, kind of matters here too. The last 3 1/2 years have been something of an existential crisis for liberals - speaking personally, I've always believed that human history was an arc, and that no matter how bad things are today, we would make them better tomorrow, and again the day after, and that the arc of human history has been one of slow, incremental, but unstoppable progress. Trump shook that belief to the core. I don't think it's a coincidence that three years after Trump was elected and after he'd begun to gut our democratic norms, the #1 priority in a candidate for almost all Democratic voters was some variation of "electability" or "ability to beat Trump." These are poorly defined concepts, sure... but when you look back at the primary, we actually had a fairly wide array of fairly decent candidates, and while Biden seemed like an early favorite, as we got into the debates and it got closer to the vote, we had a whole slew of different frontrunners. Warren had her moment, Harris looked strong very early on, Buttigieg surged after Iowa... and it was only when Sanders became the sudden favorite, but one who looked likely to win a plurality rather than a majority of the vote, and Biden had a strong night in South Carolina showing that Sanders never really managed to make inroads into the Black vote, than in a span of about 48 hours essentially the entire party, from elites to rank-and-file voters in the next wave of states to vote, all lined up behind him because, whatever "electable" meant, they all decided he was it.

So, take Trump out of there as the catalyst... And I honestly don't know WHO the nominee would have been, but it wouldn't have been Biden, I'd bet. Maybe we as a party would have decided it was worth the risk of running a woman again, against Romney, and Warren would have pulled through. Maybe the prospect of Sanders winning while failing to even unify the Democratic party wouldn't have felt like such a gamble. Maybe Buttigeg wouldn't have been seen as crippled by failing to win New Hampshire after upsetting Sanders in Iowa. Who knows, but I don't think the primary would have gone down in NEARLY the same manner.

I just think if you're running against Trump, someone like Biden - old, white, experienced, pretty closely in line with the center of the Democratic party, while still offering some crossover appeal - is the kind of candidate you run, whereas when running against someone who's more of the Republican version of Biden, then you start to see voters considering someone more like a Sanders or a Warren or a Buttigieg. Differentiation is critical in, well, in a lot more things than politics, but politics is definitely one of them, and while there are a lot of disadvntages against running against an incumbent, the one major advantage you DO have is your opponent is a known quantity. It's easy to think about how your candidate will differentiate themselves from the other party's candidate, when they're not also running a competitive primary.

Idunno. tl;dr - if Romney was the president today, I don't think Biden would be our nominee. That kind of a matchup and the risk you point to is still possible in a situation like 2016 when bth parties are holding competitive primaries, but in 2020, if someone like Romney or Kasich had won in 2016, I think the Democratic party would have had a very different set of priorities.

Agreed on a lot of points. One thing I would be mindful of is that your POTUS either runs the next go around, or a new candidate does and they're seldom 180 degrees from the nominee/winner the last go around. Gore was very much a reverberation of Clinton (obviously as VP) and the GOP ran a de facto campaig against Clinton in 2000, McCain was in a lot of ways an extension of GWB (hawkish neocon) and Obama's campaign waged a de facto campaign against GWB.

HRC was probably the most ''different" follow-up of the bunch, but she still was an ex-Obama official and the bulk of her policy was 'more of the last 8 years but better', and obviously the endorsements of Obama. Other than the fact Trump couldn't shut up about Obama for the whole 2016 campaign or the 4 years after, he also ran as "Make America Great Again", not "Keep America Great" (implying things were good and Hillary would fuck it up) or "Make America Great" (like a commentary on a future country under Trump's vision). It was essentially a 'lets undo the last 8 or more years' campaign.

So yeah, Biden is a great contrast to Trump and also effective for the fact he IS a moderate but Biden/Harris 2024 or Harris/Buttigieg 2024 can't run against a moderate challenger as, like, "We're Firing All the Wall Street Guys This Time" or something. I'm expecting 4 years of a great relief from Trump's term, but there's nothing there that a Never Trumper (Jeb?) candidate couldn't springboard off of.

I'm unapologetically ticking the box for Biden (don't even have to hold my nose!) but I haven't seen a substantive policy that wins back working class besides a universal appeal to normalcy. That magic likely wears off when you don't have treasonous collusion, enabling white supremacists and a pandemic to blame for a slumping middle class life.
 

Drew

Forum MVP
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
32,196
Reaction score
9,022
Location
Somerville, MA
Lots of great stuff
I can't really disagree with any of this. If Biden wins, and let's say somehow serves two terms, then in 2028 we'll likely see Harris run as "Biden, But Incrementally More Progressive And Also A Mixed Race Woman." I'll say from the perspective of today, that's not the worst outcome that could happen, but it makes you wonder what sort of monster the GOP will drudge up to run against her. Hell, Ivanka, Don Jr, and Eric are all old enough to run, though maybe that's not being nearly creative enough. The 'Nuge? Tucker Carlson? Someone of their ilk?

Of course, on the flip side, if Biden doesn't win, just imagine who we'll run in 2024. A Cardboard Cutout of Obama? John Kasich? Jeff Flake? Unless the DNC decides that running to the center in as bland a way as possible isn't an effective strategy against the Trump-led RNC, but honestly, not only am I convinced they won't, I don't think they'd be wrong to run a moderate against someone who, while he doesn't fit neatly on a political compass, is certainly some form of extremist.
 

Randy

✝✝✝
Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 23, 2006
Messages
24,382
Reaction score
14,051
Location
The Electric City, NY
One of the issues I had that still lingers regardless no matter how hard I try to play nice is the notion that addressing income inequality is "far left" but committing to having a black woman as your VP candidate before you've even picked which one (binders full of women?) isn't drives me absolutely nuts.

Kamala quoted sometime in the last couple days saying she was "proud" of Jacob Blake. I'm all for REAL equality for people in this country, revising policing practices especially as they pertain to minorities, etc. but Jacob Blake was a rapist shot while ignoring the police after being tased twice and reached into a car where there was a knife while the police were ordering him not to AND HE SURVIVED. I don't think the legal outcome of anything he did should be death or paralysis, but the potential VP of the United States saying they're PROUD of him? I have a hard time believing that wins you midwestern moderate voters, but universal basic income scares them all away.

I'm very skeptical of the idea that there's no such thing as moderation in this party when it comes to identity politics but you talk about healthcare or taxes and it's WOAH HOLD ON THERE MAO. If Trump can promote 'across the board' stimulus of $1200 and support some kind of enhanced/extended unemployment as a Republican President/candidate, I don't think a Democratic platform that at least *addresses* income equality (tax rates and loopholes on the rich, social safety-net programs, minimum wage, expanded assistance for middle class, etc) is instant hard pass from moderate voters.
 

Wuuthrad

SS.org Regular
Joined
Dec 7, 2019
Messages
955
Reaction score
1,404
yeah, it's empirically clear he lied... he did it out of concern for Americans.


What are you trying to accomplish here exactly? Excusing this? Makes no sense to me.

Another impeachable offense that directly lead to the death of many people, but it’s ok he meant well?

He was obviously just joking?
 

diagrammatiks

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
4,847
Reaction score
5,452
Location
china
What are you trying to accomplish here exactly? Excusing this? Makes no sense to me.

Another impeachable offense that directly lead to the death of many people, but it’s ok he meant well?

He was obviously just joking?

Drew’s saying that if the reason given is he didn’t want to incite a panic...that’s a reason that would make sense to his supporters.

maybe.

ostensibly this is the same reason the Wuhan government gave for silencing the doctor and suppressing reports of the virus in the first month.

Of course the real reason and the real reason for trump to is that they don’t want to look bad.
 

fantom

Misses his 6 strings
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
949
Location
Bay Area, CA
IMO it is because we now live in a post truth society. I don’t want to blame Trump for all of it, but he has been a huge factor in the erosion of trust in objective reality. We now only trust what supports our agenda and feel all others operate the same.

People lying and changing facts is nothing new. It is kind of a leader's job to shield their population from a lot of information that would just cause a panic or national crisis. And it is human nature to use that power to build strong alliances and personal stability in the event shit does hit the fan. This isn't unique to Trump. It's been going on as long as the human race. Just look at the environmental movement and what was done in the 1960s-1970s and where that got us. Or maybe the war against the Taliban after 9/11 (or even the Gulf War from Bush #1). I think the only difference now is that people see the immediate effect of covid because it is on home soil and changing their daily routine. Also the internet makes information from other sources more accessible, meaning it is harder to silence disagreement (see China or North Korea).

What are you trying to accomplish here exactly? Excusing this? Makes no sense to me.

Another impeachable offense that directly lead to the death of many people, but it’s ok he meant well?

He was obviously just joking?

Impeach him for what? He can make the information classified if he wants and lie about the real data if he sees it as the best interests of the population. That is literally what he was elected to do. As much as I disagree with him, I don't think he did anything impeachable here and you are making a wrong judgement due to the person and not what he did.
 

LordCashew

Death Punch for Cutie
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
685
Location
US
...but it makes you wonder what sort of monster the GOP will drudge up to run against her. Hell, Ivanka, Don Jr, and Eric are all old enough to run, though maybe that's not being nearly creative enough. The 'Nuge? Tucker Carlson? Someone of their ilk?

Alex Jones.
 

High Plains Drifter

... drifting...
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
3,651
Reaction score
4,363
Location
Austin, Texas
jeez, I wish I had your optimism anymore. There have been so many moments where I thought “certainly this is the last straw,” and then it turns out that people still support the hell out of him.

I'm rather cynical in general.. especially regarding politicians and people's level of common sense. But idk... I'm just hopeful that this latest revelation has cost him some votes. I don't necessarily think it has... just trying to convince myself that some people out there are still waking up.

...but my girlfriend's reaction, I think, was telling - paraphrasing, "saying he downplayed it because he didn't want to cause a panic is probably the best possible reason he COULD have presented for downplaying it, because that's actually a pretty reasonable, human concern. If he'd said he'd downplayed it because he didn't want to hurt his polling numbers, that might be a different story, but there's no real obvious way to attack his motives here."

I think that I'm just trying to go into the mind of those that are still swaying... not that there are many of those ppl left at this point. But idk... when I say "go into the mind", I'm trying to picture these people distancing themselves from the dinner table & water-cooler conversations, from face-book, etc... realizing that not just a few times, but consistently and constantly... month after month... severely downplaying and lying to everyone that might've looked to him for direction. I personally don't trust politicians and I sure don't look to them for unbiased health related information. But again.. at what point when you only have yourself to look at in the mirror, do you actually say that ( regardless of actual motives) he knowingly did a "good" thing or the "right" thing? Obviously our numbers in the US were fucking skyrocketing. There has to be a point whether someone wants to admit it or not, that they realize that he did WAY more harm than good by perpetually misinforming the American public. Even if someone was so daft as to think he made honest mistakes... the recklessness has been astounding. Idk.. How does someone halfway logical, support that?
 

diagrammatiks

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
4,847
Reaction score
5,452
Location
china
I'm rather cynical in general.. especially regarding politicians and people's level of common sense. But idk... I'm just hopeful that this latest revelation has cost him some votes. I don't necessarily think it has... just trying to convince myself that some people out there are still waking up.



I think that I'm just trying to go into the mind of those that are still swaying... not that there are many of those ppl left at this point. But idk... when I say "go into the mind", I'm trying to picture these people distancing themselves from the dinner table & water-cooler conversations, from face-book, etc... realizing that not just a few times, but consistently and constantly... month after month... severely downplaying and lying to everyone that might've looked to him for direction. I personally don't trust politicians and I sure don't look to them for unbiased health related information. But again.. at what point when you only have yourself to look at in the mirror, do you actually say that ( regardless of actual motives) he knowingly did a "good" thing or the "right" thing? Obviously our numbers in the US were fucking skyrocketing. There has to be a point whether someone wants to admit it or not, that they realize that he did WAY more harm than good by perpetually misinforming the American public. Even if someone was so daft as to think he made honest mistakes... the recklessness has been astounding. Idk.. How does someone halfway logical, support that?

Why would him lying about coronavirus sway any one.

the dems aren’t voting for him anyway.

his supporters don’t think it’s a real thing.

so just people on the fence...Who believe in Covid. But are unsure of trump.

seems like a very small demographic.
 

downburst82

SS.org Regular
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
282
Location
North Vancouver
One of the issues I had that still lingers regardless no matter how hard I try to play nice is the notion that addressing income inequality is "far left" but committing to having a black woman as your VP candidate before you've even picked which one (binders full of women?) isn't drives me absolutely nuts.

Kamala quoted sometime in the last couple days saying she was "proud" of Jacob Blake. I'm all for REAL equality for people in this country, revising policing practices especially as they pertain to minorities, etc. but Jacob Blake was a rapist shot while ignoring the police after being tased twice and reached into a car where there was a knife while the police were ordering him not to AND HE SURVIVED. I don't think the legal outcome of anything he did should be death or paralysis, but the potential VP of the United States saying they're PROUD of him? I have a hard time believing that wins you midwestern moderate voters, but universal basic income scares them all away.

I'm very skeptical of the idea that there's no such thing as moderation in this party when it comes to identity politics but you talk about healthcare or taxes and it's WOAH HOLD ON THERE MAO. If Trump can promote 'across the board' stimulus of $1200 and support some kind of enhanced/extended unemployment as a Republican President/candidate, I don't think a Democratic platform that at least *addresses* income equality (tax rates and loopholes on the rich, social safety-net programs, minimum wage, expanded assistance for middle class, etc) is instant hard pass from moderate voters.

Maybe I missed something and it is who your referring to but it was Mitt Romney who made the "Binders of women" quote.

I believe Kamala harris was referring to the words Jacob Blake spoke in the video released from his hospital bed.
Also he has not been convicted of the charges you mentioned and has pled not guilty...so maybe not fair to use it as partial justification for him being shot it the back.
 

Wuuthrad

SS.org Regular
Joined
Dec 7, 2019
Messages
955
Reaction score
1,404
Impeach him for what? He can make the information classified if he wants and lie about the real data if he sees it as the best interests of the population. That is literally what he was elected to do. As much as I disagree with him, I don't think he did anything impeachable here and you are making a wrong judgement due to the person and not what he did.

He did an interview which was just released publicly where he states full knowledge of the severity of the disease and discussing it with the leader of China.

I didn’t make the judgement re. impeachment- I read an article where a lawyer was saying that withholding information, and subsequently telling lies contrary to that info that contribute to the death of many people is impeachable.

Anyway who gives a shit about panic before the virus took off? Especially now. They ended up locking us down too late and people still panicked.

Stop the damn virus in the beginning. People were panic buying toilet paper and all kinds of shit anyway!

If he told his cult the truth they would have followed him regardless right?

Hold on a second maybe he was right in lying? Cuz he knows people are so full of his shit, if he’d actually told the truth in the beginning, the vast majority of people wouldn’t have believed him anyway!
 

diagrammatiks

SS.org Regular
Joined
Jun 14, 2010
Messages
4,847
Reaction score
5,452
Location
china
He did an interview which was just released publicly where he states full knowledge of the severity of the disease and discussing it with the leader of China.

I didn’t make the judgement re. impeachment- I read an article where a lawyer was saying that withholding information, and subsequently telling lies contrary to that info that contribute to the death of many people is impeachable.

Anyway who gives a shit about panic before the virus took off? Especially now. They ended up locking us down too late and people still panicked.

Stop the damn virus in the beginning. People were panic buying toilet paper and all kinds of shit anyway!

If he told his cult the truth they would have followed him regardless right?

Hold on a second maybe he was right in lying? Cuz he knows people are so full of his shit, if he’d actually told the truth in the beginning, the vast majority of people wouldn’t have believed him anyway!

telling people to vote twice is also super illegal.
 


Top