Democrat 2020

[Tuuvi]

So Kamala Harris is on video bragging about how she threatened to jail a homeless mother of three for her kids' truancy. She seems like just another law-and-order broken windows policing type who thinks poor people are too stupid for their own good, not someone who's really sincere about progressive criminal justice reform.

[Montmorency]

So Kamala Harris is on video bragging about how she threatened to jail a homeless mother of three for her kids' truancy. She seems like just another law-and-order broken windows policing type who thinks poor people are too stupid for their own good, not someone who's really sincere about progressive criminal justice reform.

The clip is somewhat-dishonestly presented. She's not hailing the threat delivered - which would make her look like a Saturday-morning cartoon villain - she's expressing pride that the mother was found, so that she could be offered services and the children placed in school.

Stick with the good point that the immediate and only response in that case should have been the provision of services; the threat of criminal liability should (almost?) never play a role.

The "evil cop" narrative is silly. Her record is mixed (no innuendo intended), but from what I've seen she's certainly been one of the more liberal DAs in the country (not sure as compared to blue states). Not liberal enough for you, or you don't think she'll change to be liberal enough if promoted to President? Fine. But don't fall for mischaracterizations her past.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The clip is somewhat-dishonestly presented. She's not hailing the threat delivered - which would make her look like a Saturday-morning cartoon villain - she's expressing pride that the mother was found, so that she could be offered services and the children placed in school.

Stick with the good point that the immediate and only response in that case should have been the provision of services; the threat of criminal liability should (almost?) never play a role.

The "evil cop" narrative is silly. Her record is mixed (no innuendo intended), but from what I've seen she's certainly been one of the more liberal DAs in the country (not sure as compared to blue states). Not liberal enough for you, or you don't think she'll change to be liberal enough if promoted to President? Fine. But don't fall for mischaracterizations her past.

I have to concur with Monty here. Does she make the occasional law-and-order reference to not irritate the political middle all the time? Yes. Is she solidly in the Social-Democracy wing of the Dem party? Bet your bippie she is.

[Tuuvi]

The clip is somewhat-dishonestly presented. She's not hailing the threat delivered - which would make her look like a Saturday-morning cartoon villain - she's expressing pride that the mother was found, so that she could be offered services and the children placed in school.

Stick with the good point that the immediate and only response in that case should have been the provision of services; the threat of criminal liability should (almost?) never play a role.

The "evil cop" narrative is silly. Her record is mixed (no innuendo intended), but from what I've seen she's certainly been one of the more liberal DAs in the country (not sure as compared to blue states). Not liberal enough for you, or you don't think she'll change to be liberal enough if promoted to President? Fine. But don't fall for mischaracterizations her past.

I'm not falling for any mischaracterizations. In that same speech she talks about how she thinks truancy is a criminal issue and that she's going to solve it by using her "big stick" even though some of her aides thought it was a bad move. She was absolutely bragging about her idea to threaten parents with prosecution if their children missed too much school.

Yes Harris did help that women get access to services, but she also charged her with a crime which I can imagine compounded her stress and made her life even more of a living hell than it already was. My own mother is unemployed, mentally ill and trying to raise my 13 year old sister by herself so I have some insight into what that kind of life can be like. If my mom was charged with a crime because my sister missed too much school it would totally wreck her mentally and emotionally.

I found Harris' attitude to be incredibly paternalistic, hence why I wrote that she thinks "poor people are too stupid for their own good".

[Montmorency]

Clinton was the obvious choice, but was Clinton the safe choice? Her problems with likeability, especially among independents were known going into the campaign. She was the 'next in line' and had the support of the party leadership, that's really the only reason she won. Sanders is not part of the party leadership but ran under Dem party for exposure and he certainly showed the weakness of her position among the young Dems.

Hindsight is always 20/20, but the Dems could have benefited from a proper vetting of candidates, for instance if Biden had entered the race. Another way of putting it is this, competition during the primaries keeps campaigns on their toes and shores up flaws. Having Hillary anointed the victor before Iowa caucus was definitely a very risky play by the Democrats.

You're right, I should have compared against the potential candidates who chose not to enter the race. I'm doubtful on the face that Harris, Gillibrand, or Warren could have been safer in 2016 - but I acknowledge that Biden would have been the safest possible front going in. Not that safe because 2016 would have been genuinely was a plenty good time to have an intramural falling out over Biden's liberal conservatism (further right than Clinton ended up).

Interesting note on favorability: By the Sanders Gallup polling I linked earlier, Clinton's favorability (77%) among Democrats in September 2018 is equal to Sanders' favorability (78%) among Democrats in the same period. Discuss.


BTW Acetaminophen, since you expressed preoccupation with electoral-geographic-demographic issues

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

here are two articles on how deregulation and retrenchment of Antitrust enforcement drained wealth and jobs and white collar workers from rural America and mid-sized Cities toward large coastal metropolitan zones. The suggestion is basically to reverse these trends of 'urban coastal elite privilege' and engender competition for jobs between all parts of the country. One putative side effect may be eliminate the Democrats' Senate disadvantage, to weaken the economic anxiety of (currently) flyover whites and thereby reduce the racial anxiety that is the other side of the coin. Which - hopefully drives enough whites to vote third party or abstain, I guess, from voting Republican...? As long as we're going to be scaring white upper-middle-class urban liberals with the specter of genuine desegregation, we might as well...

(Yes, there is an obvious flaw in this reasoning that elides the role of the modern international economic framework, plus existing and mutually reinforcing metropolitan social and infrastructural assets, in drawing efficiencies from geographic clustering of the highest-value industries. A neoliberal policy can disrupt the old ways, but nullifying it won't alone encourage the reproduction of those arrangements just as they developed within their contingent ecologies. We may still be prompted to ponder certain privileged interrelationships all the same. Good thing too that most of the articles' recommended commitments are independently desired among the Left.)

I'm not falling for any mischaracterizations. In that same speech she talks about how she thinks truancy is a criminal issue and that she's going to solve it by using her "big stick" even though some of her aides thought it was a bad move. She was absolutely bragging about her idea to threaten parents with prosecution if their children missed too much school.

Yes Harris did help that women get access to services, but she also charged her with a crime which I can imagine compounded her stress and made her life even more of a living hell than it already was. My own mother is unemployed, mentally ill and trying to raise my 13 year old sister by herself so I have some insight into what that kind of life can be like. If my mom was charged with a crime because my sister missed too much school it would totally wreck her mentally and emotionally.

I found Harris' attitude to be incredibly paternalistic, hence why I wrote that she thinks "poor people are too stupid for their own good".

The distinction remains between cheering prosecution for its own sake and upholding its possibility's targeted value in changing behavior (I'm not considering here whether it actually does, and I agree it's unimaginative.) I would quibble about whether she thinks poor people are stupid or more responsive to "sticks" than carrots, but OK, I see you.

Actually, this is a more pervasive kind of bias: poor people respond to threats, whereas rich/educated people respond to "incentives". This brief from 2013 I came across epitomizes the contrast:

Avoiding the “Big Stick” Approach: Regulators Seek to Aid Transparency for App Developers

California’s Attorney General Kamala Harris addressed mobile developers on Wednesday morning regarding mobile application privacy and her offices’ commitment to consumer privacy at The Future of Privacy+Innovation: A Workshop for App Developers in San Francisco. While the Attorney General has made it clear that consumer protection and application transparency are top priorities for her office, Harris pointed out that her office seeks not to aggressively go after all application developers with a “big stick,” but rather make sure that application developers are knowledgeable of what the law is and are empowered to take steps to make sure they are compliant with the law.

Ouch, not a good look. That juxtaposition is plain cringeworthy. It does go to show why a candidate should emphasize at least some measure of class warfare, to cut through the self-serving worldview of the - economically favored.

[Husar]

Ouch, not a good look. That juxtaposition is plain cringeworthy. It does go to show why a candidate should emphasize at least some measure of class warfare, to cut through the self-serving worldview of the - economically favored.

Still haven't had the time to read that enormous earlier post, but I accept your surrender.

[Tuuvi]

The distinction remains between cheering prosecution for its own sake and upholding its possibility's targeted value in changing behavior (I'm not considering here whether it actually does, and I agree it's unimaginative.) I would quibble about whether she thinks poor people are stupid or more responsive to "sticks" than carrots, but OK, I see you.

Actually, this is a more pervasive kind of bias: poor people respond to threats, whereas rich/educated people respond to "incentives". This brief from 2013 I came across epitomizes the contrast:





Ouch, not a good look. That juxtaposition is plain cringeworthy. It does go to show why a candidate should emphasize at least some measure of class warfare, to cut through the self-serving worldview of the - economically favored.

Fair enough, my first post on the issue was poorly worded.

In my mind, the belief that poor people respond to sticks better then carrots implies a kind of stupidity, as if poor people are sheep who aren't capable of making decisions for themselves without a shepherd like Kamala Harris to guide them. Like I said before, it's paternalism.

[rory_20_uk]

Everyone responds more to a perceived loss than a perceived gain.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sadly, I pretty much have to pull the lever for whatever social-democrat naif the Dems put up in '20, just because as a Floridian, I have to vote to remove the current occupant.

Let's be honest, anyone but Sanders or Warren will pull off the Social Democrat language once the general election hits. If Sanders's campaign demonstrated Hilary's weakness among young Democrats, he also demonstrated the continued favorability of Third Way Dems among the African-American community (where he did very poorly). That's why Harris is the best bet forward, she has the best ability to energize both camps and remain non-committal to one side or the other.

You're right, I should have compared against the potential candidates who chose not to enter the race. I'm doubtful on the face that Harris, Gillibrand, or Warren could have been safer in 2016 - but I acknowledge that Biden would have been the safest possible front going in. Not that safe because 2016 would have been genuinely was a plenty good time to have an intramural falling out over Biden's liberal conservatism (further right than Clinton ended up).

Interesting note on favorability: By the Sanders Gallup polling I linked earlier, Clinton's favorability (77%) among Democrats in September 2018 is equal to Sanders' favorability (78%) among Democrats in the same period. Discuss.

Favorability among Democrats was never the issue, but favorability among independents which is still dismal compared to Trump 2 years into his presidency. That tells you how bad of a candidate she was in hindsight.

BTW Acetaminophen, since you expressed preoccupation with electoral-geographic-demographic issues

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

here are two articles on how deregulation and retrenchment of Antitrust enforcement drained wealth and jobs and white collar workers from rural America and mid-sized Cities toward large coastal metropolitan zones. The suggestion is basically to reverse these trends of 'urban coastal elite privilege' and engender competition for jobs between all parts of the country. One putative side effect may be eliminate the Democrats' Senate disadvantage, to weaken the economic anxiety of (currently) flyover whites and thereby reduce the racial anxiety that is the other side of the coin. Which - hopefully drives enough whites to vote third party or abstain, I guess, from voting Republican...? As long as we're going to be scaring white upper-middle-class urban liberals with the specter of genuine desegregation, we might as well...

(Yes, there is an obvious flaw in this reasoning that elides the role of the modern international economic framework, plus existing and mutually reinforcing metropolitan social and infrastructural assets, in drawing efficiencies from geographic clustering of the highest-value industries. A neoliberal policy can disrupt the old ways, but nullifying it won't alone encourage the reproduction of those arrangements just as they developed within their contingent ecologies. We may still be prompted to ponder certain privileged interrelationships all the same. Good thing too that most of the articles' recommended commitments are independently desired among the Left.)

Yep, this is in alignment with separate posts I have made in the past. I agreed with Rorty in "Achieving Our Country" that during the mid 20th century, the American Left transitioned away from the socialist roots of pre-WW2 into a cultural Left. Now that the economic arguments have been left behind for 50 years, the result is an anxiety that threatens to reverse all of the cultural progress we have made. In my opinion, it's time to focus less on identity politics and absorb the plight of the discriminated under a Social Democratic economic banner aimed at giving midwest residents the 'prosperity they deserve/swindled from them by corporations'. The GOP under Trump have adopted their own form of identity politics under the identity of "disgruntled christian whiteness", and we can see the long term issues with trying to form a big enough coalition with just that demographic, but the Left has been afraid to vigorously apply that same logic on itself. Bill Maher sometimes calls it out for what it is, (paraphrasing) "Everyone after 2012 thought demographics gave the Democrats the future. Trump looked at the landscape and said 'There's still a lot of white people here.'"

I still believe Democrats may not take back the Senate (consistently) for at least two decades because of the inherent structure of the chamber. But by pressing through the GOP erected barriers on the state level (i.e. gerrymandering and winner-take-all delegates), the Left may be able to consistently control the executive and lower house. In which case, we may have a golden age of conservative moderation on an otherwise dominant liberal agenda in the Federal government. Only question then is whether the GOP would continue their policy of obstinate shutdowns and legislative blockage or if they would allow themselves to influence the policy through amendments and reconciliation.

[Montmorency]

Everyone responds more to a perceived loss than a perceived gain.

So, Stalinism?

Let's be honest, anyone but Sanders or Warren will pull off the Social Democrat language once the general election hits. If Sanders's campaign demonstrated Hilary's weakness among young Democrats, he also demonstrated the continued favorability of Third Way Dems among the African-American community (where he did very poorly). That's why Harris is the best bet forward, she has the best ability to energize both camps and remain non-committal to one side or the other.

As pointed out, Sanders has gained considerable favorability with exposure, and has also taken the time to hone his rhetorical strategy with regard to this demographic. I would strongly bet that in a Sanders-Harris matchup Sanders would win heavily with all non-whites under 40. Then it becomes a debate whether boosted turnout <40 makes up for lost marginal turnout >40 compared to Harris. Don't forget the sexism handicap (though I wonder what sort of latent Jewish handicap there might yet be).

(Let's stop talking about Sanders electability unless he runs. Secretly, I'm verging on seeing optimum in him joining Warren as VP ASAP for tag-team full spectrum warfare.)

Favorability among Democrats was never the issue, but favorability among independents which is still dismal compared to Trump 2 years into his presidency. That tells you how bad of a candidate she was in hindsight.

The election results demonstrate that Clinton was not a bad candidate in terms of electability. She was vulnerable in many ways, but multiple of these (e.g. Russians) could not have been predicted or were easy to underestimate (emails, media bias), let alone the Trump phenomenon. From a 2015 partisan perspective, she was a sound choice. Neither establishment bench had any heavies like Obama is the thing; insert your appropriate sports analogy.

Yep, this is in alignment with separate posts I have made in the past. I agreed with Rorty in "Achieving Our Country" that during the mid 20th century, the American Left transitioned away from the socialist roots of pre-WW2 into a cultural Left. Now that the economic arguments have been left behind for 50 years, the result is an anxiety that threatens to reverse all of the cultural progress we have made. In my opinion, it's time to focus less on identity politics and absorb the plight of the discriminated under a Social Democratic economic banner aimed at giving midwest residents the 'prosperity they deserve/swindled from them by corporations'. The GOP under Trump have adopted their own form of identity politics under the identity of "disgruntled christian whiteness", and we can see the long term issues with trying to form a big enough coalition with just that demographic, but the Left has been afraid to vigorously apply that same logic on itself. Bill Maher sometimes calls it out for what it is, (paraphrasing) "Everyone after 2012 thought demographics gave the Democrats the future. Trump looked at the landscape and said 'There's still a lot of white people here.'"

I still believe Democrats may not take back the Senate (consistently) for at least two decades because of the inherent structure of the chamber. But by pressing through the GOP erected barriers on the state level (i.e. gerrymandering and winner-take-all delegates), the Left may be able to consistently control the executive and lower house. In which case, we may have a golden age of conservative moderation on an otherwise dominant liberal agenda in the Federal government. Only question then is whether the GOP would continue their policy of obstinate shutdowns and legislative blockage or if they would allow themselves to influence the policy through amendments and reconciliation.

How do you reconcile that with my unfair caricature of you: Radical nonsense that scares independents. All liberals need to do is produce the best rational arguments for their positions before the people, and the marketplace of ideas will tilt history back in our favor through incremental change.

More seriously, you realize that in the short-term there are only a handful of high-level Democrats committed to social democracy. There is the argument that people power pressures politicians to act, but it's also clear that an independently-motivated politician can synergize people power toward the next cycle whereas the alternative is just to keep waiting for popular anger to organically intensify as conditions worsen.

The Democratic Party is not especially focused on identity politics, except where Dems rhetorically invoke it to shield themselves from criticism or right-wingers invoke it for dishonest scaremongering. This is 'remove Pelosi and everyone will stop hating Democrats' grade thinking. The pivot point of the 21st century is that white people have awakened to their own identity politics, and this is a politics of white supremacy and basically national socialism. (Scary thoughts of a competent Trump-type: actually promise and campaign on Strasserite platform under the GOP brand, run against center-left Dem, peel away the unfulfilled Democratic majority among white youth, secure unified real-deal fascist government.) If you read my spoiler, I explained some of this. The best you can hope for would be to neutralize Republican votes, not en masse conversion to the Democratic Party. Playing the numbers game is certainly worth it, but it's not going to be a plank of the party, it's a desirable secondary consequence of reforms we should already want. To abandon "identity politics" in such a way as to marginalize the Republican Party among whites who want big government for themselves, big government against the rest, would mean explicitly disavowing the equality of women and minorities - which would certainly destroy the Democratic Party anyway. Nothing less than that would realign more than ~5-10% of Republican-voting whites, at the cost of many more of everyone else.

Economically speaking, there is no reviving most of the interior (which was settled under specific conditions beyond living memory) unless you also reconfigure the entire international system toward that goal (n.b. we don't have the power to conquer the Earth). There is one way, but I think the aspiration is too utopian and radical for you: total subsistence society, that is a post-growth society devoted to maintaining high living standards on the spot, at the local level, everywhere, while also prioritizing local autonomy. Urbanization would certainly freeze, if not be reversed under such a program. Withinn the next generation, what progress we can get would be represented in Green New Deal, jobs guarantee, guaranteed income - a platform it is my impression you also find too radical.

Senate? We had it 5 years ago. We're not locked out yet. 60 seats yes, not under contemporary circumstances. Relating back to lengthy rant higher in the post, there is little better option to encourage split-ticket voting on the Senate or outright neutralize Republican votes (i.e. they stay home or vote 3rd party) than to gain momentum with promptly successful sweeping reform (a tall order, sadly).