Random political thought thread.

[Virtual ghost]

Harris made a point to be much more likable and I think excelled at that. For her, there just might not have been enough time for her to reach and connect with enough voters.

I am sorry but in this line I just don't agree with you. The voters clearly rejected her in 2020 primaries. Plus she had 4 year to connect with people as VICE PRESIDENT. She had time to make the magic work but that this didn't happen.


The truth is that she got a shot just because of that catastrophic debate where basically the whole party said that there has to be a change on the top if the ticket. However since there just wasn't enough time for a genuine new candidate the party did the campaign with her as kinda average Democrat and failed. What is simply because she isn't the right type of candidate for the time when there is slow motion WW3 going on.


As someone said: Why did the Democrats lost ? IT IS THE WARS STUPID!

 

[Coriolis]

I am sorry but in this line I just don't agree with you. The voters clearly rejected her in 2020 primaries. Plus she had 4 year to connect with people as VICE PRESIDENT. She had time to make the magic work but that this didn't happen.


The truth is that she got a shot just because of that catastrophic debate where basically the whole party said that there has to be a change on the top if the ticket. However since there just wasn't enough time for a genuine new candidate the party did the campaign with her as kinda average Democrat and failed. What is simply because she isn't the right type of candidate for the time when there is slow motion WW3 going on.


As someone said: Why did the Democrats lost ? IT IS THE WARS STUPID!

From what I saw, she used those 4 years to work on her presentation, and connections. The only reason she could muster a viable candidacy at all in 100 days is because she had laid significant groundwork behind the scenes, in networking with influential people and lining up supporters, upon whom she could call when Biden stepped aside. Being VP is tricky. It is important to be loyal, and not upstage the president. The kind of connecting you did not see her do much of could easily have led to accusations she was trying to do just that: overstep. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

What makes you think I disagree that politicians should be accountable to voters? I would prefer Bernie Sanders' policies to Obama's as well, but I prefer Obama to the people he ran against, and Republican candidates overall.

To me, though, the party loyalty is reversed. Republicans cling to politicians like Trump, despite the fact that they routinely act against their values. Their policies do not result in less government, or a better economy, or stronger families, or even a stronger defense, all traditional Republican values. If Democrats look like they are falling in line behind an insufficiently progressive candidate, it is usually because they know that fragmenting their support will lead to the Republican winning, which is worse than an inadequate Democrat. When Republicans turn against one of their own candidates, it is because they are not in lockstep with Trump. That's not voting for their own values or self interest, it's succumbing to a personality cult.

I felt Harris ran by the standard Democratic playbook, rather than throwing it out (Obama didn't really use it, either). That was why I was discouraged when I caught snippets of her convention, because it was familiar tactics that I've all seen fail before. Maybe if Harris had more time, she could have tried something that was new and effective.

I think Harris and Democrats in general sought (and will probably still seek, because they don't learn anything ever) to appeal to Republicans in the wrong way. I am more certain of this than ever. Perhaps healthcare reform would appeal to Republicans (not the politicians, but the voters), for instance? It is important to offer them something the GOP won't simply do better (if you consider what the GOP offers to be a feature, and not a bug, that is)

Regardless, I think unfortunately sexism did play a role in the defeat of Clinton and Harris. It's not like we're Mexico or anything.

 

[SensEye]

Harris was a straight up bad choice. Pure DEI and it didn't play well. It will be interesting to see what she does next. I suspect she'll head back to California, but she make take another kick at the can in the next round of Dem primaries. Can't see how she would have any success in them, but Democrats are all over the map right now. Half want to go hard left, half want to get back to center. We'll see which group gets control of the party.

I suspect if it is the hard left, the Republicans will have a long run.

 

[Virtual ghost]

From what I saw, she used those 4 years to work on her presentation, and connections. The only reason she could muster a viable candidacy at all in 100 days is because she had laid significant groundwork behind the scenes, in networking with influential people and lining up supporters, upon whom she could call when Biden stepped aside. Being VP is tricky. It is important to be loyal, and not upstage the president. The kind of connecting you did not see her do much of could easily have led to accusations she was trying to do just that: overstep. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.

I am sorry but in my book if she couldn't beat Trump that means that she was basically unelectable. Since you really can't put the bar much lower than that. Due to living in the genuine multiparty system I just don't believe in all that networking and presentation details. If you are a good candidate you will power through no matter what. What here just wasn't the case.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Harris was a straight up bad choice. Pure DEI and it didn't play well. It will be interesting to see what she does next. I suspect she'll head back to California, but she make take another kick at the can in the next round of Dem primaries. Can't see how she would have any success in them, but Democrats are all over the map right now. Half want to go hard left, half want to get back to center. We'll see which group gets control of the party.

I suspect if it is the hard left, the Republicans will have a long run.

The last time I checked Trump plans to declare trade war to the rest of the world (what almost surely wouldn't go well). What means that with current mess on the democratic side the left has one of it's best shots in years. We will see but don't be so quick on the conclusions. The main show didn't even start yet.

 

[Coriolis]

I felt Harris ran by the standard Democratic playbook, rather than throwing it out (Obama didn't really use it, either). That was why I was discouraged when I caught snippets of her convention, because it was familiar tactics that I've all seen fail before. Maybe if Harris had more time, she could have tried something that was new and effective.

I think Harris and Democrats in general sought (and will probably still seek, because they don't learn anything ever) to appeal to Republicans in the wrong way. I am more certain of this than ever. Perhaps healthcare reform would appeal to Republicans (not the politicians, but the voters), for instance? It is important to offer them something the GOP won't simply do better (if you consider what the GOP offers to be a feature, and not a bug, that is)

Regardless, I think unfortunately sexism did play a role in the defeat of Clinton and Harris. It's not like we're Mexico or anything.

I agree that Democrats try to pander to Republicans too often. Put another way, they are timid about embracing and promoting their strongest policies that distinguish themselves from Republicans in ways that provide tangible benefit to voters. Health care is a great example. Had Trump been able to repeal the ACA during his first term, lots of Republican voters would have been dropped or overcharged for pre-existing conditions, and Republican young adult children would have lost coverage, too. Unfortunately Republicans, especially those who support Trump, have a disappointing capacity to vote against their own self-interests. People smarter and more savvy than me will have to figure out how to break through that. I'm sure - or at least I hope - they are working on it.

One thing I did see different from the Democrats, highlighted several times at their convention, was a willingness to bring religion into the rhetoric. For too long progressives have ceded the religious, particularly the Christian rationale for policy to conservatives. This means, as AOC pointed out in a well publicised rant in Congress, that we generally see the Bible used to promote hate and bigotry. Many of the Democratic convention speakers referenced it instead to promote the kind of compassion and inclusion Jesus demonstrated in his own life. We need more of that. We need to counter Trump's emotional appeal with a healthier emotional appeal, and for faithful Christians, the example of Jesus might offer one. Don't forget that Jimmy Carter was an evangelical, the kind who actually tries to do what Jesus would do.

I am sorry but in my book if she couldn't beat Trump that means that she was basically unelectable. Since you really can't put the bar much lower than that. Due to living in the genuine multiparty system I just don't believe in all that networking and presentation details. If you are a good candidate you will power through no matter what. What here just wasn't the case.

In any election, only one candidate can win. Does that automatically make the other candidate unelectable? Trump lost to Biden, for example, but obviously could be elected. Biden lost in primaries, only to go on to be elected later. The networking is important because it brings in support and especially dollars. American elections are unfortunately tied to money. Historically, one cannot win without raising substantial amounts of money. The first day after Biden dropped out, Harris was able to mobilize lots of big donors. Now, you might point out, that still didn't enable her to win. If the influence of money on our elections is a casualty of the whole Trump era, I would not be disappointed, but I am not that optimistic. Money may not be sufficient to win an election, but unfortunately it is still necessary. That is where being able to tap into a network is helpful, especially when you have only 100 days to compete.

 

[Virtual ghost]

In any election, only one candidate can win. Does that automatically make the other candidate unelectable? Trump lost to Biden, for example, but obviously could be elected. Biden lost in primaries, only to go on to be elected later. The networking is important because it brings in support and especially dollars. American elections are unfortunately tied to money. Historically, one cannot win without raising substantial amounts of money. The first day after Biden dropped out, Harris was able to mobilize lots of big donors. Now, you might point out, that still didn't enable her to win. If the influence of money on our elections is a casualty of the whole Trump era, I would not be disappointed, but I am not that optimistic. Money may not be sufficient to win an election, but unfortunately it is still necessary. That is where being able to tap into a network is helpful, especially when you have only 100 days to compete.

My logic was simply that if you lose to Trump that you aren't too electable in the start.


To put my cards fully on the table: my point is simply that all of you here don't dare to dream big anymore. Instead you are falling in line behind people who have economic plans that are to the right of my national far right. I wouldn't be bothered with all of this in the case that I don't see that all of that isn't slowly killing all of you (since I see changes in tone over the years). Therefore I really have the impression that perhaps Stockholm syndrom in the name of the game here. I currently have center right + far right coalition government but none the less I have socialized medicine, free college, green new deal is also progressing at slower pace, I have paid maternity leave, public debt to GDP ratio is going down .... etc. While you can't achieve even half of that under what you define as advanced left wing team. I know this is kinda rude but to me all of this is theater of absurd. I really don't know how else to define this. Just last week my far right made a push that fully paid maternity leave should be increased from 6 months to a year. While money given as a bonus for even born child should be tripled. What is seen as a move in the domain of "family values" and national self preservation. I know that you can't become Europe over nigh or you don't even want to be Europe to the full extent. But trying to find endless excuses for people who evidently can't or wouldn't hold their ground against someone like Trump is either masochism or shortsightedness.


I am just trying to point out that objectively speaking all of you lost track of things due to endless moving of goalposts. Therefore you are accepting what little you can get. If you want that ok, but I am pointing this out since I am under impression that this isn't what you really want. Therefore there in no point in defending with post after post people who led you into this situation. If you have no alterative due to electoral system vote for these people. However trying to defend them on every turn is simply bad idea. After all they evidently have to feel that you aren't covering their back. Since that is perhaps the only real leverage you have.

 

[SensEye]

The last time I checked Trump plans to declare trade war to the rest of the world (what almost surely wouldn't go well). What means that with current mess on the democratic side the left has one of it's best shots in years. We will see but don't be so quick on the conclusions. The main show didn't even start yet.

In a sense you are making my point for me. The Dems thought Harris could win because, as you said, the bar was so low with Trump. They got it wrong. Now, you suggest that Trump will make such a hash of things, the Dems can put up another DEI candidate the general electorate probably won't like because - there will be no chance the Republicans can win after Trump.

I would suggest rather, they get a candidate with broad based appeal that insures a Republican defeat (assuming Trump does screw things up and also that the next election is not rigged in project 2025 fashion). The great progressive revolution can wait until Trumpism is defeated if you ask me. That should have happened in 2024 to be honest, but the Dems rolled the dice.

But we'll see. Four years is a long time, so the Dems can flounder about for a while before picking their new pony.

 

[ygolo]

I think any lessons learned from the last election has to be tempered by the fact that status quo candidates around the globe lost.

The election ended a lot closer (in popular vote) than when it was called.

 

[Virtual ghost]

In a sense you are making my point for me. The Dems thought Harris could win because, as you said, the bar was so low with Trump. They got it wrong. Now, you suggest that Trump will make such a hash of things, the Dems can put up another DEI candidate the general electorate probably won't like because - there will be no chance the Republicans can win after Trump.

I would suggest rather, they get a candidate with broad based appeal that insures a Republican defeat (assuming Trump does screw things up and also that the next election is not rigged in project 2025 fashion). The great progressive revolution can wait until Trumpism is defeated if you ask me. That should have happened in 2024 to be honest, but the Dems rolled the dice.

But we'll see. Four years is a long time, so the Dems can flounder about for a while before picking their new pony.

I never mention DEI, so you made up that part.
After all DEI is more of a centrist/liberal thing than the left thing. While I claimed that the path is open for the left. After all the only real way how to fight Trumpism is through stronger education, better healthcare, more accountability etc. I mean I just said that the path is somewhat open after election have ended as they ended.



However the main problem with your logic is that you are kinda treating this as purely internal US thing. What in my book wouldn't be the case. The thing is that all right wing wins globally have got more and more people concerned around the world. Therefore counter push has basically already started. What means that Trump's moves will hit plenty of walls and that is going to hurt many in the US if he goes as far as he says. From what I understand: Mexico has recently inaugurated it's first female and quite left wing president. Also Canada should remain as it is for at least a year until elections. However it isn't impossible that Trump's crazy things will give Canadian liberals a realistic shot a year from now.

UK already has labor government. Last week center right PM lost vote of confidence in France. While the new one will be to the left of the removed one (and the left is expected to enter the coalition government). Italy's right lost some regional elections over the last couple of weeks. Germany is going to snap elections but center right just wouldn't have the seats and thus it will have to make a coalition government with one left wing party. Spain has left plus hard left government. The Romanian left should come on top in repeated elections. In Finland the right wing government is getting unpopular and left leads the polls. Denmark has labor government. My left wing president leads all polls and should get another term. In Austria the left entered the new coalition government a few weeks ago. In Lithuania left won general elections some 2 weeks ago. Same is in Iceland. Poland has coalition of the center and left in power.


The current conservative president of South Korea is under impeachment over what he did recently. In Japan the main conservative party lost the absolute majority quite recently (so they need a coalition partner). Australia has left wing government the last time I checked. So does Brazil and good chunks of Latin America. The current pope is also basically a leftists .... etc.



My point was simply that people underestimate into how many walls Trump will crash into. Especially since in many countries even the right doesn't like what he brings to the table. However these are countries that are friends or at least neutral to US. What in other words means that enemies can only add to the fire. Therefore as I said: the main show didn't even start at this point.

 

[Tomb1]

In a sense you are making my point for me. The Dems thought Harris could win because, as you said, the bar was so low with Trump. They got it wrong. Now, you suggest that Trump will make such a hash of things, the Dems can put up another DEI candidate the general electorate probably won't like because - there will be no chance the Republicans can win after Trump.

I would suggest rather, they get a candidate with broad based appeal that insures a Republican defeat (assuming Trump does screw things up and also that the next election is not rigged in project 2025 fashion). The great progressive revolution can wait until Trumpism is defeated if you ask me. That should have happened in 2024 to be honest, but the Dems rolled the dice.

But we'll see. Four years is a long time, so the Dems can flounder about for a while before picking their new pony.

The bar wasn't too low with Trump in 2024. In 2016, sure. But by 2024, they expected Trump to be a wrecking ball., At the beginning of the republic primaries, CNN was even simping for him with those town halls. Trump also doesn't play down expectations of himself, and he demolished the field of republicans in the primaries. The democrats knew Trump was good for at least 70 million votes and went all out in trying to beat him, even destroy him and/or root on his destruction. That's part of why they lost imo. They went too far, too triggered by Trump's opinion that the 2020 election was stolen and as a result gave him the momentum and control to frame the election.

The democratic party right now has to avoid being swallowed up by the growing nihilism of the elitist left. The Luigi Mangione case is kind of the case in point...a sick coward who shot a successful family man in the back and then was whining when he was being hauled off from jail....embraced as a folk hero by the elitist left, the same elitist left that rails against the death penalty for murderers, pedophiles and rapists, glorifies a private citizen murdering the CEO of United Healthcare. So if a corporation doesn't just indiscriminately provide coverage and thereby drive themselves towards bankruptcy, it is okay to murder the CEO, board of directors, etc., back in the 60s when the Manson Family murdered Sharon Tate and other music executives and wrote pig all over the walls, everybody in the country saw it for what it was....but now the murder of a successful executive by somebody clearly brainwashed with propaganda and personal dissatisfaction is actually being normalized by an element of a mainstream political party. That's not the direction the democratic party wants to go in....the abstract and twisted rationale for murdering a Healthcare CEO plays great with over-educated, arrogant white-collar elitists but turns off many working-class blue-collar folks.

If the democratic party wants to remain viable and prevent more working-class blue-collar voters from jumping over to the republicans (like you saw in the last election), the party needs to distance itself from the more demented elements of their party.

 

[The Cat]

 

[SensEye]

The democrats knew Trump was good for at least 70 million votes and went all out in trying to beat him, even destroy him and/or root on his destruction. That's part of why they lost imo. They went too far, too triggered by Trump's opinion that the 2020 election was stolen and as a result gave him the momentum and control to frame the election.

I don't disagree with most of your post (although I don't really care about a CEO getting offed by a crazy any more than any other victim). However, if putting up a senile octogenarian followed by a person who mainly got her job due to race/gender check boxes is the Democrats going 'all out' to beat Trump then I would argue the Democrats problem is they just aren't very bright. I believe they figured Trump would never win, so they figured any schmuck that party apparatchiks threw out there could do the job.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm tempted to criticize certain political tendencies that have manifested over the past decade, but then I think the better of it and decide it's too much like kicking a dog when it's down.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

There was no leader of his caliber ready to take over. Bernie Sanders had the policies, but not the national stature and experience. Plus, many Democrats probably thought he was too progressive to win the necessary votes from independents and less conservative Republicans. That may have been inaccurate, but I suspect drove their reasoning. Hillary Clinton was every bit as capable as Obama, arguably more as she had more experience, but too many people simply didn't like her. I'm sure sexism played a role, perhaps not in the sense of people being unwilling to vote for a woman, but in holding female candidates to different standards of likability. Harris made a point to be much more likable and I think excelled at that. For her, there just might not have been enough time for her to reach and connect with enough voters.

I think there was a big problem with the fact that a lot of his voters really bought into his rhetoric at first, and when they ran out of justifications and convoluted reasoning to explain why it was fine that they weren't getting whatever they expected with "hope and change", they became disillusioned with the Democratic party. They were unwilling to vote for anyone other than perhaps Bernie Sanders at this point, or perhaps they might try an outsider Republican who all the respectable people dislike. I don't blame them for getting disillusioned, I am however tempted to blame them for unrealistic expectations, and voting for Trump, if that is what they did.

My personal stance is that I believe Obama's presidency was the most overhyped thing I've ever seen in my life, even more than The Phantom Menace. The amount of "just you see', and "just you wait", or "you gotta believe", or outright anger I got from people at expressing my skepticism was exhausting. The international community did not help with this, either.

He seemed ok to me, but I didn't see why everyone was treating him like this messianic figure.

I did give him a shot for 8 years and only challenged him on 1-3 things. I think when you campaign on vague slogans that people take to mean whatever they want it to mean, and then you run a relatively restrained and conservative government that doesn't change that much, it's not surprising that there was backlash, which might have manifested among some people as a vote for Donald Trump.

I think he had skill as a politician, but other than that I was skeptical of him to begin with and he let me down on a number of occasions even so. For instance, I thought that at the least we would have more unity, as he talked about in his speeches, but the last two years of his term were extremely divisive, and you can't pin that all on Republicans (I will not speak of this more because as I said above, it's like kicking a dog when it's down).

Sanders would not have been able to do everything either, but I feel like he would have been much more unrelenting in his efforts (I sense Sanders is an NTP and they can be unrelenting if they actually give a damn about something) without making these speeches that made situations worse in an attempt to be everything to everybody. And again, I like that his motto highlighted that it wasn't just about him, it was about all of us. It wasn't centered on this singular hyper-intelligent hyper-competent transformative figure to whom we owed our allegiance.

 

[The Cat]

When you stop mistaking collaberation for confusion.
Establishment Democratic leadership's seeming allergy to victory, starts to make more sense.​

 

[ceecee]

Harris was a straight up bad choice. Pure DEI and it didn't play well. It will be interesting to see what she does next. I suspect she'll head back to California, but she make take another kick at the can in the next round of Dem primaries. Can't see how she would have any success in them, but Democrats are all over the map right now. Half want to go hard left, half want to get back to center. We'll see which group gets control of the party.

I suspect if it is the hard left, the Republicans will have a long run.

The more right wing keywords you use, the stupider you sound and so easily influenced by them.

Let me know who you are identifying as "hard left" US politicians. Then I'll laugh as none of them are.

 

[ceecee]

When you stop mistaking collaberation for confusion.
Establishment Democratic leadership's seeming allergy to victory, starts to make more sense.​

This was all Nancy Pelosi - who isn't going to piss on the GOP and old guard friends.

 

[Coriolis]

I think there was a big problem with the fact that a lot of his voters really bought into his rhetoric at first, and when they ran out of justifications and convoluted reasoning to explain why it was fine that they weren't getting whatever they expected with "hope and change", they became disillusioned with the Democratic party. They were unwilling to vote for anyone other than perhaps Bernie Sanders at this point, or perhaps they might try an outsider Republican who all the respectable people dislike. I don't blame them for getting disillusioned, I am however tempted to blame them for unrealistic expectations, and voting for Trump, if that is what they did.

My personal stance is that I believe Obama's presidency was the most overhyped thing I've ever seen in my life, even more than The Phantom Menace. The amount of "just you see', and "just you wait", or "you gotta believe", or outright anger I got from people at expressing my skepticism was exhausting. The international community did not help with this, either.

He seemed ok to me, but I didn't see why everyone was treating him like this messianic figure.

I did give him a shot for 8 years and only challenged him on 1-3 things. I think when you campaign on vague slogans that people take to mean whatever they want it to mean, and then you run a relatively restrained and conservative government that doesn't change that much, it's not surprising that there was backlash, which might have manifested among some people as a vote for Donald Trump.

I think he had skill as a politician, but other than that I was skeptical of him to begin with and he let me down on a number of occasions even so. For instance, I thought that at the least we would have more unity, as he talked about in his speeches, but the last two years of his term were extremely divisive, and you can't pin that all on Republicans (I will not speak of this more because as I said above, it's like kicking a dog when it's down).

Sanders would not have been able to do everything either, but I feel like he would have been much more unrelenting in his efforts (I sense Sanders is an NTP and they can be unrelenting if they actually give a damn about something) without making these speeches that made situations worse in an attempt to be everything to everybody. And again, I like that his motto highlighted that it wasn't just about him, it was about all of us. It wasn't centered on this singular hyper-intelligent hyper-competent transformative figure to whom we owed our allegiance.

Presidents aren't dictators, or at least they are not supposed to be. The most progressive and effective ideas won't get implemented unless congress passes them. Too many voters have elected democratic/progressive presidents, but not the corresponding senators or representatives to support them. Divided government means not much gets done. Good if you just want to keep bad policy from being made; bad if you want real progress. Yes, this would affect Sanders as much as Obama, or anyone else.

As for over-hyped presidencies, I would give that designation to Ronald Reagan. So much of our current trouble started in his administration, if not at his instigation, then with his support. He was no more than a cheerleader for America who couldn't actually govern his way out of a paper bag, and was slipping into dementia toward the end of his time in office.