Random political thought thread.

[The Cat]

Yeah can you imagine if the dems made as big a stink when texas Ted helped the pubs "steal" 2000 (with all those dimpled chads) the way they went on in 2020.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yeah can you imagine if the dems made as big a stink when texas Ted helped the pubs "steal" 2000 (with all those dimpled chads) the way they went on in 2020.

I imagine 2000 as a branching point in the timeline, and if that had gone differently, we'd be in a much better place today. Some people say Iraq would have happened regardless based on Clinton coining the phrase "weapons of mass destruction", but PNAC was a Republican beast, not a democratic one.

 

[The Cat]

I imagine 2000 as a branching point in the timeline, and if that had gone differently, we'd be in a much better place today. Some people say Iraq would have happened regardless based on Clinton coining the phrase "weapons of mass destruction", but PNAC was a Republican beast, not a democratic one.

Every point is a branching point save one.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Every point is a branching point save one.

Which one?

 

[The Cat]

Which one?

My name is Daffy Duck, I live on a Merry Go Round, my life is swell, I do quite well, till the merry go round breaks down.

 

[Stigmata]

If Democrats had managed to maintain policies such as the $300 monthly extended child tax credit that immediately curbed child poverty by 45% they would’ve won the election.

If Democrats had pass things like national free school meals for kids, they would’ve won the election.

If they would’ve managed to pass a national $15 dollar minimum wage (which seems woefully inadequate now), they would’ve won the election.

But yes, MSNBC/The Hill/CNN, please tell me just how the US is clamoring for more centrist neoliberalism. I don’t know how anyone can think that and claim to be a professional media pundit. FDR was so popular they literally changed the constitution to stop him winning elections, but yes it is centrist Diet Republican policies who shall usher in the next era of prosperity.

 

[The Cat]

I don’t know how anyone can think that and claim to be a professional media pundit.

Riddle me this Stigman, when is a bribe the same thing as a paycheck?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

If Democrats had managed to maintain policies such as the $300 monthly extended child tax credit that immediately curbed child poverty by 45% they would’ve won the election.

If Democrats had pass things like national free school meals for kids, they would’ve won the election.

If they would’ve managed to pass a national $15 dollar minimum wage (which seems woefully inadequate now), they would’ve won the election.

But yes, MSNBC/The Hill/CNN, please tell me just how the US is clamoring for more centrist neoliberalism. I don’t know how anyone can think that and claim to be a professional media pundit. FDR was so popular they literally changed the constitution to stop him winning elections, but yes it is centrist Diet Republican policies who shall usher in the next era of prosperity.

The democrats pandered to anti-immigrant bullshit with that "brilliant" manuever with that immigration bill, and they lost.

They caved to anti-trans bigotry, and they lost.

They paraded around Liz Cheney as though she was an asset. This woman sold her lesbian sister down the river for her failed political career; she's a GARBAGE person (reminiscent of Selina in Veep) and should not be held up as a voice of moral courage. I haven't seen anything to indicate that they are once again on speaking terms. They cover this in the movie Vice, which is far more critical of the Cheney's than the modern Democratic party. They did this, and they lost.

There are other examples, I'm sure.

We cannot know for certain, but I think that it's possible that by doing this kind of bullshit, they lose more votes than they gain (which was probably close to or equal to zero). A friend of mine (she was my California travel buddy), has a teenage child who is trans, and she was furious by what Kamala did. I don't know if she still voted for Kamala in spite of this, abstained, or voted for a third party, but I cannot blame her for doing any of this. (She's too smart to vote for Trump.)

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Realistically, if I were a bigoted Republican, why wouldn't I vote for the party who I know is going to do bigoted things over the party who is promising to do bigoted things but who might back down? Why would a bigoted Republican make the opposite choice? Why would he want watered down possibly fake bigotry over full-blooded real bigotry?

 

[Stigmata]

The democrats pandered to anti-immigrant bullshit with that "brilliant" manuever with that immigration bill, and they lost.

Truthfully, I'm not sure there was a winning hand there. They kind of gaslit everyone on the immigration issue the same way they did about inflation.

"There is no border crisis -- that is made up right-wing propaganda"

6 months later

"Okay, people are crossing the border, but at the same rates they always have"

1 year later

"Okay, there are elevated amounts of border crossings but it's Trump's fault because he told the Republicans to block the immigration bill. Ah-ha!"

Personally, I don't really care about all the border stuff, but there should have been consistent messaging on that.

They caved to anti-trans bigotry, and they lost.

Any time Democrats engage in the culture war stuff, they lose because so much for the national narrative is set by the Republicans, and if the Trump era has shown us anything, If you're defending, you're losing.

They paraded around Liz Cheney as though she was an asset. This woman sold her lesbian sister down the river for her failed political career; she's a GARBAGE person (reminiscent of Selina in Veep) and should not be held up as a voice of moral courage. I haven't seen anything to indicate that they are once again on speaking terms. They cover this in the movie Vice, which is far more critical of the Cheney's than the modern
Democratic party. They did this, and they lost.

There are layers to this one. First off, there's nothing inherently wrong with a Liz Cheney endorsement -- If it's one thing I've noticed about Republicans: You can be a Demoncrat radical baby killing scum of the earth, but the second you defect and join their side, you're granted an immediate plate at the cookout and they shower you with praise. Democrats certainly need to be better at expanding their tent, but on their own terms. Liberals have this unrequited love affair with the concept bipartisanship and getting the nod of approval from Republicans. The second she started cutting the Right and trying to win the over by showing she could be the bestest moderate, she loss support from her base.

The Trump era has shown that peeling undecideds is always great, but constantly galvanizing your base for consistent turnout is ultimately the play.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Truthfully, I'm not sure there was a winning hand there. They kind of gaslit everyone on the immigration issue the same way they did about inflation.

"There is no border crisis -- that is made up right-wing propaganda"

6 months later

"Okay, people are crossing the border, but at the same rates they always have"

1 year later

"Okay, there are elevated amounts of border crossings but it's Trump's fault because he told the Republicans to block the immigration bill. Ah-ha!"

Personally, I don't really care about all the border stuff, but there should have been consistent messaging on that.

It seemed to me that they were trying to position themselves as the party that actually cared about stopping immigration. I don't follow this stuff very closely, so I could be wrong, but that's the impression I have from what I've seen. It seems to me like the Democrats knew the Republicans would never vote for that bill, but they wanted something they could use for the election. It struck me as pandering, and I hate pandering.

Any time Democrats engage in the culture war stuff, they lose because so much for the national narrative is set by the Republicans, and if the Trump era has shown us anything, If you're defending, you're losing.

Well, they also act like wimps and back down as though not believing in crazy right-wing bullshit is something to be embarrassed of. This was also a thing in the days of the War on Terror. Why set things up so your own base hates voting for you? How does that work to your advantage?

There are layers to this one. First off, there's nothing inherently wrong with a Liz Cheney endorsement -- If it's one thing I've noticed about Republicans: You can be a Demoncrat radical baby killing scum of the earth, but the second you defect and join their side, you're granted an immediate plate at the cookout and they shower you with praise. Democrats certainly need to be better at expanding their tent, but on their own terms. Liberals have this unrequited love affair with the concept bipartisanship and getting the nod of approval from Republicans. The second she started cutting the Right and trying to win the over by showing she could be the bestest moderate, she loss support from her base.

Nobody cares about Liz Cheney. As you noted, Republicans despise her. So what was the benefit supposed to be of trotting her around? Who was she supposed to convince?

The Trump era has shown that peeling undecideds is always great, but constantly galvanizing your base for consistent turnout is ultimately the play.

Republicans knew that since the 90s. Democrats are too dumb to figure it out. They sacrifice engagement from their base for "bipartisan" appeal that rarely works, I'm certain of it.

 

[The Cat]

 

[SensEye]

Democrats certainly need to be better at expanding their tent, but on their own terms. Liberals have this unrequited love affair with the concept bipartisanship and getting the nod of approval from Republicans. The second she started cutting the Right and trying to win the over by showing she could be the bestest moderate, she loss support from her base.

The Trump era has shown that peeling undecideds is always great, but constantly galvanizing your base for consistent turnout is ultimately the play.

I think you overestimate the size of Harris base (which I would say are far left progressives). I don't think them not showing up to vote was the big problem. We'll have to wait for the total popular vote totals to settle to gain more insight into this.

While you, and progressives like you, are opposed to what you consider 'diet Republican' policies, the alternative is MAGA Republican policies. I would use the term centrist policies rather than diet Republican, and I think they make a lot of sense. I think you would win elections by implementing them and you will lose elections by doubling down on what doesn't work.

I guess we'll see in 2028 depending on what the Dems strategy is and how it works. I'm assuming Trump won't rig the 2028 election, but based on his shenanigans in 2020 I'm not at all sure that assumption will hold. This was a key election for the Dems to win, and they bet on the wrong pony to do it. This election seemed to be a who do you like less question. Harris or Trump? Even I thought Trump's craziness would make most voters hold their nose and vote for the unpalatable Harris, but that was not the case.

This is not to say Harris was not the one and only problem. Biden's mismanagement at the border and general lack of direction caused a lot of issues as well. He also had the straight up bad luck of running into a post pandemic inflation bubble. The best strategy to deal with that would have been to move to a totally new ticket and away from Biden/Harris. Dems did not want to for whatever reason.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think you overestimate the size of Harris base (which I would say are far left progressives). I

The Harris base is not far left progressives.

don't think them not showing up to vote was the big problem. We'll have to wait for the total popular vote totals to settle to gain more insight into this.

While you, and progressives like you, are opposed to what you consider 'diet Republican' policies, the alternative is MAGA Republican policies. I would use the term centrist policies rather than diet Republican, and I think they make a lot of sense. I think you would win elections by implementing them and you will lose elections by doubling down on what doesn't work.

They tried the diet Republican policies and lost. This was the case with immigration and transgender issues, for example.

 

[Red Herring]

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.”
- Dietrich Bonhoeffer (German theologian, member of the resistance, executed in Flossenbürg in 1945)

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Isn't it possible to reach stupid people emotionally? I don't know how to do that, but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

 

[The Cat]

“When traitors are called heroes (or heroes traitors, he supposed in his frowning way), dark times must have fallen.”
― Stephen King, The Gunslinger

 

[Red Herring]

Isn't it possible to reach stupid people emotionally? I don't know how to do that, but I don't see why it wouldn't work.

You might once you have built a personal relationship with them, fom what psychological research I have been reading. Bonhoeffer is probably talking about large groups and society at large though, especially in situations when the public mood has already turned.

I have listened to the entire 8 hours of the The Rest Is History podcast on the French revolution this week (an era that has fascinated me since my schooldays). That only deepend and confirmed by sense of unease regarding the social dynamics involved in violent protest movements and mass psychology in general - and made me want to read Simon Schama's Citizens. Civilization is a thin blanket that can easily tear.

I have also recently been to Buchenwald during a short visit to Weimar. Just walking around the remains of the camp is extremely chilly. Of course one grows up hearing and learning about these places, but actually standing there and reading things like

"this is where the camp brothel was where women and girls were raped", "this is where prisoners where infected with typhus for research purposes", "this was the children's barrack", seeing the crematorium (it was a labor camp, not a death camp but still cost some 56.000 people their lifes) or stories of individuals like the story of a prisoner who was forced by a guard to dive for his glasses in some nearby water again and again and again until he drowned

hits differently.

I don't think people are evil. I think there is a natural level of selfishness usually balanced out by an equally natural level of altruism or empathy. Dire or beneficial circumstances or gradual aclimatization as well as upbringing and social conditioning can tip the scales one way or another. If I got my Hannah Arendt right there is a sort of overlap between stupid and evil though or rather, a form of stupidity that can manifest itself pretty much the same way evil does. There is a form of stupidity, of ignorance, an unawareness of the other that has terrible consequences and is just as anathema to what we would consider good as "authentic" evil is.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I don't think people are evil. I think there is a natural level of selfishness usually balanced out by an equally natural level of altruism or empathy. Dire or beneficial circumstances or gradual aclimatization as well as upbringing and social conditioning can tip the scales one way or another. If I got my Hannah Arendt right there is a sort of overlap between stupid and evil though or rather, a form of stupidity that can manifest itself pretty much the same way evil does.

I would say you have to mistrust and be wary of both to a similar extent.

 

[Stigmata]

I think you overestimate the size of Harris base (which I would say are far left progressives). I don't think them not showing up to vote was the big problem. We'll have to wait for the total popular vote totals to settle to gain more insight into this.

You're doing the standard US conservative thing where you label anyone left of Ronald Reagan "far left" -- it's used as a branding strategy moreso than a legitimate critique of the opposing side's policies, mostly meant as a means of scaring moderate liberals. They've done this since the 80s where they repeat "far left radical" ad nauseum, to where it eventually becomes automatically associated with any sort of Liberal politician. True far left progressives weren't thrilled with Harris, and are the group often most disillusioned with the Democratic party.

That said, there really is no true leftist movement in the US that holds any degree political power at any level. The Overton window in this country is just so far skewed to the Right, that what would otherwise be considered center to center-left (at absolute best) politicians are labeled as "rAdICaL lEfT LiBruHs" ad nauseum by our corporate owned media structure here. The truth is, Liberals would rather try to reign in and negotiate in good-faith with fascists than Leftists, because at the end of the day, fascists seek to maintain the capitalistic power structure.

While you, and progressives like you, are opposed to what you consider 'diet Republican' policies, the alternative is MAGA Republican policies. I would use the term centrist policies rather than diet Republican, and I think they make a lot of sense. I think you would win elections by implementing them and you will lose elections by doubling down on what doesn't work.

Missouri voters approve $15 minimum wage, paid sick leave
Florida $15 minimum ballot initiative passes
Voters in Kansas decide to keep abortion legal in the state, rejecting an amendment

I'd like to know how you arrive at this conclusion, considering, even in red states, when offered progressive policies through ballot initiatives, progressive policies win almost every time. When not framed within the context of any particular party, progressive policies poll extremely well. As linked above, deep red Missouri, despite voting overwhelming for Trump, also managed to pass a ballot initiative for a $15 dollar minimum wage -- Florida passed one a years ago, and Ohio has one on the ballot for 2025. Florida also would've passed a ballot initiative for marijuana legalization if they wouldn't have shot themselves in the foot prior, making any future ballot initiative require a 60% threshold to pass -- it got 57% favorability.

I asked you a question in another thread, on this same topic, that you never gave me an answer on: Besides Bill Clinton, what other Democrat has won an election pandering to the center/center-right?

Obama in 2008/2012 ran a Left-leaning Populist campaign and won in overwhelming fashion both times.
Biden ran on a $15 dollar minimum wage, a public option, and $2,000 stimulus checks, and won the most votes for a US president ever in this country's history.
Clinton pandered to the center/right-wingers and lost.
Kamala was at her most popular when she initially came out of the gate running to her left, but and if you go back and track the polling, she lost steam when she started reigning that in and decided to appeal to moderates/never-trump Republicans and palling around with Liz and Dick Cheney.

I cannot understand how anyone can look at the current state of affairs, where every incumbent government in the western world was overwhelming voted out, besides one country: Mexico. You know what incumbent party won in the recent Mexico 2024 election? Their left-wing populist party, the MORENA, which maintained power. Trudeau in Canada is the next domino to fall, by the way.

Please tell me these centrist policies that everyone is clamoring for?

This election seemed to be a who do you like less question. Harris or Trump? Even I thought Trump's craziness would make most voters hold their nose and vote for the unpalatable Harris, but that was not the case.

Eh. I think the Right is making too many self-serving extrapolations from this election. I don't think the result of this election is some big social commentary or some big referendum on "wokeism" or anything like that. This election, like all the other ones in the last few years, have been referendums on the incumbent parties who inherited the post-COVID economic fallout. The Biden Administration did some good things for unions and was overall one of the most pro-worker administrations we've seen in a long time, but wasn't consequential enough to where people could really feel the changes in such turbulent economic times. In normal conditions, without inflation/supply chain issues, the Biden Administration most likely wins reelection.

As an aside, I do think it is absolutely chicken shit of the Teamsters president (Biden releasing nearly $36B to aid pensions of union workers) to have their pensions saved single-handedly by the Democrat party, then go to the RNC and try to pull some both sides bullshit. What incentive does the Democrat party have to ever look out for unions in a material way again, when you have stuff like that going on. Union workers are some of the most perplexing people -- They enjoy the perks of being a union worker that the Democrats have almost exclusively sought to protect, but then they overwhelmingly vote for Republicans who seek to erode any semblance of worker's rights and collective bargaining we have in this country.

Upset about Gaza? Nobody talks about how Trump instigated the tensions that led up to October 7th attack by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving the US capital there, at the behest of Sheldon Adelson, who donated $100 million to a Republican SuperPac.