Democrat 2020

[Montmorency]

Just to nit pick your premise about a strong congress > strong president. You can't get a strong congress without a strong president precisely because of the Democratic mentality you pointed out. The game is to have a strong presidential candidate to carry all the down ticket choices.

I do have some hope that we are changing that mentality by focusing on the Congressional leaders, in particular we need to shine more attention on Mitch McConnell and less on Donald Trump.

To some extent the coattails effect does manifest, theoretically jetzt erst recht, but it's only relevant every four years, and if you can't get the electorate to see the bigger picture then - especially insofar as they aren't paying attention to executive branch minutiae anyway - they* will wind up routinely disappointed by their "Great (Wo)Man" candidate who ostensibly fails to live up to their expectations because they never seem to have the numbers even to ram the popular reforms through.

Which breeds cynicism, both-sidesism, and apathy. A fatal feedback loop if it remains in action at this juncture. We're probably about to put to the test which presidential disposition among "Better things are possible" and "I can't wave a magic wand" feels more disappointing when the legislature is stymied.

But the Dem establishment is to blame as well to some extent, for hyping the Presidency above all else and shunting the bulk of party/base resources toward the presidential races. And this even while failing to develop their grassroots, most dramatically when Obama dissolved his campaigning instrument-cum-community OfA (Organizing for Action) after 2008. Trump never stopped campaigning and energizing his grassroots organizations, and it's working about as well for him as anything he does. Looking back in time again, the Tea Party movement demonstrated the importance of an energized and on-message grassroots, even if that grassroots turned out to be mostly astroturfed by billionaires.

But attitudes are shifting. If the Democratic electorate gets away from blindly trusting state institutions and pining for bipartisan comity, we're on the right track. Hopefully the Kavanaugh confirmation signals a long-term decline in Democrats' comfort with the Supreme Court.



By the way, on the subject of Congress vs. President, because when writing sweeping comments you always miss something, re: my treatment of the Nixon years I want to attest that the Dem Congress certainly did not always get its way even when it had the votes, such as when Nixon vetoed a federally-funded universal childcare bill (less generous than Warren's I think).

The bill was just short of veto-proof, and the kicker is that Pat "Monster Mash" Buchanan was involved in shutting it down.

The goal was not just to kill the bill but also to bury the idea of a national child-care entitlement forever. "I insisted we not just say we can't afford it right now, in which case you get pilot programs or whatever," Buchanan said. The veto message was actually a toned-down version of what Buchanan had suggested -- he wanted to accuse the bill's drafters of "the Sovietization of American children." But it did the job Buchanan... had hoped it would do. It delivered the message that it was much more politically dangerous to work in favor of expanded child care than to oppose it.

There was little public attention surrounding the bill at the time Congress was debating it. After the veto, though, the very idea of government-funded child care spawned a fantastic misinformation campaign, complete with rumors that any such efforts would inevitably lead to government indoctrination of small children, and child labor unions empowered to fight their parents.

Child labor unions? Fighting adults? You mean like - THIS? Well shit, we have truly been consigned to the worst timeline.



On the other other hand, a timely example of the value of controlling legislatures is New York leftists breaking the mutually-gerrymandered hold on Albany in the 2018 elections, over the past 6 months passing one of the more extensive rafts of legislation in New York history, including the most ambitious decarbonization targets in the country - despite Andrew "The Machine" Cuomo remaining as governor. Though it would certainly be easier on New York City if one of his last two Democratic challengers had beat him in the primary.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I just finished listening to Biden's latest book about his son Beau, and I can't help but feel proud that he is a US Senator.
Must have been listening for 4-5 hours during work, almost started tearing up in front of coworkers.

If only he was 10 years younger, but I'll say this I will not hesitate to cast my vote if he wins the nomination.

Monty (and anyone else still reading this thread), I would recommend listening to the audiobook, if only because it is not so much a "pre-running political book" but more of a book about loss and how he used work in between the rough moments to get him through.

[Montmorency]

I just finished listening to Biden's latest book about his son Beau, and I can't help but feel proud that he is a US Senator.
Must have been listening for 4-5 hours during work, almost started tearing up in front of coworkers.

If only he was 10 years younger, but I'll say this I will not hesitate to cast my vote if he wins the nomination.

Monty (and anyone else still reading this thread), I would recommend listening to the audiobook, if only because it is not so much a "pre-running political book" but more of a book about loss and how he used work in between the rough moments to get him through.

I've heard the stories about his personal life, hard stuff. I'm firm in my calculations of value. He wasn't the most conservative Democrat of his time, but he hasn't been a good statesman. At risk of coming off coarse, the Presidency is for closers. He's a good father? Let him go home and play with his (grand)kids.

I won't hesitate to vote for Biden but for different reasons.

[Strike For The South]

I just finished listening to Biden's latest book about his son Beau, and I can't help but feel proud that he is a US Senator.
Must have been listening for 4-5 hours during work, almost started tearing up in front of coworkers.

If only he was 10 years younger, but I'll say this I will not hesitate to cast my vote if he wins the nomination.

Monty (and anyone else still reading this thread), I would recommend listening to the audiobook, if only because it is not so much a "pre-running political book" but more of a book about loss and how he used work in between the rough moments to get him through.

He has had some serious personal tragedy, but that is not what this about.

Like Monty I will cast a vote for him, if only because it will help the Democrats generally.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Biden would make it tough for Trump to carry all of the MI, OH, PA, WI quartet as he did last time. Biden appeals pretty well to the working class. The Dems are doing a pretty good circular firing squad effort so far, so it remains to be seen if they will hand it back to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania.

[a completely inoffensive name]

He has had some serious personal tragedy, but that is not what this about.

Like Monty I will cast a vote for him, if only because it will help the Democrats generally.

Of course, but I think it makes the choice easier when you are voting for someone who understands loss and suffering. This is what we are ultimately trying to fight against, correct? The needless suffering and loss of the poor and the foreign for the benefit of an entrenched ethno-aristocratic movement.

Biden would make it tough for Trump to carry all of the MI, OH, PA, WI quartet as he did last time. Biden appeals pretty well to the working class. The Dems are doing a pretty good circular firing squad effort so far, so it remains to be seen if they will hand it back to the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania.

We thought the Republican primaries were a shit show all the way until election day. There is no such thing as a firing squad, you go balls out and don't apologize for anything and the people will love you for it.

The death of Democratic politics starts when the public starts to confuse confidence with shamelessness.

[Montmorency]

Of course, but I think it makes the choice easier when you are voting for someone who understands loss and suffering. This is what we are ultimately trying to fight against, correct? The needless suffering and loss of the poor and the foreign for the benefit of an entrenched ethno-aristocratic movement.

Well, based on his record and current policy orientation, not really. In fact, it doesn't really make much sense. Most people throughout history have known suffering and loss, I wouldn't trust them in government, and even among those I would trust I doubt many would uphold leftist politics.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, based on his record and current policy orientation, not really. In fact, it doesn't really make much sense. Most people throughout history have known suffering and loss, I wouldn't trust them in government, and even among those I would trust I doubt many would uphold leftist politics.

I don't think Biden's record is as bad as the progressives make it out to be. And I honestly don't think empathy to suffering is a character trait of most Republican lawmakers. key difference in experiencing loss vs understanding loss is being able to recognize loss in others.

Policy, policy, policy is a myopic view of what we want in a President. The role is as much a moral position as it is a policy position.
I've met some Democratic campaigners...you can still be Progressive and have absolutely no individual character.

[Montmorency]

I don't think Biden's record is as bad as the progressives make it out to be. And I honestly don't think empathy to suffering is a character trait of most Republican lawmakers. key difference in experiencing loss vs understanding loss is being able to recognize loss in others.

Policy, policy, policy is a myopic view of what we want in a President. The role is as much a moral position as it is a policy position.
I've met some Democratic campaigners...you can still be Progressive and have absolutely no individual character.

It really is quite bad, even if his segregationist friends were worse. (Check later for edit with some tiddies)

His empathy is lacking, or he would show better judgement about not creeping on girls and women despite being asked not to for years.

Indeed, dude is infamous for his poor political judgement.

And aside from all that empathy would not be the only measure of character - you need leadership and thoughtfulness and other good qualities Biden has not evinced. Warren beats out the crowd for empathy FYI.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It really is quite bad, even if his segregationist friends were worse. (Check later for edit with some tiddies)

His empathy is lacking, or he would show better judgement about not creeping on girls and women despite being asked not to for years.

Indeed, dude is infamous for his poor political judgement.

And aside from all that empathy would not be the only measure of character - you need leadership and thoughtfulness and other good qualities Biden has not evinced. Warren beats out the crowd for empathy FYI.

Let's take a step back and take his performance in it's proper context. Isolated you can easily target key mistakes in anyone's career and amplify them. Let's not make up a narrative and find ourselves calling Joe Biden a man who has been a Senator since 1973 a man of "poor political judgement". Bit arrogant for a couple of random people with (I presume) no political experience to be talking in an online forum about what makes good political judgement. I guess Obama must have poor political judgement for wanting Biden as his VP?

And quite frankly, that first sentence is exactly the type of firing squad mentality Seamus mentioned. His political career was in a time of outright segregationists, and now we want to bash the ally and write him off as useless because the zeitgeist is starting to move ahead of him.

[Montmorency]

Let's take a step back and take his performance in it's proper context. Isolated you can easily target key mistakes in anyone's career and amplify them. Let's not make up a narrative and find ourselves calling Joe Biden a man who has been a Senator since 1973 a man of "poor political judgement". Bit arrogant for a couple of random people with (I presume) no political experience to be talking in an online forum about what makes good political judgement. I guess Obama must have poor political judgement for wanting Biden as his VP?

And quite frankly, that first sentence is exactly the type of firing squad mentality Seamus mentioned. His political career was in a time of outright segregationists, and now we want to bash the ally and write him off as useless because the zeitgeist is starting to move ahead of him.

Dude, can we comment on any politician? This is on the level of "you can't criticise this movie, what's the last film you directed?" It's not just my opinion, he's had such a reputation since before you were born. It's borne out by observation of his career and his current campaign.

As far as I know Biden's major legislation has all been bad for the country. Obama took on Biden as an affable old white guy, semi-Southern, well-connected in the party establishment; VP and President are obviously different positions.

Vetting candidates is not a circular firing squad. He's had the kid gloves compared to Obama, Clinton, Sanders. If longtime government experience is all you need, Sanders has it. If a sob story is all you need to pick a candidate, why not Harris' for her busing story?

His political career began in the 1970s, not in the 1950s. And he spoke warmly of these segregationists and adjusted his policy to them, not the other way around. He was very quick to take their side and support their politics, which he now justifies as an example of the bipartisanship he favors. (Bipartisanship like Biden in 2018 supporting Republicans in races against Democrats and probably helping them narrowly win. Now that's reaching across the aisle, after a fashion!) He went out of his way to do this, mind you. It would be one thing if he said "It was distasteful working with these characters but you had to swallow your pride and get it done," he valorizes it. He valorizes assimilating to segregationists. In an age when liberal Republicans could frequently be counted upon to vote with liberal Democrats against Yellow and Blue Dogs. Here's a quote from James Eastland, one of Biden's closest friends and mentors:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

***WARNING***
DO NOT READ THIS QUOTE

It is Hitler-tier racism, words so powerfully racist that they can convert an unready White of impure heart to white supremacy on the spot.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The "civility" of yore, ladies and gentlemen.


Why would you pick Joe Biden when every other first or second tier candidate is superior in almost every way? Is Biden really who this country needs? Can he correctly identify our acute and chronic problems and advance realistic and effective solutions? Can Biden pull a wave into the House and Senate in 2020 or 2022? Will he use the full authority of the executive branch even to repair the damage Trump and Repubs have done there? Let's be rational.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Dude, can we comment on any politician? This is on the level of "you can't criticise this movie, what's the last film you directed?" It's not just my opinion, he's had such a reputation since before you were born. It's borne out by observation of his career and his current campaign.

Funny you picked that comparison to movies, because I precisely agree with what you just said. And as proof you can look up all the dozens of bullshit 'film theory' or 'talking head education' youtube channels that will spent 10-20 minutes talking about why a movie is bad and they have no idea what goes into making a movie, the degree to which choices are freely made by the decision makers, and the limitations that went into making the movie. That type of commentary is everywhere but it is all 100% dog shit, and I admit, that I, like any human, loves to indulge myself with coming up with 'opinions' for every topic under the sun. But the reality is that when it comes to movies I can tell you whether something worked for me, such as 'I liked the music' or 'that scene made me really tense'. But I have no intuitive compass and no experience and little education on which to say, 'that editing was terrible from a professional standpoint' or 'the director made some terrible choices and ruined this film'. At that point I am talking completely out of my ass.

As far as I know Biden's major legislation has all been bad for the country. Obama took on Biden as an affable old white guy, semi-Southern, well-connected in the party establishment; VP and President are obviously different positions.

To my understanding, Obama picked Biden because he needed someone that could give him the necessary expertise on foreign policy, which Obama lacked and Biden was known for being heavily involved in Senate Foreign Relations committee. Biden said no when Obama offered the position the first time and Obama then flew him out to a campaign rally to convince him to join in person.

If Obama wanted a white candidate with strong connections in the party establishment, and a semi-Southern background he would have offered it to Hillary! Who by the way also had strong support in the rust belt (at the time) as shown by her 2008 primary wins in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Indiana. Where do you get Biden as semi-southern btw? He was a Senator of Delaware and was born in Pennsylvania.

Vetting candidates is not a circular firing squad. He's had the kid gloves compared to Obama, Clinton, Sanders. If longtime government experience is all you need, Sanders has it. If a sob story is all you need to pick a candidate, why not Harris' for her busing story?

Cutting down allies as if they are conservative sympathizers because they didn't do enough at a time when they couldn't is just odd. How much did Bernie actually get done to promote progressive/socialist democratic policies through Congress in the 1990s?

This is where you get too wrapped up in the ideology testing Monty. We get ourselves into a position where we start praising Sanders for voting against 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' in 1993 because the morally correct/progressive position was to simply let them in with no discrimination. Well, that's great and all but you know who else didn't want Don't Ask Don't Tell? Hardcore evangelicals. Because the policy of the US military up until 1993 was an outright ban of all homosexuals and bisexuals whether they were closeted or not. Talk about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

His political career began in the 1970s, not in the 1950s. And he spoke warmly of these segregationists and adjusted his policy to them, not the other way around. He was very quick to take their side and support their politics, which he now justifies as an example of the bipartisanship he favors. (Bipartisanship like Biden in 2018 supporting Republicans in races against Democrats and probably helping them narrowly win. Now that's reaching across the aisle, after a fashion!) He went out of his way to do this, mind you. It would be one thing if he said "It was distasteful working with these characters but you had to swallow your pride and get it done," he valorizes it. He valorizes assimilating to segregationists. In an age when liberal Republicans could frequently be counted upon to vote with liberal Democrats against Yellow and Blue Dogs.

All politicians adjusted their policy to the wave of conservatism that took hold over the voters. If Clinton and the rest of the Dem leadership had not shifted the party to become more cooperative with conservatives at the time, we would have had two terms of H.W and an ineffective resistance to the hard right that were pushing for more extreme policies.
These types of disgusting compromises were only done because American voters did not want liberal policies. Clinton pushed for universal health care and the voters didn't back him. They thought he was reneging on this 'third way' (I don't know what it was called at the time) type message and gave us the Republican Revolution in Congress. Clinton pushed to allow LGB citizens to freely enlist and the voters did not back him. So what is a politician to do, take a moral stand like Bernie and wait 30 years for everyone to hopefully realize 'oh you were right all along', or you cut deals and get cozy with the enemy to temper their actions in the immediate and lay the groundwork for further improvement until you can convince the public to go in a different direction in the future.

Why would you pick Joe Biden when every other first or second tier candidate is superior in almost every way? Is Biden really who this country needs? Can he correctly identify our acute and chronic problems and advance realistic and effective solutions? Can Biden pull a wave into the House and Senate in 2020 or 2022? Will he use the full authority of the executive branch even to repair the damage Trump and Repubs have done there? Let's be rational.

Monty, I've been very explicit that Biden is not my first choice, he's not even my second. I'm a Harris/Mayor Pete guy. But I have to put myself in the position of defending him because we have a primary where the other candidates simply don't have the same experience of battling in Congress like he does, with the exception of Sanders. But oddly that experience and that record is being called a weakness because the young Progressives have no context, no education, no conception of what America was like before they reached middle school. Christ, this country was so anti-lgbt that when Ellen came out as gay in 1997 the next season of her show lost 25% of its viewers.

If Biden can beat Trump, yes he is what this country needs.
Yes, I believe that Biden, if he has not lost some mental faculties in the past few years, has the potential to come up with realistic policy that can pass both chambers of Congress.
No one can pull a wave into the Senate. Yes, Biden can pull a wave if the "Bernie Bros" don't pull another 'Hillary is just as bad' move.
I believe every president exercises the full authority of the executive branch, and then some.

[Montmorency]

Funny you picked that comparison to movies, because I precisely agree with what you just said. And as proof you can look up all the dozens of bullshit 'film theory' or 'talking head education' youtube channels that will spent 10-20 minutes talking about why a movie is bad and they have no idea what goes into making a movie, the degree to which choices are freely made by the decision makers, and the limitations that went into making the movie. That type of commentary is everywhere but it is all 100% dog shit, and I admit, that I, like any human, loves to indulge myself with coming up with 'opinions' for every topic under the sun. But the reality is that when it comes to movies I can tell you whether something worked for me, such as 'I liked the music' or 'that scene made me really tense'. But I have no intuitive compass and no experience and little education on which to say, 'that editing was terrible from a professional standpoint' or 'the director made some terrible choices and ruined this film'. At that point I am talking completely out of my ass.

So, are you saying that we should be relying more on the analysis of experts? I would suggest that's already where we get most of our facts and opinions on candidates.

Another possible way to read you is that we shouldn't be permitted to discuss politics, participate in activism, or even vote until we become polisci experts or work in politics ourselves...

Ultimately I disagree even on the merits of your objection to criticism of films (and most of the major film analysis youtubers I'm aware of are either professionals or have academic background in the field), because anyone who has eyes to see and a mind to think can think through the elements of film. That's not to say any opinion is as good as the next, but it's not some rarefied subject available only to the wizened elders sitting above us. More saliently, film is a largely aesthetic experience and a consumer product - politics isn't, or shouldn't be, either of those. Politics isn't about what makes you feel good or an exercise of your individual expression. It's about negotiating the distribution of influence and resources in society.

To my understanding, Obama picked Biden because he needed someone that could give him the necessary expertise on foreign policy, which Obama lacked and Biden was known for being heavily involved in Senate Foreign Relations committee. Biden said no when Obama offered the position the first time and Obama then flew him out to a campaign rally to convince him to join in person.

If Obama wanted a white candidate with strong connections in the party establishment, and a semi-Southern background he would have offered it to Hillary! Who by the way also had strong support in the rust belt (at the time) as shown by her 2008 primary wins in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Indiana. Where do you get Biden as semi-southern btw? He was a Senator of Delaware and was born in Pennsylvania.

I'm sure foreign policy was part of it (didn't he give Obama pretty bad advice on Afghanistan?). Clinton became his Secretary of State, a position with more influence over US foreign policy than the VP. But as I recall she was one of the people Obama's team considered (the "unity ticket"). His other top picks mostly being old-ish white guys deep in the establishment (one of them was son of Birch Bayh, top presidential contender in the Dems primary in 1976, who died just a few months ago), the pattern is clear as to what the most important factors were though. I said semi-southern because Biden's whole career was serving a small state like Delaware (small like Vermont!), one that straddled the Mason-Dixon boundary; I forget if I thought of this myself or read it somewhere, but throughout the 20th century Dems gave considerable thought to their Pres/VP selections in the effort to include someone to represent the South. This article from the election states that Obama was also looking for someone who wouldn't get in the way of reelection.

Cutting down allies as if they are conservative sympathizers because they didn't do enough at a time when they couldn't is just odd. How much did Bernie actually get done to promote progressive/socialist democratic policies through Congress in the 1990s?

ACIN, I don't understand. Is it possible to criticize a politician on any matter of substance? Is it possible? I'm sure you believe it is. If so, what in principle do you find objectionable in my scrutiny? What can Biden be criticized for and why? Why isn't it a circular firing squad to disprefer other candidates? You're not making any sense. Like, I give reasons not to like Biden, and without addressing any of them concretely declare them invalid and an example of unreasonable ideologized partisanship - 'iT wAs A dIFFEREnT tImE'. Yet, you're allowed to have a positive attitude toward Biden because - why?

How is Biden an ally anyway? Dude's retired, and he's not helping any causes. Expanding my paragraph above, is it ever possible to criticize a member of the Democratic Party for their record, for being too conservative, or other reasons? I think it is, and I think my criticisms are sober, measured, and justified. Change my mind.

This is where you get too wrapped up in the ideology testing Monty. We get ourselves into a position where we start praising Sanders for voting against 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' in 1993 because the morally correct/progressive position was to simply let them in with no discrimination. Well, that's great and all but you know who else didn't want Don't Ask Don't Tell? Hardcore evangelicals. Because the policy of the US military up until 1993 was an outright ban of all homosexuals and bisexuals whether they were closeted or not. Talk about letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

As for Don't Ask Don't Tell, why do you think it was good at all? Have you lowered your standards so much you think bad is good? :P The question you would have to answer is, "Did DODT make life better or worse for LGBT in the military compared to the status ante quo?" 500-1000 words please.

Again, do you ever test anyone on the basis of ideology? If not, do you believe every Democrat is just as good as any other Democrat so long as they pay their dues? Speaking of paying dues, I notice you didn't address my observation that Biden literally campaigned for Republicans against Democrats in 2018.

All politicians adjusted their policy to the wave of conservatism that took hold over the voters. If Clinton and the rest of the Dem leadership had not shifted the party to become more cooperative with conservatives at the time, we would have had two terms of H.W and an ineffective resistance to the hard right that were pushing for more extreme policies.

I would normally be sympathetic to this as a bare historical point of order, but in the circumstances I'll have to challenge you:

1. Prove it, on a macro and micro (individual policies or areas of interest) level
2. Prove that they didn't go much too far right relative to what was possible

The revisionist argument is that by tacking so far right they only emboldened the far right, reinforced conservative memes in the public consciousness, dissolved the left flank of the Democratic bench with repercussions for the tutelage of future lawmakers, and passed a lot of overwhelmingly negative law that was by no means inevitable. This one I haven't looked into, but there's even a rumor that Clinton was about to privatize Social Security until the Republicans stopped him.

These types of disgusting compromises were only done because American voters did not want liberal policies.

If you're going to claim that every single event in the past was always the most optimal outcome for the left, you're making a very heavy claim that needs heavy evidence.I agree that voters then were more conservative than they are now, but that cannot be used to justify any specific compromise.

Also, that's just not true. Biden cozied up to segregationists because he thought it would make him more electable in Delaware. If this was ever defensible, it became less so with time, and rapidly, as he went from an upstart to an entrenched incumbent. Taking Biden's current rhetoric at face value, he cozied up to them more than was even ever strictly necessary because he genuinely liked them and appreciated having them around. To me that is 100% indefensible - how can you deny it?

Clinton pushed for universal health care and the voters didn't back him. They thought he was reneging on this 'third way' (I don't know what it was called at the time) type message and gave us the Republican Revolution in Congress.

Hillary's healthcare agenda and the 1994 midterms are not topics I've learned much about, but I find it hard to believe being too left on healthcare could have been the driving factor behind the Republican Revolution. IIRC Clinton campaigned (and won) heavily on universal healthcare, and after the beginning of his term quickly began fishing for a compromise package. Healthcare reform was no longer getting traction by the time of the midterms; Republican victory isn't what killed it. If I were being reflexive, Clinton's moderation might as well be did him in. The reality is probably that the Republicans were (and remain) simply better at messaging and propaganda. If I looked into Clinton's experience with Gingrich I expect I would find an eerie precursor to the concerted demonization of Obama (though Republicans could still be expected to routinely vote across the aisle by the dozens in the 90s).

Clinton pushed to allow LGB citizens to freely enlist and the voters did not back him. So what is a politician to do, take a moral stand like Bernie and wait 30 years for everyone to hopefully realize 'oh you were right all along', or you cut deals and get cozy with the enemy to temper their actions in the immediate and lay the groundwork for further improvement until you can convince the public to go in a different direction in the future.

The voters did back him, they elected him. Most of the people who voted for him supported repealing the ban. I think the military leadership was a more prominent obstacle than public opinion.

Prove that it was worthwhile. 'Making things worse' is not a genius compromise and it is not a centrist victory. Also, I don't know the legislative history of DODT - what was the actual Congressional breakdown during deliberations?

Monty, I've been very explicit that Biden is not my first choice, he's not even my second. I'm a Harris/Mayor Pete guy. But I have to put myself in the position of defending him because we have a primary where the other candidates simply don't have the same experience of battling in Congress like he does, with the exception of Sanders. But oddly that experience and that record is being called a weakness because the young Progressives have no context, no education, no conception of what America was like before they reached middle school. Christ, this country was so anti-lgbt that when Ellen came out as gay in 1997 the next season of her show lost 25% of its viewers.

Was Biden the left-most Democrat until Obama? Of course not. He was more to the right of the party than Pelosi is now (she's about in the center by ideological or voting metrics I've seen). You act as if the Left was totally extinct and no one could uphold it, and there was no option but to capitulate to conservative preferences, even preemptively.

Biden wasn't battling for the most left-wing policy he could get. He was battling to present himself to the public like a tougher hippy basher than his Republican colleagues. If you want to defend someone, defend Ted Kennedy or John Dingell. Hell, defend Robert Byrd. How can you defend Biden beyond some weird sentiment that Democrats could do no wrong during the Reagan era?

Anyone can get experienced by sticking around for a long time. As many an army has learned, that's not necessarily a benefit to having them in charge.

If Biden can beat Trump, yes he is what this country needs.

There are no other candidates who can beat Trump? That's the comparison to be making.

Yes, I believe that Biden, if he has not lost some mental faculties in the past few years, has the potential to come up with realistic policy that can pass both chambers of Congress.

Such as? That's one of the craziest things you've said so far. Get off the bipartisan supply. This is about as realistic as Sanders thinking that public outrage could pressure on Mitch McConnell to pass Medicare for All (and in Sanders' defense I am not aware of him being on record as saying this out loud, so zero points for Biden).

Yes, Biden can pull a wave if the "Bernie Bros" don't pull another 'Hillary is just as bad' move.

That was never a thing. To caricature: 'Sanders should have done more to convince conservative independents to vote for Hillary Clinton' - but - 'Biden deserves slack for anything he ever did in his career because it was presumptively for the greater good.'

I believe every president exercises the full authority of the executive branch, and then some.

I'm talking about content, which is where ideology comes into play most of all. Presumably you don't believe Trump's engagement with the executive branch was equivalent to Obama's, or a putative Clinton administration's?


Ultimately, even if one were to accept that no politician should be criticized for being conservative in the Reagan era - a terrible idea mind you - nothing written in your posts has offered anything to recommend Biden directly.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So, are you saying that we should be relying more on the analysis of experts? I would suggest that's already where we get most of our facts and opinions on candidates.

I am saying that the degree to which we can comfortably summarize the performance of a career is tied to the degree of experience of being in the weeds or, yes, education from experts who have studied it in detail. But with the follow up point that the sources we think are reliable are not really all that good. I read the NYT, the Economist, and I read the occasional biography or political sci book from time to time, and I honestly do not think I am remotely educated or knowledgeable at all about what it takes to be a politician and about the means and methods of political decision making. So I try to reserve judgement and give each candidate as charitable view as possible...when I am able to keep my anger in check.

Another possible way to read you is that we shouldn't be permitted to discuss politics, participate in activism, or even vote until we become polisci experts or work in politics ourselves...

My mind is more focused on the specific act of making, I guess let's call it summary judgements. I would love to be in a country where everyone participated in the process and shared their experience and their views and why they believe in what they believe in. My issue is when we get into the realm of criticism, where we tend to generate narratives based around those criticisms which we then use to filter content or individuals. Because when we lack the right tools, and knowledge, or even the right language to be able to engage in a well thought out criticism we get bad narratives which lead people to pick garbage choices.

Ultimately I disagree even on the merits of your objection to criticism of films (and most of the major film analysis youtubers I'm aware of are either professionals or have academic background in the field), because anyone who has eyes to see and a mind to think can think through the elements of film. That's not to say any opinion is as good as the next, but it's not some rarefied subject available only to the wizened elders sitting above us. More saliently, film is a largely aesthetic experience and a consumer product - politics isn't, or shouldn't be, either of those. Politics isn't about what makes you feel good or an exercise of your individual expression. It's about negotiating the distribution of influence and resources in society.

I too like 'Every Frame a Painting', but your tastes may simply be leading you to more intellectual content (praise algorithms), whereas most film content is on the level of garbage (screenjunkies) or pseudo-intellectual (nerdwriter). Or maybe the algorithm is telling me my tastes are terrible.

Every analogy breaks down at some point...but on a very real level, democratic (as in the political structure) politics really is about what makes people feel good and exercising individual expressions. That's a very cynical take, but there is a large amount of truth to it.

I'm sure foreign policy was part of it (didn't he give Obama pretty bad advice on Afghanistan?). Clinton became his Secretary of State, a position with more influence over US foreign policy than the VP. But as I recall she was one of the people Obama's team considered (the "unity ticket"). His other top picks mostly being old-ish white guys deep in the establishment (one of them was son of Birch Bayh, top presidential contender in the Dems primary in 1976, who died just a few months ago), the pattern is clear as to what the most important factors were though. I said semi-southern because Biden's whole career was serving a small state like Delaware (small like Vermont!), one that straddled the Mason-Dixon boundary; I forget if I thought of this myself or read it somewhere, but throughout the 20th century Dems gave considerable thought to their Pres/VP selections in the effort to include someone to represent the South. This article from the election states that Obama was also looking for someone who wouldn't get in the way of reelection.

Yeah, I think I have heard that before. They make the comment that pre-Obama, the last three successful Dem presidential candidates came from the South (Clinton, Carter, LBJ).

ACIN, I don't understand. Is it possible to criticize a politician on any matter of substance? Is it possible? I'm sure you believe it is. If so, what in principle do you find objectionable in my scrutiny? What can Biden be criticized for and why? Why isn't it a circular firing squad to disprefer other candidates? You're not making any sense. Like, I give reasons not to like Biden, and without addressing any of them concretely declare them invalid and an example of unreasonable ideologized partisanship - 'iT wAs A dIFFEREnT tImE'. Yet, you're allowed to have a positive attitude toward Biden because - why?

I think that you can criticize a candidate for the positions he advocates now. Decisions made in the past can be criticized but in the context of the time they were made, which requires a level of expertise which most people (maybe not you, I don't know your job) don't cultivate. So as far as the average voter (like me), I can say 'well he says he is now for medicare for all, even if he didn't endorse it in the past' and walk away thinking more highly. Or I can even say, 'well he still thinks that X policy he championed from the 1990s is still the right policy for today' and be disappointed. But I think I run into problems if I go and say 'well he thought that X policy was good to implement back in the 1990s, and I think that policy is bad'. because over time we have the benefits of hindsight and of a culture which has reacted against the culture of past (or even several layers of reactions to reactions). and if I am not thinking critically about this and I am not in the right context, I can get to some odd conclusions. It's not impossible, but it is really damn hard.

How is Biden an ally anyway? Dude's retired, and he's not helping any causes. Expanding my paragraph above, is it ever possible to criticize a member of the Democratic Party for their record, for being too conservative, or other reasons? I think it is, and I think my criticisms are sober, measured, and justified. Change my mind.

Yes, if they continue to defend the policy as it stands in the context of today or if we do go into the weeds and find that they could have likely done more at the time of the original decision.

Where I see us going on this conversation is a judgement on whether Biden's record can be adequately explained by the conservative culture of the time or not. And if we can do it properly and say, hey here was the scenario in its proper context and we had a path to something better and instead folded to what we got, then sure I would be onboard with trashing him for his record. But to regurgitate my self-deprecation from above, is that an analysis we can adequately perform? Even professional historians give each administration essentially three different biographies. The first when they leave office, the second when they die, and the third when everyone involved is dead.

As for Don't Ask Don't Tell, why do you think it was good at all? Have you lowered your standards so much you think bad is good? :P The question you would have to answer is, "Did DODT make life better or worse for LGBT in the military compared to the status ante quo?" 500-1000 words please.

To my knowledge I think it was good because it dismantled the codification of exclusion to LGB community even if it was to a frustratingly limited degree. Assuming that citizens always follow the law, DADT made service possible for LGB citizens whereas previously it was impossible. I think practically all measures to make things 'better' are measures which make things 'less bad'.

Again, do you ever test anyone on the basis of ideology? If not, do you believe every Democrat is just as good as any other Democrat so long as they pay their dues? Speaking of paying dues, I notice you didn't address my observation that Biden literally campaigned for Republicans against Democrats in 2018.

Of course, I test all the candidates on the basis of ideology. That's why I don't vote Republican lol. You know, conservatives don't seem to have a problem treating every Republican as just as good as each other. Doesn't matter their choice in the primaries, whoever wins they all line up to vote as if it was their favorite choice.

As for Biden campaigning for Republicans, I honestly don't know anything about that I don't even recall hearing about it until now, so I just don't know how to respond. I don't have enough time tonight to google this and read up before thinking of a response.

I would normally be sympathetic to this as a bare historical point of order, but in the circumstances I'll have to challenge you:

1. Prove it, on a macro and micro (individual policies or areas of interest) level
2. Prove that they didn't go much too far right relative to what was possible

I don't know enough to prove this, other than what I have from (I hope) more knowledgeable people. Hence, people like me shouldn't be in the habit of making these types of summary judgements. :D

The revisionist argument is that by tacking so far right they only emboldened the far right, reinforced conservative memes in the public consciousness, dissolved the left flank of the Democratic bench with repercussions for the tutelage of future lawmakers, and passed a lot of overwhelmingly negative law that was by no means inevitable. This one I haven't looked into, but there's even a rumor that Clinton was about to privatize Social Security until the Republicans stopped him.

It's possible.

If you're going to claim that every single event in the past was always the most optimal outcome for the left, you're making a very heavy claim that needs heavy evidence.I agree that voters then were more conservative than they are now, but that cannot be used to justify any specific compromise.

I agree with the first statement. As for the second, why not?

Also, that's just not true. Biden cozied up to segregationists because he thought it would make him more electable in Delaware. If this was ever defensible, it became less so with time, and rapidly, as he went from an upstart to an entrenched incumbent. Taking Biden's current rhetoric at face value, he cozied up to them more than was even ever strictly necessary because he genuinely liked them and appreciated having them around. To me that is 100% indefensible - how can you deny it?

Let me ask you a question because I am curious where you are going with this. If a good friend/family member of yours was a Trump supporter or became a Trump supporter for 2020, would you cut off ties and ghost them?

Should I be judged harshly for having beers and playing video games with a guy who in his free time watches alt-right content on youtube?

I gotta get some sleep, I'll reply to the rest tomorrow.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Monty, I totally lost my train of thought of how I was going to respond, lol. Le't just go from the above.

[Montmorency]

I am saying that the degree to which we can comfortably summarize the performance of a career is tied to the degree of experience of being in the weeds or, yes, education from experts who have studied it in detail. But with the follow up point that the sources we think are reliable are not really all that good. I read the NYT, the Economist, and I read the occasional biography or political sci book from time to time, and I honestly do not think I am remotely educated or knowledgeable at all about what it takes to be a politician and about the means and methods of political decision making. So I try to reserve judgement and give each candidate as charitable view as possible...when I am able to keep my anger in check

I'm with you on approaching discourse with the principles of humility and charity, we disagree on the application and the appropriate place, extent, and factors. I'm willing not to dismiss Nancy Pelosi as she grapples with her party's right flank and her demons of optics, even as I feel disappointed and have to increasingly conclude that she's fucking up a number of things since the Special Counsel terminated. Because I understand where her strengths and weaknesses are, where the problems lie with her colleagues, and the low plausibility or caucus impact of a hoped-for Heel turn on her part. I can point to what are specific failures and missteps on her part, and recommend alternative actions, but I don't see her as worthless on that account. Biden's career doesn't have such redeeming features, and your excuses aren't very applicable ones for him in particular even if you think they should apply as a general grading curve for the class of an era.

Here's one way to assess politicians: what is their "value over replacement," if any? And make sure to fit it to context. For example, if some say Biden was respected in Delaware for his constituent services, that does no good for me as a national constituent; and plenty of Republicans are also good with constituents - I wouldn't vote for them. If Biden likes knocking on doors and chatting, let him go back to the suburbs (or retirement). It often helps to ask this question with this framing, "what value does this person add in X context?"

I dropped my subscription to the Economist five years ago. If your main sources of commentary are centrist or center-right respectively, I can see why you hold the attitudes you do. Start branching out to, like, Mother Jones.

My mind is more focused on the specific act of making, I guess let's call it summary judgements. I would love to be in a country where everyone participated in the process and shared their experience and their views and why they believe in what they believe in. My issue is when we get into the realm of criticism, where we tend to generate narratives based around those criticisms which we then use to filter content or individuals. Because when we lack the right tools, and knowledge, or even the right language to be able to engage in a well thought out criticism we get bad narratives which lead people to pick garbage choices.

So let's read stuff and focus on the substance.

I too like 'Every Frame a Painting', but your tastes may simply be leading you to more intellectual content (praise algorithms), whereas most film content is on the level of garbage (screenjunkies) or pseudo-intellectual (nerdwriter). Or maybe the algorithm is telling me my tastes are terrible.

There's a lot of examples, like Lindsay Ellis, Red Letter Media, Jonathan McIntosh (Pop Culture Detective), Dan Olson (Folding Ideas)...

I watched a couple videos by Nerdwriter and he seems fine for what he does. Hee hee, where does the grace and humility go when judging entertainment compared to politicians?

Every analogy breaks down at some point...but on a very real level, democratic (as in the political structure) politics really is about what makes people feel good and exercising individual expressions. That's a very cynical take, but there is a large amount of truth to it.

What I mean is, for the kind of people who like to think themselves above the brainwashed sheep, making politics an expression of consumerist taste is a stupid vanity.

Yeah, I think I have heard that before. They make the comment that pre-Obama, the last three successful Dem presidential candidates came from the South (Clinton, Carter, LBJ).

Well, since Woodrow Wilson (South/New Jersey) and his Midwestern VP, we've had:
(1/2 southern in light blue, 2/2 southern in dark blue, victories in bold)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1920: Cox (Ohio) & FDR (New York)
1924: Davis (WV) & Bryan (Nebraska, of the Bryan dynasty)
1928: Smith (NY) & Robinson (Arkansas)
1932: FDR (NY) & Garner (Texas)
1936: FDR (NY) & Garner (Texas)
1940: FDR (NY) & Wallace (Iowa)
1944:FDR (NY) & Truman (Missouri)
1948: Truman (Missouri) & Barkley (Kentucky)
1952: Stevenson (Illinois) & Sparkman (Alabama)
1956: Stevenson (Illinois) & Kefauver (Tennessee)
1960: Kennedy (MA) & Johnson (Texas)
1964: Johnson (Texas) & Humphrey (Upper Midwest)
1968: Humphrey (Upper Midwest) & Muskie (Maine)
1972: McGovern (South Dakota) & Eagleton (Missouri)/Shriver (Maryland)
1976: Carter (Georgia) & Mondale (Minnesota)
1980: Carter (Georgia) & Mondale (Minnesota)
1984: Mondale (Minnesota) & Ferraro (NY)
1988: Dukakis (MA) & Bentsen (Texas) [Ed: Hmm...]
1992: Clinton (Arkansas) & Gore (DC/Tennessee)
1996: Clinton (Arkansas) & Gore (DC/Tennessee)
2000: Gore (DC/Tennessee) & Lieberman (Connecticut)
2004: Kerry (MA) & Edwards (Carolinas)
2008-2012: Obama (Hawaii) & Biden (PA/Delaware)
2016: Clinton (Illinois/Arkansas/New York?) & Kaine (Virginia)

Yeah, there might be something here. You don't see too many southern Republicans on the presidential ticket either. Agnew? Bush the quasi-Texan?

I think that you can criticize a candidate for the positions he advocates now. Decisions made in the past can be criticized but in the context of the time they were made, which requires a level of expertise which most people (maybe not you, I don't know your job) don't cultivate.

I am criticizing Biden for the positions he holds now, which are informed by and have direct continuity with the positions he has taken in the past. And to reiterate, Biden was not a liberal Democrat at any point in his career. Let me also clarify that any old Democrats further to the right of Biden at any point during his career - let alone to the right of Senator Biden today - should not be welcomed either.

It doesn't really require much expertise, just a little bit of knowledge about the history of the candidate - exactly what the media in all its forms is supposed to serve us in. People who work have a record. That record is all we have to go on. The only debate should be over how to evaluate, not whether. People undertake the measure of many thousands every year at every level of politics, as many as there are candidates for any electoral occupation.

Yes, if they continue to defend the policy as it stands in the context of today or if we do go into the weeds and find that they could have likely done more at the time of the original decision.

Where I see us going on this conversation is a judgement on whether Biden's record can be adequately explained by the conservative culture of the time or not. And if we can do it properly and say, hey here was the scenario in its proper context and we had a path to something better and instead folded to what we got, then sure I would be onboard with trashing him for his record. But to regurgitate my self-deprecation from above, is that an analysis we can adequately perform? Even professional historians give each administration essentially three different biographies. The first when they leave office, the second when they die, and the third when everyone involved is dead.

I agree.

Biden was never really a swing vote for any major legislation AFAIK, but we have to look at what legislation he actually championed and what it says about his judgement and his ideology. There's a difference between - for example - voting for the Iraq AUMF, which Biden did, and being a really gung ho active advocate for the Bush administration. While whether the former is an inflecting dealbreaker today can be debated, the latter absolutely has to be because such a hypothetical politician is a liability at the national level regardless of any shifts in their views. This much on the importance of context.

Moreover, Biden wasn't just a politician in the 70s and 80s. He was a Senator right up until he became VP in 2009, he did unnecessary bad shit under Bush as well (I'm sure you'll hear Warren bring it up). And as always, remember that the point here isn't to establish whether Biden was a hero or a monster or in between, but whether he's what we want for national leadership today, if he's even on the list of backups.

To riff on the saws about public figures' indiscretions, a lifelong career isn't a "youthful mistake."

To my knowledge I think it was good because it dismantled the codification of exclusion to LGB community even if it was to a frustratingly limited degree. Assuming that citizens always follow the law, DADT made service possible for LGB citizens whereas previously it was impossible. I think practically all measures to make things 'better' are measures which make things 'less bad'.

Are you sure? Check the text of the policy, deep within an appropriations bill, Subtitle G Subsection b (page 126), and you will find the policy introduced a legal codification that had previously not existed to the effect of kicking homosexual servicemembers out of the military:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"(b) POLICY.—A member of the armed forces shall be separated
frt)m the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and
approved in accordance with procediires set forth in such regulations:
"(1) That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage
in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts
unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations,
that the member has demonstrated that—
"(A) such conduct is a departure from the member's
usual and customary behavior;
"(B) such c^onduct, imder all the circumstances, is
unlikely to recur;
"(C) such conduct was not accomplished by use of force,
coercion, or intimidation;
"(D) under the particular circumstances of the case,
the membei^s continued presence in the armed forces is
consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper
discipline, good order, and morale; and
"(E) the member does not have a propensity or intent
to engage in homosexual acts.
"(2) TTiat the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that efTect, unless there is
a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in,
attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends
to engage in homosexual acts.
"(3) That the member has married or attempted to marry
a person known to be of the same biological sex.

If the result was 'officers are discouraged from interrogating troops about their sexuality, but now if we find out about it you're more likely to be harassed or discharged', then I'm not sure it was worth it.

The real metric is, how did it actually affect queer servicemembers? We had 20 years of experience with it, I'm sure someone has taken a close look. I'm not saying here I know for sure DADT was a net negative, but the burden is on defenders to show it was a net positive.

Of course, I test all the candidates on the basis of ideology. That's why I don't vote Republican lol. You know, conservatives don't seem to have a problem treating every Republican as just as good as each other. Doesn't matter their choice in the primaries, whoever wins they all line up to vote as if it was their favorite choice.

Republicans can be perfectly vicious to one another in primaries. Anyway, the practices of the Republican Party are not relevant to us inasmuch as they contradict our values or the political pragmatics of our very different voter base. You wouldn't say that we should emulate Stalin in executing our political rivals because 'look how well it went for him, he got so much done', right? You don't get cookies for breakfast just because little Billy's parents let him have cookies. This is a very bad habit among the more conservative Democrats (admittedly also among self-identified leftist anti-Democrats), who whine about how unfair it is we're 'not allowed' to support imbeciles, thieves, and sex pests when "look at the Republicans/Trump." It's because we have, or ought to have, standards of ethics and competence.

As for Biden campaigning for Republicans, I honestly don't know anything about that I don't even recall hearing about it until now, so I just don't know how to respond. I don't have enough time tonight to google this and read up before thinking of a response.

Alright, I won't be mean to you, here's a link to feast your eyes. O'Rourke did something similar, but arguably more egregious because the Will Hurd election was closer; he says he'll do better in 2020.

It's possible.

In this I can at least sympathize with your appeal to the need for expertise, because care should be taken when characterizing national politics of an era and Bill Clinton was only one politician among thousands, not even a legislator. But it has been and will continue to be a subject of historical and partisan debate, so it's one more thing to add to the 'good idea to familiarize oneself with' list of Left ideas.

I agree with the first statement. As for the second, why not?

If the first proposition was accepted, the second is merely a corollary. If we're measuring by optimality of compromise, you have to apply an optimality model regardless of what the constraints are. Constraints are variable.

It is never possible to entirely avoid compromise, not in the 1930s US, not in revolutionary Leninist Russia. So compromise or negotiation of one sort or another is omnipresent. That doesn't make A compromise desirable. Heck, even when a compromise may truly be 'the best that can be done', that doesn't make it good. Else you might wind up like some contemporary Republicans and contend that the Republicans should have compromised with the South at any cost to avert the Civil War.

Let me ask you a question because I am curious where you are going with this. If a good friend/family member of yours was a Trump supporter or became a Trump supporter for 2020, would you cut off ties and ghost them?

Should I be judged harshly for having beers and playing video games with a guy who in his free time watches alt-right content on youtube?

Ahhh... Many would argue yes. Without revealing more about myself than I wish to, I am basally differentially affected by the presence of Trump supporters in my life than many others might be... but I do know what it means to have close family of that mindset and it would be perfectly fair to judge me for not doing more to contest their beliefs. But even among those leftists who fiercely advocate the ostracism of Trump supporters in our personal or commercial lives, family and friend are assigned a different valence from one another.

If your friend is a politician, the burden is higher on you. If your friend is a segregationist politician who believes "all whites are created equal with certain rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of dead niggers," well...

If I had a friend who told me they aspire to be the next Elliott Rodger, Dylann Roof, and Brenton Tarrant all wrapped up, I should stop being friends with them, yeah. If I had a friend who didn't advocate racial terrorism but espoused many elements of the same worldview, I would ghost them like a wimp but really I should confront them if not tell them off to the face before breaking ties. If my friend was in a position to manage, employ, or teach people, then too.


Last word here on Biden, if one believes Sanders is too old because presidents should be chosen for their two-term potential and having an octogenarian president is too risky, then Biden is definitely not presidential material.



ACIN, have you read this conversation between Stalin and HG Wells yet? I still urge you to read at least a thousand words. It will strike you as highly relevant, because everything old is new again.

[Strike For The South]

Of course when Stalin speaks of concessions, he is echoing Bismarks Iron and Blood. Power is a zero sum game. That is why the Republicans fear machine works so well, they can equate change with pestilence and desolation. The Soviet system is hardly a beacon of leftism and more a marxist paint job on an authoritarian apparatus. Like most people, Stalins Materialism trumped his Communism and his rule reflected that. His publicity stunt interview with some bougie writer should not be taken as some ideological maxim.

The big fight in the Democratic party right now is not so much "who can beat Trump". Trump has been losing ground and all the key states and frankly the country will elect a democrat barring some type of disaster. The fight is really which one of these fractious groups within the party will be holding the reins when that reckoning comes.

We need a healthcare system, we need Criminal justice reform, we need education reform, we need infrastructure. We have been nickled and dimed by the top strata while the public good has fallen by the wayside. The question is who can implement those policies. The man who did the most for American working post WWII was Lyndon Johnson, hardly a saint.

Having said all that, I don't think Biden will actually do any of that so he is a non starter here.

This country is far to the right that there is really no left. AOC is the closest thing to a leftist on the national stage and she is really a social democrat. On the other hand the are more hardcore right wingers than you can shake a stick at. But we do come back to the materialism question again.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm really surprised Trump has done nothing on infrastructure since it is both extremely necessary, would directly help his base and would probably give also all sorts of ways for graft to his extended family.

If the Democrats blocked it, it is an easy narrative in how they're blocking hard working Real Americans having proper jobs.

[Montmorency]

Of course when Stalin speaks of concessions, he is echoing Bismarks Iron and Blood. Power is a zero sum game. That is why the Republicans fear machine works so well, they can equate change with pestilence and desolation. The Soviet system is hardly a beacon of leftism and more a marxist paint job on an authoritarian apparatus. Like most people, Stalins Materialism trumped his Communism and his rule reflected that. His publicity stunt interview with some bougie writer should not be taken as some ideological maxim.

Like, sure, but I was just posting the interview because it's an insightful primer to the historical debates which in turn have been revived in relevance of late.

I'm really surprised Trump has done nothing on infrastructure since it is both extremely necessary, would directly help his base and would probably give also all sorts of ways for graft to his extended family.

If the Democrats blocked it, it is an easy narrative in how they're blocking hard working Real Americans having proper jobs.

You mean, you're surprised the Republicans in Congress haven't done anything about infrastructure. You shouldn't be, they're explicitly ideologically opposed to spending money for the public welfare and they have been for decades (maybe they would be less so if we reintroduced pork spending and earmarks). Instead, Trump and Republicans are collaborating on awarding wealthy investors a capital gains tax cut via executive order. Anyone with the barest familiarity with American politics should be thinking, "Duh."

Edit: Actually, looking further into earmarks, past reform was only shallow, and they've surged under Trump anyway. So scratch earmarks as grease for the wheel. We're still left with 'Republican Party delenda est' as the only path to rescuing the republic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Take a shot everytime Biden says, "the fact of the matter is..."

[a completely inoffensive name]

Just as quick comment, this debate had what you wanted Monty. 3 hours of criticizing Bidens record.

[Montmorency]

Just as quick comment, this debate had what you wanted Monty. 3 hours of criticizing Bidens record.

I don't care about the second debate, but I wanted to catch a little of the first. Because I missed the livestream on CNN yesterday, I'm reduced to trawling for clips on Twitter. CNN has the full debates paylocked behind subscription and I can't find the full content anywhere online.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't care about the second debate, but I wanted to catch a little of the first. Because I missed the livestream on CNN yesterday, I'm reduced to trawling for clips on Twitter. CNN has the full debates paylocked behind subscription and I can't find the full content anywhere online.

lol, find a leftist twitch streamer, they probably live streamed it while they gave commentary in real time. Honestly, today had more substance and policy discussion. CNN on night one was non-stop questions amounting to "everyone says progressive policies are crazy, what's your response"

Sanders and Warren refused to bash each other, they basically fought off all the moderates. I still like Mayor Pete for being positive and not trying to bash the people at the top. Give him the VP spot so he can prove that he is a better Christian than Pence.

Also, yang is now my number 3.

[rory_20_uk]

You mean, you're surprised the Republicans in Congress haven't done anything about infrastructure. You shouldn't be, they're explicitly ideologically opposed to spending money for the public welfare and they have been for decades (maybe they would be less so if we reintroduced pork spending and earmarks). Instead, Trump and Republicans are collaborating on awarding wealthy investors a capital gains tax cut via executive order. Anyone with the barest familiarity with American politics should be thinking, "Duh."

Edit: Actually, looking further into earmarks, past reform was only shallow, and they've surged under Trump anyway. So scratch earmarks as grease for the wheel. We're still left with 'Republican Party delenda est' as the only path to rescuing the republic.

That the USA has a major party - and the one in power - that wants the USA to be a dilapidated wasteland with little of worth in it apart from gated communities and a populace capable of using weaponry in the military or paramilitary forces is something I continue to find mind boggling: bridges, roads, airports, dams and so on is hardly welfare but is what separates a first world country from a patch of land.

[Montmorency]

lol, find a leftist twitch streamer, they probably live streamed it while they gave commentary in real time. Honestly, today had more substance and policy discussion. CNN on night one was non-stop questions amounting to "everyone says progressive policies are crazy, what's your response"

our liberal media

I still like Mayor Pete for being positive and not trying to bash the people at the top. Give him the VP spot so he can prove that he is a better Christian than Pence.

Sounds analogous to the desire to see Kamala Harris tear into Trump on-stage as a repudiation of his white male chauvinism. My inclination is to see this sort of thing as no more than a cherry on top.

Also, yang is now my number 3.

Still not sure if srs.

His climate change strategy is defeatist neoliberal BS.

We are 10 years too late... We need to do everything we can to start moving the climate in the right direction but we also need to start moving our people to higher ground, and the best way to do that is to put economic resources into your hands so you can protect yourself and your families.

That the USA has a major party - and the one in power - that wants the USA to be a dilapidated wasteland with little of worth in it apart from gated communities and a populace capable of using weaponry in the military or paramilitary forces is something I continue to find mind boggling: bridges, roads, airports, dams and so on is hardly welfare but is what separates a first world country from a patch of land.

The aristocrats.

I wonder how much potential GDP we've lost over the years.

https://www.businessinsider.com/asce...-3#bridges-c-2

The ASCE estimates the US needs to spend some $4.5 trillion by 2025 to fix the country's roads, bridges, dams, and other infrastructure.

Random surprise though, NYC subway alone handles more daily passengers. Of course we have our own mess at hand...

With some two million people per day coming through US airports, congestion is becoming a major problem.

[a completely inoffensive name]

our liberal media

On one level, it really is ridiculous the double standards. On the other, this is the type of talking points they will have to face against the Republicans in the general election so...good practice?

Sounds analogous to the desire to see Kamala Harris tear into Trump on-stage as a repudiation of his white male chauvinism. My inclination is to see this sort of thing as no more than a cherry on top.

I think it would be a valuable commentary on the sad state of evangelicals in this country and hopefully the start of a revitalized leftist religious tradition.

Still not sure if srs.

His climate change strategy is defeatist neoliberal BS.

Monty...I am a neoliberal. Our climate is already damaged and what we are doing is trying to prevent it from collapsing. So what is his error other than stating the obvious?
UBI in principle is about as left a position as you can get, if you ignore the fact that classical conservatives advocated for it way back when.

Right now my preferences are:
1. Mayor Pete
2. Harris
3. Yang
4. Booker/Biden

Sanders and Warren policies suck too much, they go a little too far for my neoliberal senses. Why does medicare for all have to ban private coverage as well?

EDIT: I said Harris when I meant Warren.

[Montmorency]

Monty...I am a neoliberal. Our climate is already damaged and what we are doing is trying to prevent it from collapsing. So what is his error other than stating the obvious?
UBI in principle is about as left a position as you can get, if you ignore the fact that classical conservatives advocated for it way back when.

Right now my preferences are:
1. Mayor Pete
2. Harris
3. Yang
4. Booker/Biden

Sanders and Harris policies suck too much, they go a little too far for my neoliberal senses. Why does medicare for all have to ban private coverage as well?

Why?

There is a spectrum to the kind of damage we can expect; 2* C is a very different world than 4* C. Giving up now is condemning additional millions, maybe hundreds, to death, for no reason beyond short-term political convenience or ideological self-flattery. Individual market-based adaptation is not adaptation, it will leave most of the population behind. We need collective action because it is capable of averting quite a lot of climate damage and saving lives. Yang's position is one of the worst that can be sold to the public (other than outright denialism), pretty much like Denethor from Return of the King. Besides that he has no relevant experience, is markedly business-oriented, and has a lot of half-baked ideas and little credit for developing the good ones.

UBI can be left wing or right-wing (Milton Friedman was a proponent), as with conservationism. Without getting into this whole debate, from my perspective in new spending: tax credit < cash transfer < guaranteed service.

Harris has put out her own universal coverage policy, and it moderates Sanders' policy, keeping private insurance in the form of 'Medicare Advantage for Those Who Want It'. She started her run trying to appeal to the left wing of the party - including adopting Sanders' Medicare for All legislation as her roadmap - but now her tack seems to be a centrist turn into precariously assembled nudge policy that isn't even sound on the merits. Alongside the LIFT Act she seems to be establishing herself as the candidate of technically inferior policy that may be easier to get passed. That is, I don't know if her policies are actually easier to pass, but she's very clearly keeping procedural aspects at the forefront of her thinking, which I suppose I can appreciate.

If you think even Harris is going too far... hoo boy. Read outside the Economist for a bit! I'm saddened you would rank Yang above Booker, Castro, Gillibrand, O'Rourke, etc. Best quip I saw was that President is not an entry-level job at a tech startup. Have a left takedown of Buttigieg.

Some articles on why eliminating private insurance is technically superior policy.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why?

There is a spectrum to the kind of damage we can expect; 2* C is a very different world than 4* C. Giving up now is condemning additional millions, maybe hundreds, to death, for no reason beyond short-term political convenience or ideological self-flattery. Individual market-based adaptation is not adaptation, it will leave most of the population behind. We need collective action because it is capable of averting quite a lot of climate damage and saving lives. Yang's position is one of the worst that can be sold to the public (other than outright denialism), pretty much like Denethor from Return of the King. Besides that he has no relevant experience, is markedly business-oriented, and has a lot of half-baked ideas and little credit for developing the good ones.

UBI can be left wing or right-wing (Milton Friedman was a proponent), as with conservationism. Without getting into this whole debate, from my perspective in new spending: tax credit < cash transfer < guaranteed service.

Harris has put out her own universal coverage policy, and it moderates Sanders' policy, keeping private insurance in the form of 'Medicare Advantage for Those Who Want It'. She started her run trying to appeal to the left wing of the party - including adopting Sanders' Medicare for All legislation as her roadmap - but now her tack seems to be a centrist turn into precariously assembled nudge policy that isn't even sound on the merits. Alongside the LIFT Act she seems to be establishing herself as the candidate of technically inferior policy that may be easier to get passed. That is, I don't know if her policies are actually easier to pass, but she's very clearly keeping procedural aspects at the forefront of her thinking, which I suppose I can appreciate.

If you think even Harris is going too far... hoo boy. Read outside the Economist for a bit! I'm saddened you would rank Yang above Booker, Castro, Gillibrand, O'Rourke, etc. Best quip I saw was that President is not an entry-level job at a tech startup. Have a left takedown of Buttigieg.

Some articles on why eliminating private insurance is technically superior policy.

So on the stage his point wasn't so much there is nothing we can do, but that we need to start preparing for the worst because we are on track to experience the worst effects of climate change. Obviously he believes his UBI is a good way to protect people from the financial effects of climate disaster such as sudden crop loss, property damage, etc so he segued into a plug for it.

On his website his statement is thus:

Climate change is an existential threat to humanity and our way of life. It should be a top priority of the federal government to implement policies to control anthropogenic climate change while working with other governments to implement these policies throughout the world.
It’s important to regulate fossil fuels, both to control climate change and to improve the health of the average American. Renewable energy must be invested in, not only as a means of moderating climate change but also to drive economic growth. However, innovation must also be relied on to reverse the damage already caused.

While the role of the federal government is important, much of the work will be done at the state, or even neighborhood, level. The federal government should support local efforts through funding and market-based incentives.

His specific market based incentive is a Carbon Fee and Dividend,

The cost of burning fossil fuels is paid by all of us, but the benefits are disproportionately gained by industry. There is very little incentive to control the rate at which fossil fuels are burned or CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
While a carbon tax would disincentivize the burning of fossil fuels, the money would enter the federal bureaucracy and be detached from other solutions to the problems associated with climate change.

A carbon fee and dividend, similar to the one proposed by the conservative Climate Leadership Council, would allow businesses to find market-based solutions to their carbon release while benefiting American citizens and providing funding for alternative fuel research and upgrades to our current energy systems. It could also be used to subsidize fuel costs for low-income Americans.

I meant to say Warren, not Harris. I am more preferential to Harris's formulation of Medicare for All. I would say it definitely is easier to pass because we run into the same issue we discussed about Biden's past.
The American public is simply much more conservative than what progressives want to admit. Hence, Biden's still the pack leader: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...tion-6730.html

A majority of Americans think government should provide health care, but when given the choice between an opt in w/ private available and Bernie's 100% socialized system they choose the former in large margins.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...healthcare-for

[Montmorency]

So on the stage his point wasn't so much there is nothing we can do, but that we need to start preparing for the worst because we are on track to experience the worst effects of climate change. Obviously he believes his UBI is a good way to protect people from the financial effects of climate disaster such as sudden crop loss, property damage, etc so he segued into a plug for it.

On his website his statement is thus:


His specific market based incentive is a Carbon Fee and Dividend,

I meant to say Warren, not Harris. I am more preferential to Harris's formulation of Medicare for All. I would say it definitely is easier to pass because we run into the same issue we discussed about Biden's past.
The American public is simply much more conservative than what progressives want to admit. Hence, Biden's still the pack leader: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...tion-6730.html

A majority of Americans think government should provide health care, but when given the choice between an opt in w/ private available and Bernie's 100% socialized system they choose the former in large margins.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...healthcare-for

If Yang believes that climate adaptation is facilitated by giving individuals petty cash to "go now and die in what way seems best to you", then he should be denounced. This is the tech-bro mindset of billionaires who want to bug off to New Zealand or to a seastead as the rest of the sheep die off.

The first Yang quote has been Democratic platform boilerplate for like 20 years.

Carbon taxes, cap & trade, etc. might be useful but they're pretty much pointless on their own. See the case of California. The neoliberal fallacy is inserting market mechanisms where non-market mechanisms are likely to be or known to be better.

There is little reason to believe Biden's plan is easier to pass than Harris's (in current versions), because the insurance industry has already decreed holy war against any public option, because pharmaceuticals have already decreed holy war on any measure to reduce drug prices, and because providers have already decreed holy war on anything that reduces their fees. Heck, with your political approach you might as well default to the Sanders plan because all of them approach 0% probability of passage under any circumstances. We're going to need to settle in for a long hard slog to get anything done (and the winning argument, as so often is the case, will probably be the acute suffering of the public over time) so the progressive argument is simple: fight for the best achievable program.

At least Harris is thinking about buying in insurance stakeholders, Biden doesn't even appear to be at the level of the original Obama plan. Bizarre too that Biden's team thinks his plan will cover 97% of the population - like, just add a kludge or two and call it universal, what is it with conservatives in the brain?

From polling I've seen Biden isn't the top poller because Democratic voters prefer him as a first choice - I recall when the question asks to the exclusion of perceived electability he plummets - but because they think (without evidence) that he is most "electable." The black caucus are especially are timid with respect to whitelash and so tend to look for "safe" options. I wouldn't bet against people realizing Biden isn't so golden by the time Iowa primary arrives.

I think if the Democrats were more unified on single payer the public would respond. There's also a lot of misinformation out there. Did I share with you, or just with STFS, the polling that indicates Democrats simply genuinely believe that even Sanders' Medicare for All means a public option? And that Republicans have a more accurate understanding of Sanders' proposal than Democrats? At any rate, this is certainly something concerted messaging ought to move the needle on. If you don't believe messaging is possible in the current media environment - and hell, maybe it is so - then you can't believe any version of healthcare reform is going to pass so

[a completely inoffensive name]

If Yang believes that climate adaptation is facilitated by giving individuals petty cash to "go now and die in what way seems best to you", then he should be denounced. This is the tech-bro mindset of billionaires who want to bug off to New Zealand or to a seastead as the rest of the sheep die off.

The first Yang quote has been Democratic platform boilerplate for like 20 years.

I think a thousand a month would be very much welcomed by those who are struggling in this country, and I wouldn't dismiss it as "die in your own way" but as a tool to help you adapt to what is beyond out control at the moment (severe weather phenomenon). At the least an extra thousand a month would help the lower middle class and upper middle class invest in their own solar panels or buy an electric car and help with decentralizing out power sources and increase renewables.

Carbon taxes, cap & trade, etc. might be useful but they're pretty much pointless on their own. See the case of California. The neoliberal fallacy is inserting market mechanisms where non-market mechanisms are likely to be or known to be better.

The argument does not follow the link. Cap and Trade has not impacted emmissions because according to the study emissions are already below what the market limit. Market forces are what is keeping them below the limit because industry is transitioning to gas powered generation and solar due to better economic return (gas is cheaper than coal, solar's return over the 5-10 year period is increasing every year). in addition, they admit they may not be taking full advantage of the market allowances because California being California, they could drastically lower the limit at any moment.

There is little reason to believe Biden's plan is easier to pass than Harris's (in current versions), because the insurance industry has already decreed holy war against any public option, because pharmaceuticals have already decreed holy war on any measure to reduce drug prices, and because providers have already decreed holy war on anything that reduces their fees. Heck, with your political approach you might as well default to the Sanders plan because all of them approach 0% probability of passage under any circumstances. We're going to need to settle in for a long hard slog to get anything done (and the winning argument, as so often is the case, will probably be the acute suffering of the public over time) so the progressive argument is simple: fight for the best achievable program.

Hold the phone, like I said, the polling shows strong support for a public option. It's what we are going towards politically, because it motivates too many people for politicians to not rally around it and the insurance industry knows they can't hold it off forever. What helps the insurance companies kill the public option is to force a configuration that they simply don't want, that is, a sole public option with no private choices.

At least Harris is thinking about buying in insurance stakeholders, Biden doesn't even appear to be at the level of the original Obama plan. Bizarre too that Biden's team thinks his plan will cover 97% of the population - like, just add a kludge or two and call it universal, what is it with conservatives in the brain?

Well, this is why I like Harris over Biden for the most part.

From polling I've seen Biden isn't the top poller because Democratic voters prefer him as a first choice - I recall when the question asks to the exclusion of perceived electability he plummets - but because they think (without evidence) that he is most "electable." The black caucus are especially are timid with respect to whitelash and so tend to look for "safe" options. I wouldn't bet against people realizing Biden isn't so golden by the time Iowa primary arrives.

Ehh, Biden still seems to be outperforming the rest in head to head choices vs Trump. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...ident-general/
Again, I think this is indicative of a 'shy Tory' effect even among America's liberals.

I think if the Democrats were more unified on single payer the public would respond. There's also a lot of misinformation out there. Did I share with you, or just with STFS, the polling that indicates Democrats simply genuinely believe that even Sanders' Medicare for All means a public option? And that Republicans have a more accurate understanding of Sanders' proposal than Democrats? At any rate, this is certainly something concerted messaging ought to move the needle on. If you don't believe messaging is possible in the current media environment - and hell, maybe it is so - then you can't believe any version of healthcare reform is going to pass so

This I will agree with you on. I can't stand how some of the neoliberal establishment still seems to be trying to go it alone. Candidates like Delany, Hickenlooper and the gov. of Montana just shit all over Medicare for All without bringing anything of real excitement. "Minor changes to Obamacare for everyone! Why am I irrelevant?"