Trump vs. Biden

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I think the GOP is entirely gone as a legit party. They've been taken over by far-right, authoritarianism, ultranationalism and religious extremism. And I think the ones you see stick with it either overtly support this or claim ignorance. They could start a European style conservative party, but that's far too foreign for them to wrap their heads around. Weirdly I hear a lot about supporting the president but let's be honest, they only mean Trump. But I don't think anyone will see the full impact of this for a little bit. Ivanka Trump is apparently pondering a senate run in FL since none of them can ever go back to NY or anywhere else for that matter (except maybe Barron) so they are looking to remain relevant.

I think that the change from within option for the Democratic party seems to be working to a degree. Is that going to continue? I don't know. Until the Dems fully and I mean fully embrace labor and working people, not much will change. So more Justice Dems, more DSA and progressive org endorsed candidates, more union organizers running would be awesome.

I've heard people critique "change from within" because of the faults of the Democratic Party. I'm of the opinion that trying to do a third party in the U.S. is making a difficult task harder than it needs to be. Plus, we all remember the moaning people had about Ralph Nader after 2000.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

From HCR's Letters today (relevant to recent discussion, support for her claims on the bottom of her page) :

It is not clear what is going to happen to the Republican Party with Trump demanding loyalty even as he is losing battle after battle after a very clear defeat in the election, and his base turning violent. Those lawmakers who have signed on to Trump’s attack on our democratic processes have painted themselves into a corner along with the extremist Trump base, and their strategy might weaken them politically.

In an important move today, evangelical leader Beth Moore, the founder of Living Proof Ministries, a Bible-based women’s group from Houston, Texas, who has almost a million followers on Twitter, tweeted: “I do not believe these days are for mincing words. I’m 63 ½ years & I have never seen anything in these United States of America I found more astonishingly seductive & dangerous to the saints of God than Trumpism. This Christian nationalism is not of God. Move back from it…. Fellow leaders, we will be held responsible for remaining passive in this day of seduction to save our own skin while the saints we’ve been entrusted to serve are being seduced, manipulated, USED and stirred up into a lather of zeal devoid of the Holy Spirit for political gain….”

Moore follows this weekend's statement by evangelical Karen Swallow Prior, who said she was “now embarrassed and ashamed” for voting for local and state Republican candidates (although she had never voted for Trump). “What a bunch of money-grubbing, power-hungry, partisan cowards who care nothing about conservatism,” she tweeted. Conservative journalist David French also wrote this weekend that “the frenzy and fury of the post-election period has laid bare the sheer idolatry and fanaticism of Christian Trumpism.”

If evangelicals return to their traditional stance that politics corrupts religion, the modern-day Republican Party is in trouble. In this year’s election, about 80% of white evangelicals supported Trump. They make up 15% of the U.S. population, but because they turn out in huge numbers, they provided about 40% of Trump’s votes in 2020. Since the Reagan years, white evangelicals have been a crucial part of the Republican base. If they are starting to rethink their loyalties, it will be a game changer.
​

 

[Z Buck McFate]

What is up with that change, like the only one similar to it that I know of was in Scotland when the entire country turned to the SNP and away from any of the parties seen as westminister centric.

There's an interesting pdf (written by Andrew Gelman, published in the journal Statistics and Public Policy) I downloaded to my phone a couple years ago. I'd intended to read it again today to post a summary, but didn't get around to it. There's a link to the pdf at the top of the link below (I didn't want to post a link directly to pdf download here).

Here's a WaPo summary written of it: The twentieth-century reversal: How did the Republican states switch to the Democrats and vice versa?

Appearing in the journal Statistics and Public Policy:

The familiar U.S. electoral map — with the Democrats winning in the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West Coast, and the Republicans dominating in the south and center of the country — is recent. In the past few elections, rich states have gone for the Democrats and poor states have voted Republican, but 30 years ago there was no such pattern, and 100 years ago things looked completely different. . . .

[Pictures of difference]

We are so used to the idea of cosmopolitan liberal Democrats and rural conservative Republicans that the 1896 pattern can come as a shock. What happened?
Was 1896 an aberration? No,
Were the rich and poor states in 1896 different than in 2000? No.
Have the parties changed what they stand for? On the general left-right economic dimension, not so much.
Have voters changed their priorities? Not so much.
Urban-rural divides: Vary by states.
​

The short story is that it’s a long story. We have a bunch of graphs.

We are used to our current political divides, but in many ways the political alignment of 1896 also makes economic sense, with the richer northeastern states supporting more conservative economic policies. Even in a world in which parties have static positions on issues, there is no obvious way that liberal New Yorkers, say, should vote: should they follow the 1896 pattern and support business-friendly policies that favor local industries, or should they vote as they do now and support higher taxes, which ultimately redistribute money to faraway states with more conservative values? A similar conundrum befalls a conservative Mississippian or Kansan in the other direction. In that sense, it perhaps is plausible that, although economic issues have been and remain most important in any particular election, social issues can be the determining factor that can, over a century, reverse the electoral map.
​

The pdf is obviously more helpful. If you can't open the WaPo article (paywall) but want to read the pdf, just Google "The twentieth-century reversal: How did the Republican states switch to the Democrats and vice versa." A link for the pdf should surface at the top.

 

[Virtual ghost]

At least according to the pieces I just read, I guess they were chanting "destroy the GOP" because the GOP failed to get him elected? Or they failed to prove the election was stolen? (And "can't prove election was stolen = maybe election wasn't stolen" is just a bridge too far?) Is it just a small handful of Trump's base that feels this way? I've not seen that anywhere else (except several stories about it at the protest yesterday).




So do you think they'll break away from the GOP or take it over? It's looks like they've taken it over. I don't think the Republican Never-Trumpers will be willing to share it with them (i.e. get under the umbrella of support for a same candidate, regardless of similar Social Darwinistic goals). The Lincoln project posted a Twitter thread just yesterday addressed to AOC, urging anti-Trump solidarity as priority over smaller disagreements.


Will there be three parties in four years? Or is it just way too soon to even guess?

Well, you basically already have at least 3 parties in the 2 party system.


Trumplicans
Democratic establishment + Bush and Romney kind of people
Progressives


It doesn't matter what the rules say but in the field this is how "the game" works at this point. In a way this whole mess is happening because there is no room for everybody to be represented. So you have to settle this on the streets (or twitter at best). What is returning us to the importance of functional multi party system. Where even minor groups can have their own representation that they directly elected. What allows bigger faith in the system since almost everyone has their team in the field. Plus it allows reforms from within by changing the seat ratios between the parties. The modern world is just too complex that just 2 parties will do it.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Well, you basically already have at least 3 parties in the 2 party system.


Trumplicans
Democratic establishment + Bush and Romney kind of people
Progressives

Yeah, in this sense there have been more than two parties for a while. But by the time elections happen, people have more or less resigned to actually vote for one of two candidates regardless of their specific party affiliation. The Libertarian votes, for example, were split between Republican and Democrat. Third parties are often put on the ticket but it's a given they won't actually win (even if a lot of people do vote for them - presumably to demonstrate they do have support and could win someday - it's still a given they won't win).

My question to ceecee was meant to suss out an opinion of whether everything happening right now could actually make a viable third party, or if it seemed like the anti-Trump Republicans would merge with progressives henceforth to get behind the Democrat candidate (thereby making the Democrat candidate even more centrist ). I think Biden won over Warren or Bernie because of the mass exodus of anti-Trump Republicans to the Democrat side.

(I don't fully understand what you're trying to say, and it's possible I'm just repeating your point back at you).

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yeah, in this sense there have been more than two parties for a while. But by the time elections happen, people have more or less resigned to actually vote for one of two candidates regardless of their specific party affiliation. The Libertarian votes, for example, were split between Republican and Democrat. Third parties are often put on the ticket but it's a given they won't actually win (even if a lot of people do vote for them - presumably to demonstrate they do have support and could win someday - it's still a given they won't win).

My question to ceecee was meant to suss out an opinion of whether everything happening right now could actually make a viable third party, or if it seemed like the anti-Trump Republicans would merge with progressives henceforth to get behind the Democrat candidate (thereby making the Democrat candidate even more centrist ). I think Biden won over Warren or Bernie because of the mass exodus of anti-Trump Republicans to the Democrat side.

(I don't fully understand what you're trying to say, and it's possible I'm just repeating your point back at you).

Yes and I am telling you that your 2 party system is already crashing down. Since it can't process desires of the people and practical issues at hand in it's current form. Since less and less people are willing to accept the current system or they see themselves truly represented in it. Therefore for me the only real question on the long run is will the system take the whole country with it or not. Since in practice it is obvious that there are more than 2 parties here. What basically means that certain people at the top will have to accept this and remake the system to fit the reality, or there will be epic mess and probably fragmentation of the country. As I said before: the country of my birth no longer exists and you are going directly in that direction. Bad economy, lousy or no representations, the leader half of the country can't stand and the other half adores, people even in the same block(s) but across the country don't agree too much on many issues, lousy medical and education system, too much military/police stuff, lying partisan news .... etc. Therefore for me all of this is already seen and probably the only real question is will everyone accept reality about all the groups involved or the country is simply going off the cliff. Since there is no representation and living conditions have collapsed. I mean this is how we got the current situation here: the country fragmented (at the joy of many) and in each fragment there is today some kind of a multiparty system that didn't exist in the original. What is because the original country/federation was that diverse on the inside and that simply wasn't represented properly, so the parallel with US is pretty obvious here.



The original idea wasn't that I scare people here but the fact is that I have seen this movie and you guys are constantly just going and going exactly in this direction. Since the system is tying to keep everything as it is while the problems are getting more complex due to a number of reasons (mostly foreign and technical/scientific, that eventually simply spill into the economy and living). What means that they can't be solved without adjustments and changes, which two party system that isn't that diverse can't real process. What is then rising the number of people who feel stuck in a mess and they start to rebel on all kinds of ways. While the formal political logic says that the status quo is workable solution. In the case that you ask me "who is ruling your county?" I couldn't really give the simple answer since the answer is both left and right. Because the rulling coalition is made out of certain right and left parties. Since not entire left and not entire right is under the same umbrella, since they don't agree on various issues. But since everyone is represented in a better way we can at least talk about it. What lowers the drama and even bigger problems that can come out of this.


Plus to answer your concrete question: The party of Progressives, centrist Democrats and Republican establishment simply wouldn't make any sense on the long run. The democratic party as it is already doesn't really make sense and is falling apart from within. Therefore if you add Republican establishment into the mix that completely blows up the structural integrity. What means that progressive are probably the ones that will leave the mix or push their own story. What is exactly why I said what I said, you as country are coming into the situation when you will just have to admit to yourself that in practice you have more than 2 active parties. Since otherwise you will get really lousy representation and therefore the whole hell will brake lose, since this has the final effect as if you banned certain major groups out of politics. What can only end in drama.

 

[The Cat]

I think if all the states had open primaries third parties would be considered more a valid affiliation and vote

 

[Virtual ghost]

Electoral college confirms blue victory.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think if all the states had open primaries third parties would be considered more a valid affiliation and vote

First of all the problem isn't really that. The problem is that you have plenty of viable and even elected third party officials in the main two parties, since being on the ticket of the main party is basically the only way you get in. However they have to stay partisan since otherwise the other block will start to win. Plus to make things worse you have a system where one seat in the parliament is linked to very specific area. Therefore you can't have multiple people and therefore perhaps multiple parties representing that area. Since you build everything on the logic winner take all, what has a number of serious democratic flaws. In US you basically need to get 50% of the vote to get a seat in the parliament, while here for example you get it already at 5%. Since each electoral region is choosing a number of seats. What then leads to better representation, it isn't perfect but is better representation. Especially since such system is much better at picking up the signal from smaller groups. Therefore if your talking points have meaning pretty much anyone has a shot of passing that 5% and getting a seat. So to me even the term "Third party" is kinda silly, since there has to a fourth party, a fifth party ... and perhaps even more. However for that a person needs to free it's mind. Plus the vote is always on Sunday since that is evidently most fair.

 

[The Cat]

First of all the problem isn't really that. The problem is that you have plenty of viable and even elected third party officials in the main two parties, since being on the ticket of the main party is basically the only way you get in. However they have to stay partisan since otherwise the other block will start to win. Plus to make things worse you have a system where one seat in the parliament is linked to very specific area. Therefore you can't have multiple people and therefore perhaps multiple parties representing that area. Since you build everything on the logic winner take all, what has a number of serious democratic flaws. In US you basically need to get 50% of the vote to get a seat in the parliament, while here for example you get it already at 5%. Since each electoral region is choosing a number of seats. What then leads to better representation, it isn't perfect but is better representation. Especially since such system is much better at picking up the signal from smaller groups. Therefore if your talking points have meaning pretty much anyone has a shot of passing that 5% and getting a seat. So to me even the term "Third party" is kinda silly, since there has to a fourth party, a fifth party ... and perhaps even more. However for that a person needs to free it's mind. Plus the vote is always on Sunday since that is evidently most fair.

First of all; I'm pretty sure there's more than one problem. Second of all. I dont disagree with you; but as someone who lives in a state with closed primaries, that is the most comonly discussed talking point from other people in conversation as to why they have a party affiliation that doesnt really represent their interests. they dont wish to "throw their vote away" Third of all. I hope you're doing well; its good to see you around.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Yes and I am telling you that your 2 party system is already crashing down. Since it can't process desires of the people and practical issues at hand in it's current form. Since less and less people are willing to accept the current system or they see themselves truly represented in it. Therefore for me the only real question on the long run is will the system take the whole country with it or not. Since in practice it is obvious that there are more than 2 parties here. What basically means that certain people at the top will have to accept this and remake the system to fit the reality, or there will be epic mess and probably fragmentation of the country. As I said before: the country of my birth no longer exists and you are going directly in that direction. Bad economy, lousy or no representations, the leader half of the country can't stand and the other half adores, people even in the same block(s) but across the country don't agree too much on many issues, lousy medical and education system, too much military/police stuff, lying partisan news .... etc. Therefore for me all of this is already seen and probably the only real question is will everyone accept reality about all the groups involved or the country is simply going off the cliff. Since there is no representation and living conditions have collapsed. I mean this is how we got the current situation here: the country fragmented (at the joy of many) and in each fragment there is today some kind of a multiparty system that didn't exist in the original. What is because the original country/federation was that diverse on the inside and that simply wasn't represented properly, so the parallel with US is pretty obvious here.



The original idea wasn't that I scare people here but the fact is that I have seen this movie and you guys are constantly just going and going exactly in this direction. Since the system is tying to keep everything as it is while the problems are getting more complex due to a number of reasons (mostly foreign and technical/scientific, that eventually simply spill into the economy and living). What means that they can't be solved without adjustments and changes, which two party system that isn't that diverse can't real process. What is then rising the number of people who feel stuck in a mess and they start to rebel on all kinds of ways. While the formal political logic says that the status quo is workable solution. In the case that you ask me "who is ruling your county?" I couldn't really give the simple answer since the answer is both left and right. Because the rulling coalition is made out of certain right and left parties. Since not entire left and not entire right is under the same umbrella, since they don't agree on various issues. But since everyone is represented in a better way we can at least talk about it. What lowers the drama and even bigger problems that can come out of this.


Plus to answer your concrete question: The party of Progressives, centrist Democrats and Republican establishment simply wouldn't make any sense on the long run. The democratic party as it is already doesn't really make sense and is falling apart from within. Therefore if you add Republican establishment into the mix that completely blows up the structural integrity. What means that progressive are probably the ones that will leave the mix or push their own story. What is exactly why I said what I said, you as country are coming into the situation when you will just have to admit to yourself that in practice you have more than 2 active parties. Since otherwise you will get really lousy representation and therefore the whole hell will brake lose, since this has the final effect as if you banned certain major groups out of politics. What can only end in drama.

I'm struggling to understand your meaning here (and I'm probably not even 50% there). I'll start by asking about this "you have to get rid of the 2 party option or you'll collapse, because as long as there's only two parties there will be too many people who aren't represented" point.

Let's say there are 5 parties on the ticket - there will still only be one winner. So ultimately, how does that provide everyone with greater representation in the end?

There are more than two parties, but those tend to more or less fall under the canopy of either "Democrat" or "Republican". Progressive tends to fall on the Democrat side, Libertarian tends to fall on the Republican side, etc. The primaries are a sort of sieve that distills a majority from each canopy, and then those two majorities are pitted against each other in the general election. And basically, I don't see how letting more of the parties compete in the general election (as opposed to weeding out the smaller parties earlier on with primaries) will ultimately give more accurate representation than the way it's currently done?

eta, If anyone else can understand what VG is getting at, I'd welcome a paraphrased translation.

 

[Virtual ghost]

First of all; I'm pretty sure there's more than one problem. Second of all. I dont disagree with you; but as someone who lives in a state with closed primaries, that is the most comonly discussed talking point from other people in conversation as to why they have a party affiliation that doesnt really represent their interests. they dont wish to "throw their vote away" Third of all. I hope you're doing well; its good to see you around.

Well, that was kinda my point: there is a number of deep deep structural problems in the whole mix.
I mean if you want to to go in this direction the real question is why you can't register as a member of Third party (from what I understand you can't). So I would start from there, since that is probably the main reason why the whole third party thing doesn't look viable. Here you can be a member of any party if they want you, or you can just be a random citizen and vote for any of the parties. Or in drastic scenario you can just start your own party and you would still kinda have a shot if you are worth something. This is exactly how we got to something like 20 parties in the parliament. Which divided themselves into "ideological blocks" in order to make things more simple.

 

[ceecee]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Good to see the right being able to handle electoral defeat without throwing an insane temper tantrum, unlike the left.

 

[ceecee]

Good to see the right being able to handle electoral defeat without throwing an insane temper tantrum, unlike the left.

So nearly ALL the leftists but not 100%. Ok good to know.

Me and the other 6 leftists will be out delivering blankets and boot socks to the tent city that's growing by the day.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

So nearly ALL the leftists but not 100%. Ok good to know.

Me and the other 6 leftists will be out delivering blankets and boot socks to the tent city that's growing by the day.

Also, when were bioweapons used in the Russian revolution? I missed that part. I wonder why the bioweapons didn't put a quick stop to the Russian Civil War... perhaps that shit was real low-grade and that was why it dragged on for five years.

I also didn't know that antifa predated fascism. I guess that shows you just how dastardly they are.


The funniest thing is the concept of a leftist CIA. I guess that's a byproduct of all the coverage making intelligence agencies into heroic defenders of democracy over the past 4 years.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Where is this from? (Parler? Reddit?)

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm struggling to understand your meaning here (and I'm probably not even 50% there). I'll start by asking about this "you have to get rid of the 2 party option or you'll collapse, because as long as there's only two parties there will be too many people who aren't represented" point.

Let's say there are 5 parties on the ticket - there will still only be one winner. So ultimately, how does that provide everyone with greater representation in the end?

There are more than two parties, but those tend to more or less fall under the canopy of either "Democrat" or "Republican". Progressive tends to fall on the Democrat side, Libertarian tends to fall on the Republican side, etc. The primaries are a sort of sieve that distills a majority from each canopy, and then those two majorities are pitted against each other in the general election. And basically, I don't see how letting more of the parties compete in the general election (as opposed to weeding out the smaller parties earlier on with primaries) will ultimately give more accurate representation than the way it's currently done?

True, you maybe wouldn't collapse but all of this is indeed leading into more and more drama (that should eventually reach braking point, that probably isn't that far). What is because plenty of people don't see themselves in the two options. Which are at this point two huge dysfunctional conglomerates of various groups. Therefore if the parties are dysfunctional the country will also be just like that. This is just how the game works, every country is reflection of it's political parties.



Regarding the bold part: No it probably wouldn't be one winner if you change things fundamentally towards multiparty system. I have deliberately said to you that currently my country is ruled by a coalition of parties where some are right wing and some are left wing (by US standards they are all far left). I mean this are simply the ones that found the most common talking points while having a majority and therefore they formed the government. What is because here the electoral votes are seats in the parliament, so the voting ratios are preserved until next elections. Plus here things aren't set in stone by the book. In other words you have snap elections that can happen at any time, especially if the administration messes up badly. Therefore even if you kinda lose elections by not entering the government you can just win snap elections if they happen (which aren't too common). However since elections can be at anytime and the whole country is in play down to the last village the politicians just have to watch more what they are delivering (and that is a big deal, that also leads into better representation). Plus it doesn't have to end with snap elections. The party that made a mess can be simply thrown out of the ruling coalition and some different one will replace it. Therefore their talking points will be more present for the rest of the mandate. What is possible since the electoral votes are seats in the parliament and therefore the elections for the head of state is preserved through the mandate and if something is evidently wrong with the government it can be reshuffled between the parties. So snap elections are only last resort, but since you can lose power at any time you will be more careful with things. Especially since new party can form at any time and sweep the entire existing structure out. Therefore here the whole concept of a winner and loser is much more "fluid". What is good since that prevents creation of too entrenched positions that can't be questioned.




Of course there are countries that do this better and those that aren't that good in this. However evidently dysfunctional administrations should be removed sooner rather than later. If interest groups are buying politicians the people should have the right to just form new party and just replace dysfunctional one if it is no longer representing them. If politician deny people something important people should be able to just form another party and override the politicians. Having more parties in power at once should be possible, or even welcomed as check and balance. Having many parties reduces "us vs them" factor so people tend to vote "for" instead of "against", just having your specific group in the parliament makes you more accepting of the whole political process. Plus even a single seat may be what will create ruling majority, so size of the party isn't equal to it's importance ... etc. I understand that all this isn't really included in US understanding of politics but this is exactly why I am saying it. Since the results are showing that paradigm shifts will be needed. Because most are just voting against, if they are even voting at all. What is causing crisis of legitimacy that is openly blowing up the system.

 

[Totenkindly]

Good to see the right being able to handle electoral defeat without throwing an insane temper tantrum, unlike the left.

These people can't tell the difference between reality and really shitty Netflix/Hulu dystopian TV series. JFC.

 

[ceecee]

Where is this from? (Parler? Reddit?)

I think it may be from the Raw Story comment section since it was posted (on Twitter) by one of their writers.