Biden Thread

[Montmorency]

That frames the problem as one of media representation. As we've noted here in the past, contrary to that stalwartly-smug stereotype of the "liberal" media, the mainstream outlets have and will always be quick to defer to Republicans while criticizing and misrepresenting Democrats.

For the Democrats' part, few on Capitol Hill have offered any threat to police prerogatives so far, let alone defunding. Fiscally, conservative Democrats like Sen. Sinema and Rep. Gottheimer are to the right of pre-Trump Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio on tax rates and carveouts. Meanwhile, strong majorities continue to poll in favor of the original, more generous, legislative package endorsed by the Biden administration, though most do not believe that its provisions would benefit "people like them" - not even most Democrats in some polls! What space for maneuver is there, and how to deliver the People what they putatively want, when the flank of the party is disloyal or venal, the bulk of the electorate is burdened by apathy, confusion, under- and misinformation, and an adversarial clickbait media would rather peddle gobsmacking lies about inflation than prioritize responsibility and education?

But I suspect the vagaries of media and messaging more often suppress Democrats at ballot than persuade the public as such against them. Take note: According to Virginia exit polling, Democrats gained some ground with Hispanics and Asians, held steady with college-degree Whites (though there may have been some exchange between men and women), and lost double digits with non-college Whites. Virginia Republicans won as much as 3/4 of that demographic. In other words, a mix of declining turnout (McAuliffe lost 750K votes from 2020, to Youngkin's 400K) and vote-switching among this single demographic (at least 1/3 of voters in Virginia) was dispositive.

And it seems the most liberal non-college Whites, the old labor left of the northern states, are Boomers and Silents; the advance of time will only aggravate this point of weakness, at least until late in the century (and who's projecting to then?).

The reality is that a durable mix of structural factors - both demographic sociopolitics and the thermodynamics of a disengaged electorate, known to characterize American politics since the beginning - can be counted on to produce genuinely-predictable results such as in the late contest.

The more immediate problem - as I mentioned earlier - is the persistence of global economic dislocation. The course of that single issue over the coming year, or else its narrativization, will determine the results of the midterms, within the limits imposed by (unfavorable) structural parameters. It was widely acknowledged by analysts in November 2020 that Democrats would have a hard time holding onto their Congressional majorities, and there's been no ground gained since then. Politically-passive and weakly-aligned citizens just can't be bothered to regard the Republican Party as illegitimate, any more now than before. . Discourse is fuzzy and exciting, but we're executing a boring old maths formula here.

[Montmorency]

I suppose I'll be the first to comment on the news.

Yesterday or over the past week, there was apparently a shift in Biden's calculations. From what I understand he made clear to Pelosi that he wanted the bipartisan infrastructure deal passed without delay, and Pelosi whipped the caucus to see the vote through, which they did more or less unanimously. Progressive caucus chair Jayapal expressed confidence in Biden's promise to find enough votes in the Senate for the administration's signature Build Back Better agenda. As you may recall, over the past season the progressive half of the Democratic House majority insisted that the bipartisan infrastructure bill and the larger Build Back Better package be passed in tandem to avert a full reneging on the latter by party conservatives.

Conservatives succeeded in removing disfavored components, and expanding tax breaks for affluent blue state residents, cutting BBB's topline in half from the original $3.5 trillion (itself down from $6 trillion in groundwork negotiations in the spring); it remains unclear if they will all commit to voting up the final product catered to them.

Meanwhile, more serious Democrats continue to release their own proposals, such as Senator Wyden's billionaire tax (though IMO closing the stepped-up basis carveout and instituting a wealth tax would be more effective.)




Away from the halls of power: "76 percent of meat processors have nerve damage in their hands and amputations of fingers or other body parts happen about twice per week in US meat plants, in case you were wondering why they're having trouble getting workers." One of Biden's regulatory actions this year was to retract a rule change in 2020 that would have allowed meat processing management to drive their workers even more recklessly fast. @ReluctantSamurai

[Montmorency]

Seriously, what could Democrats do to persuade people?

[spmetla]

Seriously, what could Democrats do to persuade people?

The Democrats would need to divorce themselves from their most unpopular stances as they are losing the 'culture war' not the soundness of policy. Years of Republicans propaganda as well as the actions/statements of a few more extreme 'progressives' have made the the Democrats the party of 'uncontrolled migration' to intentionally change the current demographics as well as the party that is out to 'undermine social values' through LGBTQ rights, 'wokeness,' and by thinking that freedom of religion doesn't just mean christian denominations.
The conservative values of a large part of the country reject the above and those efforts of tolerance as ways to change america into something else. They are reactionary in nature as the change no matter how morally correct is too fast for them to cope with.

Having mottos such as 'defund the police' instead of 'police accountability' doesn't help as that scares away the centrists as well.

Though Dem policies are actually the ones that help the working class the Dems are rejected by so much of the working class because they don't like the perceived values of those 'vile liberals' out to make their sons gender neutral gays that are ashamed of their country.

This article by Jacobin Magazine seems to hit a lot of the key points.
Everyone Hates the Democrats
Progressives and moderates accuse each other of being unable to appeal to working-class voters — and maybe they’re both right.
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/every...-the-democrats

On this question, the progressive and centrist wings of the party are more divided than ever. Conservative Blue Dog Democrats like Abigail Spanberger blame radical rhetoric for the party’s poor results in Congress: “we need to not ever use the words ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. Because while people think it doesn’t matter, it does matter. And we lost good members because of it.”

In response, our left-wing leaders like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez contend that the Democrats will fail to mobilize their most enthusiastic voters if big-ticket progressive ideas get dropped from the agenda. They argue that the party’s biggest liability was its unimaginative, uninspiring, and thoroughly orthodox economic conservatism. Joe Biden’s promise that “nothing will fundamentally change” might have won over some moderates disgusted with Trump, but it failed to inspire voters to elect a Democratic majority.

Centrism is a dead end that promises nothing but razor-thin victories, divided government, and an ever-shrinking share of working-class votes. But getting “woke” also means alienating most voters — of all colors — and handing the Republicans easy layup victories at the polls. Still, it will probably take more than a rhetorical adjustment to regain the confidence of working people.

Struggling Americans want jobs, health care, decent schools, safe neighborhoods, and somebody — anybody — in Washington to listen. But why would they listen? Democrats today represent the richest House districts in the country, and Republicans consistently send the wealthiest individuals to Washington. The median income in Congress is 500 percent greater than that of the nation at large — half of our federal legislators are millionaires.

I think the support that Trump got seems to discount the idea though that workers want to necessarily vote for someone that's also a worker but more someone that shares their world view and values. Everyone seems to hate political correctness so Trump saying offensive and stupid things someone won him support. Trump railed against Europeans which so much of the country seems to see as freeloading socialists that are being overun by muslim migration and too weak to stop that and that won him support. His stance on immigration and america first economics are of course the two major issues that brought him support even if his implementation of both were stupid and counter-productive because people liked what he said and blamed the 'deep state' for any failures to get result.

I've told my Republican friends enough that if they were immigration friendly and not so outwardly hostile to poor blacks and hispanics that they'd win those votes right over as most working class hispanics that I know are staunch Catholics and reject the social values of the democrats.

[rory_20_uk]

Double post

[rory_20_uk]

If these issues are less important to individuals than say gun rights or pro life then it doesn't matter. Then add in the electoral college.

Also, what percentage of democrats are truly concerned about these issues rather than themselves.

Oh, the NYT has investigated this. In essence people are happy to talk the talk, but refuse to walk the walk

[Montmorency]

If these issues are less important to individuals than say gun rights or pro life then it doesn't matter. Then add in the electoral college.

Also, what percentage of democrats are truly concerned about these issues rather than themselves.

Oh, the NYT has investigated this. In essence people are happy to talk the talk, but refuse to walk the walk

Property values and school demographics/selection are two areas in which very few on the broad left are willing to part with socioeconomic advantages.

You're right, but no offense, aren't you in the same boat with your constitutional pessimism about the possibility for improvement? The NYT too gets little of my approval for raising this issue given the density of conservative apologia and boosterism that it publishes - including such as what tends to militate against the movements to spread affordable housing and integrated schooling.

[Montmorency]

I was referring to conservative Democratic politicians, and I was being ironic; I've made my opinion on Biden's approval rating plain. But I can work with this.

The basic complications for the thrust of this sort of attitude are:

1. It's old and prevalent enough that it reads more as wishcasting than an appraisal of political ecology
2. There are things the Democratic party stands for, and it should not and could not change those things to attempt to appeal to those who hate Democrats most
3. Low-propensity (some of whom are swing) voters are closer to the Democratic party on cultural values
4. If someone can be swayed to fascism by the mere existence of disagreeable viewpoints, their political behavior is seldom going to be sensitive to contrary political messaging from a party with which they happen to associate those viewpoints

The Democrats would need to divorce themselves from their most unpopular stances as they are losing the 'culture war' not the soundness of policy. Years of Republicans propaganda as well as the actions/statements of a few more extreme 'progressives' have made the the Democrats the party of 'uncontrolled migration' to intentionally change the current demographics as well as the party that is out to 'undermine social values' through LGBTQ rights, 'wokeness,' and by thinking that freedom of religion doesn't just mean christian denominations.
The conservative values of a large part of the country reject the above and those efforts of tolerance as ways to change america into something else. They are reactionary in nature as the change no matter how morally correct is too fast for them to cope with.

Having mottos such as 'defund the police' instead of 'police accountability' doesn't help as that scares away the centrists as well.

Though Dem policies are actually the ones that help the working class the Dems are rejected by so much of the working class because they don't like the perceived values of those 'vile liberals' out to make their sons gender neutral gays that are ashamed of their country.

I think the support that Trump got seems to discount the idea though that workers want to necessarily vote for someone that's also a worker but more someone that shares their world view and values. Everyone seems to hate political correctness so Trump saying offensive and stupid things someone won him support. Trump railed against Europeans which so much of the country seems to see as freeloading socialists that are being overun by muslim migration and too weak to stop that and that won him support. His stance on immigration and america first economics are of course the two major issues that brought him support even if his implementation of both were stupid and counter-productive because people liked what he said and blamed the 'deep state' for any failures to get result.

This is of course what movement conservatives believe, to varying degrees - but they're the third of the country who are almost always opposed to liberal politics, and have been since liberalism was invented. Losing the culture war on Christianity and LGBTQ since the Clinton-Bush era is one of the major fonts of rage, but those people are veritably the enemy, not persuadable voters. They have fundamentally-contrary affective and ideological commitments to the majority of the population, and I would condemn them prescriptively as well. Unfortunately, their identity is still so normatively established that they are never - unlike Democrats - expected to obsess over reaching across the aisle. There is little evidence that if Democrats simply assimilated to Republicanism they would win more votes - it's been tried before to limited effect - but at any rate it is no more to be countenanced within the Democratic base than for Ted Cruz to find it in himself to don a pussy hat and demand justice for defrauded refugees.

To be sure, there are many competing movements within the Democratic coalition, and not all of them can get what they want. On some "culture war" issues Republicans do have an advantage rooted in asymmetric activation, such as with guns and immigration. That is, the proportion on the right who consider those top issues is clearly larger than that on the left, regardless of the putative popularity of any given liberal policy, so moving left on policy in those domains wouldn't be electorally-advantageous; either success or mere formal espousal would invite more counter-mobilization than mobilization. But the observation only implies reinforcing the status quo on particular issues, while investing in organization and activation elsewhere. On guns, Americans will have to just accept rising levels of societal brutalization and violence, but in marginal, material, terms the cost of thousands of extra deaths and tens of thousands of injuries compared to a reachable alternative is not intolerable in the face of competing priorities. Vaccinating all Republicans alone would probably be as salutary to the country as a moratorium on new gun manufacturing (though it seems neither is remotely achievable...)*. Similarly, while the current immigration regime is deplorable, even the Obama-era status quo would still maintain many of the latent benefits. When I say "benefits" I refer more to what this country as such can extract than with regard to the interests of the general population of people looking to come to America for whatever reason; still, a more active executive than we've had could readily erode the most egregious features of the system for the duration of their tenure (such as working to reduce wait times, detentions, and abuse).

*Now of course there's not so much a gun problem per se in this country, it's bound up... But it's become evident that you can't get after right-wing extremism through guns; it will have to be the other way around.

But when it comes to the basic societal status of women and non-whites and workers, that much constitutes an existential and civilizational conflict that brooks no capitulation from either side, and it would be insulting to recommend as much. Substance aside, the only reason liberals have any optimism is, again, we've been winning the argument consistently at the most basic level. Even the Republican bench of politicians is facially more diverse than the Democratic party's was during the Reagan era! The greatest failure of the American general public would be in failing to care enough to vehemently resist Republican counterrevolution, not in approving it in principle.

In my opinion, the bigger picture here is that actual Democratic policies and ideas are popular, Republican ones are not, but the Republicans are longtime experts in generating moral panics (viz. the deficit, Communism, political correctness, etc.) to attach a negative perception to Democrats. The very existence of people who think police are not to be trusted, or that abortion is a human right, is risible as a point of contention in a supposedly-free country when these are given short shrift on one political end, while on the other side it is mainstream for fascists in high office to openly advocate the elimination of the listed and their like.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/09/10538...video-backlash

Shouldn't Democrats contest lies and slanders and perversities rather running to embrace them, if they intend to viably represent a political movement? I'm not saying one has to share something like this whenever Republicans are mentioned, but come the hell on.




Here is Senator Mitch McConnell's wife - previously a corrupt and unqualified Secretarial sinecure in the Bush and Trump Cabinets - spouting unvarnished Bolshevik propaganda that has become the Republican party line. Is the media or any coordinated Democratic effort going to make hay out of this 'gaffe' or use it to undermine the image of the Republicans? Will she be denounced as an un-American freak in the public discourse? No, it's not even news.
https://twitter.com/EveAsks/status/1457770645429702656 [SHORT VIDEO]

Will radical Marjorie Taylor Greene be excoriated as a race-baiter or communist for praising Black radical Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam, treatment Obama received despite his profound lack of connection to these very longtime bogeymen of the conservative movement?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...k-in-politics/ [VIDEO]

Yet in Virginia, McAuliffe's much less extreme opinion that parents should have limited input on school operations was made into a campaign meme - noteworthy regardless of whether or not that line of attack was enough to open the Republican's winning margin.


(For an example of what comes with parental input in education:)

Spotsylvania School Board orders libraries to remove 'sexually explicit' books

The Spotsylvania County School Board has directed staff to begin removing books that contain “sexually explicit” material from library shelves and report on the number of books that have been removed at a special called meeting next week.

The directive came after a parent raised concerns at the School Board’s meeting Monday about books available through the Riverbend High School’s digital library app.

The board also requested a report next week on the process by which books are selected for inclusion in digital and hard copy library collections at the different school levels and indicated that it will consider a division-wide library audit.

The criteria for pulling books from circulation this week is “sexually explicit,” but the board plans to refine how material is determined to be “objectionable” for a further review of library holdings.

The board voted 6–0 to order the removal. Berkeley District representative Erin Grampp was not in attendance for the vote on that issue.

Two board members, Courtland representative Rabih Abuismail and Livingston representative Kirk Twigg, said they would like to see the removed books burned.

“I think we should throw those books in a fire,” Abuismail said, and Twigg said he wants to “see the books before we burn them so we can identify within our community that we are eradicating this bad stuff.”

It's more likely the room for improvement for Democrats lies in lack of action or weak action, than in excessive action or a lack of censoriousness. When does it stop making sense to demean Democrats for Republican excesses? When does strategy distill from personal preference?

During the summer, as I linked a few posts earlier, the Republican operative Chris Rufo announced across major media that he would attempt to condition the phrase "critical race theory" with association to all discourse on race, in order to manufacture stigma against what used to be bipartisan consensus ideas even a generation ago (shades of "public schools and Social Security are socialism"). To the extent one believes some shameful subset of people would digest this premeditated formula, how would it be either moral or effective to respond by, having accepted the opposition's terms, pivoting to rhetoric against racial inclusivity as an unacceptable attack on White safe spaces? I just don't see how anyone could argue, after all we've seen over the past 15 years, that perpetually cringing, crouching, and caving to far-right ravings would win Democrats more votes than going on the offense. It would be one thing if the electorate were the same as in the 1950s, but it's not. Maybe most Whites still don't really want their children attending mixed schools, but even so they tend to accept that discussing the role of slavery or Jim Crow in our history does not constitute lese majeste against Whiteness. Helping the Republicans by agreeing with them that it does would be destructive at every level.

This article by Jacobin Magazine seems to hit a lot of the key points.
Everyone Hates the Democrats
Progressives and moderates accuse each other of being unable to appeal to working-class voters — and maybe they’re both right.
https://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/every...-the-democrats

As a mere example of the basic flaws in these sorts of criticisms of Democrats, the Jacobin set are demonstrably hated by a much larger proportion of the population than the Democratic Party is - so where's the beef? In extreme cases I've seen it rise to the level of self-delusion, a contention that if some voters will reject a $15 minimum wage if it comes packaged with feminist ideas such as non-discrimination, they would, for example, welcome a nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy so long as you "don't mention the war." Any exemplary voter with such a high level of sensitivity and commitment to social reaction will never support leftist politics, which at that grade are inherently socially progressive. They wouldn't vote for a Jacobin socialist even if he went so far as to regress to heartfelt 1920s values and call for the expulsion of women and Blacks from labor unions! They would easily vote for someone with the same views who better understands that we ought to be grateful for what the "successful" and the "job creators" have to bestow on us. It's just incoherent.

As close as I am to the Jacobin left ideologically, many of them have often shown themselves to be more concerned with in-group self-satisfaction than with thinking about how to build power. That type is sprt pf the mirror image of centrist neoliberals in a way, ironically, but much less accomplished in the real world.

On the other hand, this recent Jacobin-sponsored public survey seems like a serious attempt to analyze electoral challenges. Despite it emphasizing some of the obstacles we've already known about, it may not tell conservatives what they want to hear either. (I'm not clear on how they operationalized "woke" though.)

Working-class voters prefer progressive candidates who focus primarily on bread-and-butter economic issues, and who frame those issues in universal terms. This is especially true outside deep-blue parts of the country. Candidates who prioritized bread-and-butter issues (jobs, health care, the economy), and presented them in plainspoken, universalist rhetoric, performed significantly better than those who had other priorities or used other language. This general pattern was even more dramatic in rural and small-town areas, where Democrats have struggled in recent years.

Populist, class-based progressive campaign messaging appeals to working-class voters at least as well as mainstream Democratic messaging. Candidates who named elites as a major cause of America’s problems, invoked anger at the status quo, and celebrated the working class were well received among working-class voters — even when tested against more moderate strains of Democratic rhetoric.

Progressives do not need to surrender questions of social justice to win working-class voters, but certain identity-focused rhetoric is a liability. Potentially Democratic working-class voters did not shy away from progressive candidates or candidates who strongly opposed racism. But candidates who framed that opposition in highly specialized, identity-focused language fared significantly worse than candidates who embraced either populist or mainstream language.

Working-class voters prefer working-class candidates. A candidate’s race or gender is not a liability among potentially Democratic working-class voters. However, a candidate’s upper-class background is a major liability. Class background matters.

Working-class nonvoters are not automatic progressives. We find little evidence that low-propensity voters fail to vote because they don’t see sufficiently progressive views reflected in the political platforms of mainstream candidates.

Blue-collar workers are especially sensitive to candidate messaging — and respond even more acutely to the differences between populist and “woke” language. Primarily manual blue-collar workers, in comparison with primarily white-collar workers, were even more drawn to candidates who stressed bread-and-butter issues, and who avoided activist rhetoric.

Progressives do not need to surrender questions of social justice to win working-class voters, but certain identity-focused rhetoric is a liability. Potentially Democratic working-class voters did not shy away from progressive candidates or candidates who strongly opposed racism. But candidates who framed that opposition in highly specialized, identity-focused language fared significantly worse than candidates who embraced either populist or mainstream language.
[...]
1. Respondents from all racial groups were equally or more favorable toward female and minority candidates than white candidates.
2. Respondents from all racial groups were strongly supportive of progressive civil rights and health care positions, but whites were less supportive than other racial groups.
3. Woke candidates were viewed less favorably than other candidates bywhites, but not by respondents of color.

I don't think it would be an insurmountable difficulty to say the same things and advocate the same ideas with polls-tested framing and wording. As I said, the more persistent issue, outside the scope of this report, is the long-term derogatory image that has been attached to the Democratic Party by long Republican and media activism; if you can't reestablish trust in the first place, what you say almost doesn't even matter. If you want better healthcare or more job security and I promise to deliver that, but you as a political subject have no confidence in the political class, in my party, or in government itself to effect solutions, you'll never take me seriously. Messaging is a hard row to hoe, but IMO Democratic politicians outside blue jurisdictions ought to try directly confronting these negative perceptions in an attempt to dispel them.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"I hear my Republican colleagues have been telling you the Democraps are the do-nothing party of manhaters and race baiters. Now let me tell ya..."

A Monty Python skit could be fashioned out of everything liberals have gotten to the common folk of the country, or everything the conservatives have taken.

Despite Democratic electeds missing their opportunities consistently (1/6 may even have been the last call), I maintain my insistence that they won't gain sufficient momentum until they declare rhetorical war on the Republican Party: They have to stentoriously proclaim that it's not worthy of collegial respect, it's not normal, and it's a threat to our way of life. As much shit as the media gets for amplifying Republican talking points, you can't blame them for not running ahead of Democratic talking points, which are infused with irresponsible fairmindedness towards the monstrous regimen. Yes, it is difficult. Even I would have a hard time establishing the right frame of mind to say what needs to be said if challenged in-person to produce the prescribed performance. But that's the whole game on the table there.

Bonus: If someone is of the character to perceive this policy by the Republican government of Idaho as an attack on their core American identity, they will never, ever, vote for liberalism, and they almost certainly never have. It's basically a premodern worldview. Don't even think about it.