So Biden-Haters: why Trump over Biden?

[Silvanus]

Going to echo Sean here in saying that it's difficult to tell if youth turnout was low because it usually is or because there was active voter suppression methods instituted by both parties that disproportionately effect demographics that tend to vote more progressive.

Stop Blaming Young Voters for Not Turning Out for Sanders

Sanders is losing to Biden because America is excluding young voters, persistently and systemically.

www.theatlantic.com

The only real example of youth-focused voter suppression given in that article is the removal from electoral rolls of those who have moved home, and are then registered in two states (which disproportionately affects the young due to the higher incidence of moving home).

It also talks about the lack of easier registration methods (or auto-registration). This suppresses the vote, and automatic registration should be implemented, yes. But surely it only has an outsized impact on younger voters because of the lack of prior engagement. The lack of engagement must come first, here, in order for it to have an impact at all.

Then we come to the lack of dedicated civics lessons and lack of online engagement. Extremely good ideas, though lacking them isn't really voter suppression, and they also seem to actually bolster the argument that Sanders would have had a very tough time building an electoral coalition around the young.

 

[Eacaraxe]

The only real example of youth-focused voter suppression given in that article is the removal from electoral rolls of those who have moved home, and are then registered in two states (which disproportionately affects the young due to the higher incidence of moving home).

This goes back a decade as far as the first wave of voter ID laws, and extends all the way to state legislatures pulling dumbass stunts like allowing (non-photo) AARP and NRA membership cards as valid identification, but not (photo) student ID's. I can't remember if it was Wisconsin, Michigan, or Ohio, but one of the great lakes states had a major kerfluffle in or around 2010 involving discriminatory statutes as to what ID's were acceptable as valid for the purposes of voter ID. Not counting states with provisional ballot nonsense, which essentially means voters may think they voted, but their votes aren't actually counted in almost any circumstance.

Suppressing the vote by shutting or moving polling stations is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Happens practically every election and the Democratic party is more than happy to sit on the sidelines and watch so long as they're beneficiary when it counts. Usually Democrats are smart enough to keep their mouths shut and let it happen, the only difference this year is they were so hellbent for leather on beating Bernie they couldn't resist but open their yaps.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

The only real example of youth-focused voter suppression given in that article is the removal from electoral rolls of those who have moved home, and are then registered in two states (which disproportionately affects the young due to the higher incidence of moving home).

It also talks about the lack of easier registration methods (or auto-registration). This suppresses the vote, and automatic registration should be implemented, yes. But surely it only has an outsized impact on younger voters because of the lack of prior engagement. The lack of engagement must come first, here, in order for it to have an impact at all.

Then we come to the lack of dedicated civics lessons and lack of online engagement. Extremely good ideas, though lacking them isn't really voter suppression, and they also seem to actually bolster the argument that Sanders would have had a very tough time building an electoral coalition around the young.

Voter suppression in 2020? Media doesn't want to hear about it

Black and brown people waited in line for hours to vote on Super Tuesday. That's nothing new, and it has a name

www.salon.com

There's more than a few examples of direct voter suppression, but as Eacaraxe points out there's also a lot of "soft" voter suppression.

 

[Agema]

Or do you have your own bias and like hell are you going to drop it?

I'm not sure what bias that would be. It's not my country to have a choice, and if it were, I'd have voted Sanders over Biden.

See what above? It's not like this is completely a dissection in hindsight, people were saying months in advance that Hillary was not a strong pick vs Trump. People were saying months in advance that her campaign decisions were terrible. People were asking why she didn't set foot in Wisconsin. 2016 isn't a post-mortem, it's an "I told you so".

Right. But nobody would be talking about Hillary's electoral deficiencies if she'd won. And if Sanders had beaten Hillary to the nomination and lost against Trump, we'd be hearing all about Sanders's electoral deficiencies.

But what's the excuse for running Hillary and Biden, two candidates with extensive baggage and who play into every stereotype Trump sets up?

The excuse is that they won the primaries. They were more popular choices. The Democratic Party, from it's big cheeses right down to its membership, is over 50% constituted by people who preferred the Clinton and Biden programs to that of Sanders.

As much as I have a point, that is it: the progressive left represented by Sanders does not currently have the support it needs. I hear what you're all saying, but it sounds to me more like excuses, frustration and bitterness.Railing at people for preferring other visions than yours is not a solution. The US left needs to build more bridges, grow more grassroots support, get more of its people into the party machinery, state and federal positions. And then pray it doesn't turn out like it did in the UK, when the left finally puts a candidate into the finals and he gets his arse handed to him.

 

[Silvanus]

This goes back a decade as far as the first wave of voter ID laws, and extends all the way to state legislatures pulling dumbass stunts like allowing (non-photo) AARP and NRA membership cards as valid identification, but not (photo) student ID's. I can't remember if it was Wisconsin, Michigan, or Ohio, but one of the great lakes states had a major kerfluffle in or around 2010 involving discriminatory statutes as to what ID's were acceptable as valid for the purposes of voter ID. Not counting states with provisional ballot nonsense, which essentially means voters may think they voted, but their votes aren't actually counted in almost any circumstance.

Suppressing the vote by shutting or moving polling stations is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Happens practically every election and the Democratic party is more than happy to sit on the sidelines and watch so long as they're beneficiary when it counts. Usually Democrats are smart enough to keep their mouths shut and let it happen, the only difference this year is they were so hellbent for leather on beating Bernie they couldn't resist but open their yaps.

There's more than a few examples of direct voter suppression, but as Eacaraxe points out there's also a lot of "soft" voter suppression.

Oh, I know it happens. I'm saying that it doesn't fully explain the low turnout among younger voters, a phenomenon which can be seen throughout the Western world. There's a severe attitudinal issue there, which isn't confined to a single country or system, and which bears scrutiny. And as long as there is, it's not wise to over-rely on youth turnout for electoral victory.

I'm not saying Sanders did over-rely, note; I don't believe that he did. But I've seen enough predictions of massive youth turnout or so-called "youthquake" go unfulfilled to know that a number of left-wing supporters do very much over-rely (and overlook the political necessity of building broader electoral coalitions).

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I'm not sure what bias that would be. It's not my country to have a choice, and if it were, I'd have voted Sanders over Biden.

Right...

So long as we move past how you were wrong about Sanders' demographics.

Right. But nobody would be talking about Hillary's electoral deficiencies if she'd won. And if Sanders had beaten Hillary to the nomination and lost against Trump, we'd be hearing all about Sanders's electoral deficiencies.

We would be. But we would be talking about how the discrepancy between votes and polls over issues happened instead of how the discrepancy between votes and polls over a person was wrong. And without the very easy answer of "Hillary didn't do enough to win". Maybe there would have been obvious failings in the hypothetical Sanders general campaign in the runup to the election. But we know there was in Hillary's and we can point out the ones in Biden's right now.

The excuse is that they won the primaries. They were more popular choices. The Democratic Party, from it's big cheeses right down to its membership, is over 50% constituted by people who preferred the Clinton and Biden programs to that of Sanders.

That's real debatable, especially in 2016 when there was well documented chicanery by the party establishment to screw over Sanders.

As much as I have a point, that is it: the progressive left represented by Sanders does not currently have the support it needs. I hear what you're all saying, but it sounds to me more like excuses, frustration and bitterness.Railing at people for preferring other visions than yours is not a solution. The US left needs to build more bridges, grow more grassroots support, get more of its people into the party machinery, state and federal positions. And then pray it doesn't turn out like it did in the UK, when the left finally puts a candidate into the finals and he gets his arse handed to him.

It's fun to bring up UK Labour when they had a huge expose about how their own party sabotaged their leader. If it looks like paranoia, it's only because the paranoia frequently turns out to be true. Progressives have to win against conservatives, but first they need to get around the liberal centrists who sabotage them at every opportunity. The system looks like it's rigged against progressives because it often is. And if it makes progressives look defensive and accusatory, it only does so because of how often they're right about it.

"Progressives should stop complaining about the center sabotaging them."
"The center should stop sabotaging us!"

Oh, I know it happens. I'm saying that it doesn't fully explain the low turnout among younger voters, a phenomenon which can be seen throughout the Western world. There's a severe attitudinal issue there, which isn't confined to a single country or system, and which bears scrutiny. And as long as there is, it's not wise to over-rely on youth turnout for electoral victory.

I'm not saying Sanders did over-rely, note; I don't believe that he did. But I've seen enough predictions of massive youth turnout or so-called "youthquake" go unfulfilled to know that a number of left-wing supporters do very much over-rely (and overlook the political necessity of building broader electoral coalitions).

Indeed and fair enough. But Sanders didn't lose bad to Biden, and that bit of actual voter suppression might have gone a long way to hurting him overall.

 

[Hades]

Simply put, while what you said is technically correct, the phrasing of it is the crux of the issue. The base matter is is that Hillary and Biden have the support of the party insiders, but not the common people. Bernie has the support of common people, but not party insiders.

But it's always constantly framed by the friends of the party insiders that all a candidate needs is the support of insiders, and the common people just need to shut up and vote. While a candidate who doesn't have insider support is obviously an abject failure and just needs to leave the arena.

As a European I like Sanders. In a lot of ways American politics are alien to me. There's a lot of debate on the viability of topics that have already proven themselves in just about every other country. A functioning healthcare system would be the best example of that. As something of a social democrat Sanders is someone who's policies I can relate with.

However stances like this is why I'm a little distrustful of his supporters. Painting politics as a bitter struggle between the common man and a dastardly bunch of elites is something we see a lot of politicians do. Sadly its something that's always done by the wrong type of politicians. Its the core philosophy of populism and its almost always a load of nonsense. Its the tale that the Trumps, the Erdogans, the Le Pen's and the Putins of the world tell their voters to demonize their opposition and distract everyone from their own misdeeds. And its no coincidence that almost every politician who rails about dastardly elites trying to undermine the common man almost always hail from those very same elites and seek to abuse the common man for their own gain, all to often dismantling democracy when coming to power which isn't benefiting the common man at all.

Not only is that argument always used in bad faith but its also more then a little condescending. Who even are the common people? Are they the citizens of the nations or only those that happen to vote for the populists? Isn't a democrat who just thinks Sanders is too left part of the common man? Why wouldn't he be? And if someone is so obviously against the people then are they dangerous? Should we punish them?

Now Sanders is no Trump. He seems genuine enough and unlike Trump he doesn't embody the elites he claims to protect the people from. And I understand that America is a rather curious case with elites genuinely being more separate from the overall population. But this line of thinking can very easily mutate into something extremely nasty. I trust Sanders but will Sanders heir be equally trustworthy? Will Sanders base mutate from benign populism to damaging demagoguery when a less wholesome figure starts speaking to that crowd?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

As a European I like Sanders. In a lot of ways American politics are alien to me. There's a lot of debate on the viability of topics that have already proven themselves in just about every other country. A functioning healthcare system would be the best example of that. As something of a social democrat Sanders is someone who's policies I can relate with.

However stances like this is why I'm a little distrustful of his supporters. Painting politics as a bitter struggle between the common man and a dastardly bunch of elites is something we see a lot of politicians do. Sadly its something that's always done by the wrong type of politicians. Its the core philosophy of populism and its almost always a load of nonsense. Its the tale that the Trumps, the Erdogans, the Le Pen's and the Putins of the world tell their voters to demonize their opposition and distract everyone from their own misdeeds. And its no coincidence that almost every politician who rails about dastardly elites trying to undermine the common man almost always hail from those very same elites and seek to abuse the common man for their own gain, all to often dismantling democracy when coming to power which isn't benefiting the common man at all.

Not only is that argument always used in bad faith but its also more then a little condescending. Who even are the common people? Are they the citizens of the nations or only those that happen to vote for the populists? Isn't a democrat who just thinks Sanders is too left part of the common man? Why wouldn't he be? And if someone is so obviously against the people then are they dangerous? Should we punish them?

Now Sanders is no Trump. He seems genuine enough and unlike Trump he doesn't embody the elites he claims to protect the people from. And I understand that America is a rather curious case with elites genuinely being more separate from the overall population. But this line of thinking can very easily mutate into something extremely nasty. I trust Sanders but will Sanders heir be equally trustworthy? Will Sanders base mutate from benign populism to damaging demagoguery when a less wholesome figure starts speaking to that crowd?

In this case it's because a lot of that "debate" over the viability of certain topics is largely settled. A single payer health system is popular with the majority of people across the spectrum. The green new deal is popular with the majority of people as long as you don't call it that. Where the debate happens is among the politicians. While the overwhelming majority of Democrats and independents, along with a small majority of Republicans like M4A, the Democrat party doesn't. Quite literally, in this and more cases, the politicians do not represent their constituent's views.

 

[Agema]

It's fun to bring up UK Labour when they had a huge expose about how their own party sabotaged their leader.

Oh there surely was sabotage. That's a lot of my disgust at the centre-left for factional infighting. Although it also needs to be seen in the wider context that leftists were also attacking and undermining even loyal centreist Labour MPs and party officials. This was not a one-sided betrayal by centreists, it was a vicious, no-holds-barred struggle on both sides.

Nor does the 2017 sabotage explain 2017-2019 so easily, when the Corbyn team had increased their grip on the party and many of the problematic MPs had departed. In that period, the Labour party went into tailspin and dynamited its own credibility and electability. A lot of that came from the top.

But let's also be clear: leftists who plan to leave the centre-left to potential defeat at the hands of the right are in an uncomfortable place to complain about the centre sabotaging them. It's the same attitude of burning the whole dinner for everyone if you don't get your choice of meal.

So long as we move past how you were wrong about Sanders' demographics.

I don't think it was that wrong. Sanders had diverse support, but the biggest two predictors for a Sanders voter were being young (although that might mean under 45), and very liberal; and as we saw, working class whites turned to Biden.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Oh there surely was sabotage. That's a lot of my disgust at the centre-left for factional infighting. Although it also needs to be seen in the wider context that leftists were also attacking and undermining even loyal centreist Labour MPs and party officials. This was not a one-sided betrayal by centreists, it was a vicious, no-holds-barred struggle on both sides.

Nor does the 2017 sabotage explain 2017-2019 so easily, when the Corbyn team had increased their grip on the party and many of the problematic MPs had departed. In that period, the Labour party went into tailspin and dynamited its own credibility and electability. A lot of that came from the top.

But let's also be clear: leftists who plan to leave the centre-left to potential defeat at the hands of the right are in an uncomfortable place to complain about the centre sabotaging them. It's the same attitude of burning the whole dinner for everyone if you don't get your choice of meal.

Maybe I missed something, but the saboteurs were in Labour through 2019 specifically to cause a tailspin and oust Corbyn, because they preferred conservatives to win over their own party.

The way I see it the big difference between Labour and the Democrats here is at least Labour will let someone like Corbyn up front to kill him instead of smothering him in the crib.

In either case, I see the center as starting this fight every time. And since the center wants to be the right every time, they'll be treated as such.

I don't think it was that wrong. Sanders had diverse support, but the biggest two predictors for a Sanders voter were being young (although that might mean under 45), and very liberal; and as we saw, working class whites turned to Biden.

You were that wrong.

Exit and entrance polls from the 2020 primaries and caucuses

View exit and entrance poll data from the 2020 primaries and caucuses.

www.cnn.com

What Went Down In The Wisconsin Primary

Mail voting was up, turnout was down, and liberals won a key Supreme Court seat.

fivethirtyeight.com

Sanders is still popular among the working class whites, along with a lot of other demographics. Where Biden has support are the old, the rich, and the old blacks. Sanders might not have gotten as much of the working class white vote this time compared to 2016, but they didn't flock to Biden. There was noticeably depressed turnout for one this time compared to 2016. Your supposed Sanders demographic of the rich suburban white were the most represented in Wisconsin, where Biden won this time.

Notably, only one of the two candidates asked people to go out and stand in lines and packed buildings during a pandemic. His demographics were less depressed than the candidate asking for a delay until things were safe or a good workaround was found.

 

[Agema]

Maybe I missed something, but the saboteurs were in Labour through 2019 specifically to cause a tailspin and oust Corbyn, because they preferred conservatives to win over their own party.

Corbyn had an approval rating of about 0 after the 2017 election. By the 2019 election it was -50. Minus fucking fifty. They had plenty of time to fix this, and they didn't. Corbyn just sat in his bunker and let the agenda wash over him. You have no idea how frustrating it was how invisible he was when he needed to be out there doing and saying stuff. That's not saboteurs, that's Corbyn and his team not sorting stuff out. Similarly Brexit, which the leadership never managed to get a convincing and consistent message out on - again, despite years to come up with something.

Secondly, the deadlock in parliament meant that an early general election was a high likelihood for months. It was voted on twice. Labour blocked it at first, and then voted for it. That they voted for it was just incredible, because they weren't even prepared to contest it. Total disorganisation. Local parties didn't have electoral material, or guidance for what to say or do. When it finally arrived, it was the worst sort of campaign by committee - a long and tedious shopping basket of ideas various people had come up with, without focus on the key popular policies they could have sold. Although frankly, Corbyn's dismal ratings sank the party more than anything else.

2019 wasn't sabotage, it was incompetence. A bunch of amateur dreamers.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Corbyn had an approval rating of about 0 after the 2017 election. By the 2019 election it was -50. Minus fucking fifty. They had plenty of time to fix this, and they didn't. Corbyn just sat in his bunker and let the agenda wash over him. You have no idea how frustrating it was how invisible he was when he needed to be out there doing and saying stuff. That's not saboteurs, that's Corbyn and his team not sorting stuff out. Similarly Brexit, which the leadership never managed to get a convincing and consistent message out on - again, despite years to come up with something.

Secondly, the deadlock in parliament meant that an early general election was a high likelihood for months. It was voted on twice. Labour blocked it at first, and then voted for it. That they voted for it was just incredible, because they weren't even prepared to contest it. Total disorganisation. Local parties didn't have electoral material, or guidance for what to say or do. When it finally arrived, it was the worst sort of campaign by committee - a long and tedious shopping basket of ideas various people had come up with, without focus on the key popular policies they could have sold. Although frankly, Corbyn's dismal ratings sank the party more than anything else.

2019 wasn't sabotage, it was incompetence. A bunch of amateur dreamers.

I won't push further since I didn't pay enough attention to what was happening in the UK to properly debate anything and because that's not what this thread is about, we'd have to exhume the Labour thread about the report that came out this year.