POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Montmorency]

My way of thinking is perhaps Democrats and the left in general need to be more clever and pursue policies in the background that mainly improve the efficiency and outputs of government so we can change the social meme of government being naturally ineffective and wasteful. But how would I do that on a city level?

That's the Democratic party brand, it's what they already do.

Sorry, did I say brand?

The Holy Grail of leftist ideology is really to create a sort of perpetual motion machine by empowering the "common person" to self-radicalize and self-organize, which grassroots we know by now was the engine of social democracy and civil rights around the world in the 20th century (as compared to top-down action alone). Neoliberals and technocrats in a meta-sense are perhaps too focused on what they might accomplish with dictation, but that is clearly a vulnerable strategy even when at its best (and when it's not at its best it reproduces many of the social flaws carried over by the agents, or just results in outright bad or damaging policy).

This move of the GOP to go from a right-wing liberal party to a nationalist reactionary party has really set us up for the culture wars Fox News has been raving about for decades.

Culture war is a long-term move that began at least with the Birchers and patriarchal reactionary evangelicals in the 50s, make no mistake.


Anyway, socialists are gaining an increasing presence in city governments across the country today, so adjusting for local conditions I'm not sure how scared you ought to be of Republican op-eds. Even in Seattle, Amazon won the battle against the head tax in 2018 but in the subsequent election it lost the war and now an even higher tax is being imposed. If you really want a taste of power do the research on your target jurisdiction, the target office, and on what makes an effective political campaign.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's the Democratic party brand, it's what they already do.

Hmm, they do a tremendous job of not promoting that aspect. On the national level it is hard to really shake the assertion that Democrats love to bring attention to Big Bills once they are in power and spend everything they have on these Big Bills. Both Obama and Clinton would have done better to spend their political capital on less controversial, efficiency driven improvements rather than harping on universal health care for the past 30 years. Even now there is no clear path to universal health care, assuming Biden gets everything he is promising. So what exactly have Dems done, cause as far as I can tell the Veterans are still struggling to get healthcare, the Post Office is broke, funding for research and development in some fields is not being expanded, and the IRS is still trying to move beyond computers older than me.

The Holy Grail of leftist ideology is really to create a sort of perpetual motion machine by empowering the "common person" to self-radicalize and self-organize, which grassroots we know by now was the engine of social democracy and civil rights around the world in the 20th century (as compared to top-down action alone). Neoliberals and technocrats in a meta-sense are perhaps too focused on what they might accomplish with dictation, but that is clearly a vulnerable strategy even when at its best (and when it's not at its best it reproduces many of the social flaws carried over by the agents, or just results in outright bad or damaging policy).

There are already plenty of radicalized socialists spending all their time talking theory over the internet, radicalizing other people. They never leave their room though, so there is a missing component beyond being part of a grassroots organization. Anyone can stand in a march with friends for a day. Some can march in the streets for a few weeks. Few actually carry out their lives as political agents, despite the strength of their opinions.

Culture war is a long-term move that began at least with the Birchers and patriarchal reactionary evangelicals in the 50s, make no mistake.

I don't think the situation we find ourselves in was part of anyone's Grand Plan. Evangelicals of the 1950s would have balked if you said they would be defending someone with the record of Donald Trump.

Anyway, socialists are gaining an increasing presence in city governments across the country today, so adjusting for local conditions I'm not sure how scared you ought to be of Republican op-eds. Even in Seattle, Amazon won the battle against the head tax in 2018 but in the subsequent election it lost the war and now an even higher tax is being imposed. If you really want a taste of power do the research on your target jurisdiction, the target office, and on what makes an effective political campaign.

Even slight degrees of public attention can change things, especially on the local level, even more especially for purple districts.
My understanding is that socialists continue to lose on national and state levels in primaries or in the general elections when compared to moderates and neoliberals. It's great if progress is made within cities, but those by definition are the easy pickings for a socialist candidate, once in the suburbs and rural areas they seem to fall apart although I can't explain why.

[Montmorency]

Hmm, they do a tremendous job of not promoting that aspect. On the national level it is hard to really shake the assertion that Democrats love to bring attention to Big Bills once they are in power and spend everything they have on these Big Bills.

Really? One of the major left criticisms of the Democratic Party is exactly that it doesn't publicize it's accomplishments.

For example (read a couple pages):
https://books.google.com/books?id=oi...page&q&f=false

Both Obama and Clinton would have done better to spend their political capital on less controversial, efficiency driven improvements rather than harping on universal health care for the past 30 years.

Uh, the ACA? I think you may be talking about something else. You're not referring to how Democrats advertise/message their record in government, but on their framing of tentpole priorities in elections?

So what exactly have Dems done, cause as far as I can tell the Veterans are still struggling to get healthcare, the Post Office is broke, funding for research and development in some fields is not being expanded, and the IRS is still trying to move beyond computers older than me.

Incremental improvements.

There are already plenty of radicalized socialists spending all their time talking theory over the internet, radicalizing other people. They never leave their room though, so there is a missing component beyond being part of a grassroots organization. Anyone can stand in a march with friends for a day. Some can march in the streets for a few weeks. Few actually carry out their lives as political agents, despite the strength of their opinions.

That's why one priority is reestablishing labor militancy, since labor is both a major component of people's lives and a locus of the expression of power in real-time.

I don't think the situation we find ourselves in was part of anyone's Grand Plan. Evangelicals of the 1950s would have balked if you said they would be defending someone with the record of Donald Trump.

Maybe not if they saw the man firsthand, since ultimately Trump really is an expression of everything they admire (ignore what they claim to admire, that's always been a put-on). It's not a conspiracy dude, it's just ideology congealing over time. You really have to understand the deep movements and philosophies influencing the Republican Party and its base over the past century if you want to understand the past decade.

Even slight degrees of public attention can change things, especially on the local level, even more especially for purple districts.
My understanding is that socialists continue to lose on national and state levels in primaries or in the general elections when compared to moderates and neoliberals. It's great if progress is made within cities, but those by definition are the easy pickings for a socialist candidate, once in the suburbs and rural areas they seem to fall apart although I can't explain why.

Well, I'm not sure there have been many socialist candidates trying to run in rural areas. The bench isn't exactly unlimited or evenly spread across the country, so putative electoral support isn't the only limiting factor. Here's a relevant article.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/onli...-rural-america

The most important thing is not to run a shitty campaign (e.g. Eliot Engel), after that your program or ideology is almost an afterthought. On the local level retail politics and institutional cooperation (e,g. endorsements) is key.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Really? One of the major left criticisms of the Democratic Party is exactly that it doesn't publicize it's accomplishments.

For example (read a couple pages):
https://books.google.com/books?id=oi...page&q&f=false

I will take a read, maybe my perception is incorrect.

Uh, the ACA? I think you may be talking about something else. You're not referring to how Democrats advertise/message their record in government, but on their framing of tentpole priorities in elections?

The ACA can be said to be an improvement in the sense that more people are now covered under private health insurance...but as far getting to end goal, this ended up being a terrible waste of effort. Midterm backlash, catering to private insurance companies, lack of public option. Then the inevitable sabotage from SCOTUS (either that or Robert's had to toss the whole thing) which allowed much of the Medicaid expansion to be withheld by GOP Governors. Then the GOP removed the mandate which was one of the key components of the policy, and basically tinkered with the requirements for coverage to the point where I don't know how well of a metric insurance coverage even is anymore.

Yeah I think I am more talking about priorities. It's not so much "let's upgrade department infrastructure and increase R&D to maintain competitive advantages" it's "we need to dismantle entire systems and we promise that the replacement will be better". Whether or not you actually agree the gov can and will do some things better, it feels like Dems are always asking for these priorities and big issues to be accepted on faith that execution will go well.

Incremental improvements.

But improvements could have been much better and less costly to achieve, I think.

That's why one priority is reestablishing labor militancy, since labor is both a major component of people's lives and a locus of the expression of power in real-time.

What does leftist theory say about the acceptance of militarist mentality among manufacturing vs service vs other types of jobs.

Well, I'm not sure there have been many socialist candidates trying to run in rural areas. The bench isn't exactly unlimited or evenly spread across the country, so putative electoral support isn't the only limiting factor. Here's a relevant article.
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/onli...-rural-america

The most important thing is not to run a shitty campaign (e.g. Eliot Engel), after that your program or ideology is almost an afterthought. On the local level retail politics and institutional cooperation (e,g. endorsements) is key.

I think that could be said on any level. Bernie certainly could have used some of the endorsements he threw away. I'm not a campaign manager, but to my eyes it seems it comes down to voter engagement and turnout, at least for a purple/swing district. Finding friends in the establishment is probably the way to go for NYC where a single party is dominant.

[Montmorency]

I will take a read, maybe my perception is incorrect.

The point is that the Obama Dems (and I believe pre-Obama as well) were very reluctant to 'toot their own horn' or emphasize what government was accomplishing for people, believing either that it would be unseemly and counterproductive to do so, or that people would just recognize good government on their own.

The ACA can be said to be an improvement in the sense that more people are now covered under private health insurance

Well, it includes regulatory improvements relating to scope, quality, or reliability of coverage. And of course Medicaid expansion, though I grant that in theory a Medicaid expansion would be an easier 'lift' than the ACA package - but then again just look at the recent history of Republican opposition to Democratic priorities. So does it really make sense to charge Obama with trying to deliver less than the ACA? Since that is what is implied by prioritizing lower-profile and more targeted policies. Obama gained 60 votes for the ACA, but he should have settled for 60 votes for just Medicaid??? Or Bill Clinton, who passed what he did with the votes he had, and it's far from clear that he would have accomplished more or better by being less ambitious.

TBH the only available venue for sub rosa tinkering is the executive or judiciary, and both branches have processes that are protracted and detailed, with many opportunities for public apprehension.

Whatever your theory is, it doesn't seem relevant.

Then the GOP removed the mandate which was one of the key components of the policy,

It turned out the mandate, one of the most legacy-Republican ideas in the ACA, wasn't worth jack, so whatever. The most deleterious development surrounding the mandate is that it has been and still is used by Republicans as a lever to try to get the whole program declared unconstitutional.

and basically tinkered with the requirements for coverage to the point where I don't know how well of a metric insurance coverage even is anymore.

For most people the coverage standards and subsidies still apply, you're thinking of a small minority of plans on the exchanges for "catastrophic" insurance that have been promoted and authorized by the Trump admin.

Yeah I think I am more talking about priorities. It's not so much "let's upgrade department infrastructure and increase R&D to maintain competitive advantages" it's "we need to dismantle entire systems and we promise that the replacement will be better". Whether or not you actually agree the gov can and will do some things better, it feels like Dems are always asking for these priorities and big issues to be accepted on faith that execution will go well.

No one actually cares to hear "let's upgrade department infrastructure and increase R&D to maintain competitive advantages", it's already part of what Biden is saying, and "we need to dismantle entire systems and we promise that the replacement will be better" is not something you ever hear from Dems at the presidential level other than Sanders. Maybe Kucinich or Dean were like that, I don't know anything about their rhetoric. I just don't accept your characterization of the Democratic Party as it is.

But improvements could have been much better and less costly to achieve, I think.

As I was saying, there just isn't evidence for this, that adopting the least-ambitious platforms would generate greater electoral success at any point in recent history.

Here is the Dukakis platform from 1988.
http://www.4president.org/brochures/...88brochure.htm

What does leftist theory say about the acceptance of militarist mentality among manufacturing vs service vs other types of jobs.

I don't know what you mean by "militarist mentality," but what you'll generally hear from the intersectional left today is that the women and POC of the service sector are the "real" modern working class.

The more culturally-conservative anti-anti-Trump horseshoe theory kind of leftists might be more bullish about the white working class (WWC), but they seem moribund to me.

I think that could be said on any level. Bernie certainly could have used some of the endorsements he threw away. I'm not a campaign manager, but to my eyes it seems it comes down to voter engagement and turnout, at least for a purple/swing district. Finding friends in the establishment is probably the way to go for NYC where a single party is dominant.

Uh, sure. But orgs and endorsements on the local level are important not just because they can give you money - which of course you probably also need - but because they can activate the networks of people that they mediate. At the local level people are also especially likely to be checking endorsement lists because they have no idea otherwise who the candidates are; this person is supported by the NRA, this person is supported by a teacher's association, etc.

[Strike For The South]

I mean at this point a Biden win is a foregone conclusion.

What we are looking at now is who he surrounds himself with to pull the levers. Will it be the "Bernie" wing or the "Biden" wing?

[Montmorency]

I mean at this point a Biden win is a foregone conclusion.

What we are looking at now is who he surrounds himself with to pull the levers. Will it be the "Bernie" wing or the "Biden" wing?

Just to quickly jump in, check out the revamped climate action plan produced by the Sanders-Biden unity committee. As Eric Levitz points out, a moderate presidential candidate doesn't tack left during the (effectively) general election, having defeated his leftist challenger, unless he puts stock in the substance of the policy.

[Papewaio]

I thought Brexit II was a foregone loss. It turned into a landslide and reinforced Brexit. Now they have more COVID cases in UK than USA.

Like a herd animal, right wingers keep their identity publicly quiet hence polls around the world being skewed to the left, also right wingers vote as a herd.

Left wing is like a bag of cats, so I expect a lot of hissing and scratching and then a lot of protest votes. Donkey votes match the mascot after all.