Bernie/Biden task force presents suggestions

[Eacaraxe]

I'm not being ambiguous. I'm well aware that the Democratic Party is self-sabotaging and irrational. I'm not sure why you're hammering on that point as if I'm denying it.

I think you're in denial as to the full extent of it, superficial reasons for it, ulterior motives behind it, and the implications of it for the party moving forward.

The shifting of the Democratic Party to the economic right is not a new phenomenon: it's been shifting, sometimes gradually and sometimes less so (and with occasional minor backsliding) for about half a century. And that covers a great number of elections.

As I said, this started with Reagan and reached a fever pitch with Clinton. The post-Clinton party dynamic was never sustainable to begin with, being focused on wedge issues and negative partisanship. 2016 was the year the chickens came home to roost, and rather than acknowledge past mistakes and those who made them to reform the party, the very same people who are the source of the Democratic party's woes took it upon themselves to declare war on their own left flank rather than try to come to accord.

I don't need to talk about "critical points" that "will" happen. For Republicans it happened ten years ago; for Democrats, four. Republican self-immolation and rejuvenation, and Democratic complacency, led to the biggest electoral gains since Eisenhower: a thousand legislative seats across state and federal government, 13 governorships to become the majority party on the state level in a redistricting year, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. That's not hypothetical, that's history.

And there's no "old hat reasoning" at play: nothing I've said relies on these old assumptions and conventional demographic wisdom. What I've been saying is that the self-described "moderates" do not automatically vote Democrat as you seem to believe, and that progressives do not form a viable electoral coalition on their own.

And again, you need to look at post-2016 demographic research. Let me give you a starting point.

The Moderate Middle Is A Myth

Graphics by Ella Koeze Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Independent voters will decide the election. Or better yet: Moderate voters will decide the elec…

fivethirtyeight.com

An Unsettling New Theory: There Is No Swing Voter

Rachel Bitecofer’s radical new theory predicted the midterms spot-on. So who’s going to win 2020?

www.politico.com

Hell, look at pre-2016 demography.

No one’s less moderate than moderates

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

 

[Silvanus]

As I said, this started with Reagan and reached a fever pitch with Clinton. The post-Clinton party dynamic was never sustainable to begin with, being focused on wedge issues and negative partisanship. 2016 was the year the chickens came home to roost, and rather than acknowledge past mistakes and those who made them to reform the party, the very same people who are the source of the Democratic party's woes took it upon themselves to declare war on their own left flank rather than try to come to accord.

I don't need to talk about "critical points" that "will" happen. For Republicans it happened ten years ago; for Democrats, four. Republican self-immolation and rejuvenation, and Democratic complacency, led to the biggest electoral gains since Eisenhower: a thousand legislative seats across state and federal government, 13 governorships to become the majority party on the state level in a redistricting year, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. That's not hypothetical, that's history.

Whether you're imagining the critical point to be 2016 or 2020, it's just as reductionist to ascribe it to a single electoral cycle. These things don't suddenly switch: they shift over decades. There is no "critical point".

So, with one of the most major demographic shifts in the last half-century: the loosening of working-class identification with the Democratic Party. This had been happening for 3 decades, and 2016 didn't represent a particular escalation of that trend: it just merely illustrated a trend already heading in that direction.

Even with this demographic shift, about 32 - 40% of the American working class still favours the Democrats. Far less than they could once have relied on... but still an absolutely necessary portion of the voteshare they will need for any winning outcome. There's also huge overlap here with your "low-info self-identified moderate", and yet 2016 makes painfully clear that the Democrats cannot take their vote for granted.

And again, you need to look at post-2016 demographic research. Let me give you a starting point.

The Moderate Middle Is A Myth

Graphics by Ella Koeze Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Independent voters will decide the election. Or better yet: Moderate voters will decide the elec…

fivethirtyeight.com

I mean, that article kind of sums up one of my main arguments: "None of these groups are reliably centrist", "ideologically diverse", "unbearable incoherence". Not reliable Democratic voters; can't be taken for granted.

Hell, look at pre-2016 demography.

No one’s less moderate than moderates

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

Looking beyond a single electoral cycle is precisely what I'm encouraging.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Whether you're imagining the critical point to be 2016 or 2020, it's just as reductionist to ascribe it to a single electoral cycle. These things don't suddenly switch: they shift over decades. There is no "critical point".

And when does that translate to electoral outcome, and how do we identify that when it does? You're arguing in essence this can only be quantified in terms of electoral outcomes and thus is something only now of electoral import, I'm arguing the electoral outcomes of the past two cycles are evidence for irreconcilability.

I mean, that article kind of sums up one of my main arguments: "None of these groups are reliably centrist", "ideologically diverse", "unbearable incoherence". Not reliable Democratic voters; can't be taken for granted.

Except for the part where self-identified "moderates" overwhelmingly favored egalitarian opposed to market-oriented policy, especially when set against position on immigration. In other words, "democrats" -- something not lost on the authors,

But unlike independents, moderates are more likely to be Democrats. The average moderate in the Voter Study Group data is solidly center-left on both economic and immigration issues. This, I think, has mostly to do with linguistic history: Republicans have long embraced the “conservative” label, but for decades Democrats ran away from the “liberal” label, leaving “moderate” as the only self-identification refuge for many Democrats. (Only recently has “liberal” again become a fashionable identification for the left.)

Consider the typical ideology survey question, which gives respondents three options: liberal, moderate or conservative. A voter who identifies as neither liberal nor conservative has only one other option: moderate. And moderate sounds like a good thing. Isn’t moderation a virtue?

Moderate is to Democrat, as libertarian is to Republican. That's what's going on. Or, as put in the Vox article, "when we say moderate what we really mean is what corporations want". Because identifying as "moderate" is rhetorically powerful, but electorally meaningless given self-identified moderate voters' behavior, which is precisely why and how the Democratic party has slid hard right on economic policy for forty years while delicately preserving its facade of progressiveness on identitarian issues.

 

[Silvanus]

And when does that translate to electoral outcome, and how do we identify that when it does? You're arguing in essence this can only be quantified in terms of electoral outcomes and thus is something only now of electoral import, I'm arguing the electoral outcomes of the past two cycles are evidence for irreconcilability.

It translates to electoral outcomes from the moment it begins, but they're not always significant or noticeable. They'll tend to only be diagnosed when the Party fails to account for them, and they have an outsized impact, such as happened in 2016.

If we look at it by income levels: for those earning under 50k, 52% voted for Clinton in 2016, and 41% for Trump. That's much less than the Democrats could have relied on in most other elections over the past 30 years; it represents a collapse in a "traditional" Democratic voter-base. That demographic shift has been the focus of a lot of analysis.

...But in 2012, 54% went for Obama (44% for Romney). The difference is about 2% between 2012 to 2016. 2% doesn't represent a major leap in that demographic shift: it just became far more noticeable in 2016 because it had an outsized impact on the 2016 election, and not on the 2012 one. But the rot was clearly there before.

Except for the part where self-identified "moderates" overwhelmingly favored egalitarian opposed to market-oriented policy, especially when set against position on immigration. In other words, "democrats" -- something not lost on the authors [...]

"More likely", yeah. There's a graphic just above that showing how it's hardly a uniform outcome.

We're also lacking the details on the questions used to gauge how "market-oriented" someone is, or how "egalitarian". There's evidence that more of those without a college degree-- those "low info" voters you mentioned earlier-- are more likely to desert the Democrats under Sanders than they are under a candidate like Biden or Buttigieg.

Again: my favoured candidate was Sanders, and I believe he could have made up those numbers elsewhere. But this is squarely in the realm of coalition-building, not considering the entire "moderate" field as a foregone conclusion.

 

[Gergar12]

Here's the thing about Biden. he lost his son, yet he's blind to the fact that other people who for example may skim on healthcare could lose their son, daughter,r mother, father, etc. At the very least they could be bankrupted, from their healthcare costs, he just doesn't care. Access to healthcare... I have access to buying 100 Xbox One X(s), which doesn't mean I can afford it. It's political deflection and cowardice.

 

[Silvanus]

Here's the thing about Biden. he lost his son, yet he's blind to the fact that other people who for example may skim on healthcare could lose their son, daughter,r mother, father, etc. At the very least they could be bankrupted, from their healthcare costs, he just doesn't care. Access to healthcare... I have access to buying 100 Xbox One X(s), which doesn't mean I can afford it. It's political deflection and cowardice.

Do I take from this that you believe he has no intention on delivering on what's in the manifesto?

Because capped premiums & premium-free insurance would directly address those problems. Not ideally, but far more than has been done thus far.

 

[Eacaraxe]

It translates to electoral outcomes from the moment it begins, but they're not always significant or noticeable. They'll tend to only be diagnosed when the Party fails to account for them, and they have an outsized impact, such as happened in 2016.

That's my point. By the time it's taken seriously, hell noticed in some cases, cleavages are decided and it's too late for course-correction. Demographers, pollsters, and political strategists are a notoriously conservative and risk-averse, hell reactionary, lot, to the point of myopia extreme enough they're apt to inadvertently take greater risks adhering to status quo rather than question their own reasoning.

We're both saying the same thing at this point, but drawing different conclusions from it. You're saying the barn doors are open, the horses are getting ideas, and Democrats need to shut the doors; I'm saying the horses are long fucking gone, and Democrats are burning the barn down.

If we look at it by income levels: for those earning under 50k, 52% voted for Clinton in 2016, and 41% for Trump. That's much less than the Democrats could have relied on in most other elections over the past 30 years; it represents a collapse in a "traditional" Democratic voter-base. That demographic shift has been the focus of a lot of analysis.

Lot of analysis, fuck-all to do anything about it for what minimal corrective outcome it might have had. Democrats' legitimacy crisis was four years ago, and immediate and decisive course-correction had to happen then; what happened instead was doubling down, circling wagons, and tilting at windmills for four years whilst writing Trump blank checks especially after "the blue wave".

We're also lacking the details on the questions used to gauge how "market-oriented" someone is, or how "egalitarian". There's evidence that more of those without a college degree-- those "low info" voters you mentioned earlier...

Those aren't the low-info's I'm talking about.

Poll: Cable news viewers more likely to believe political falsehoods than print, public radio consumers

It should surprise no one that where we gets our news plays a significant part in determining what we believe to be true. But lying isn’t partisan. Democrat or Conservative, both parties lie with astonishing frequency. According to a recent

thenextweb.com

Survey: NPR's listeners best-informed, Fox viewers worst-informed - Poynter

From person-to-person coaching and intensive hands-on seminars to interactive online courses and media reporting, Poynter helps journalists sharpen skills and elevate storytelling throughout their careers.

www.poynter.org

Partisanship and Cable News Audiences

In recent years, Republican viewers have migrated increasingly to Fox News but Democrats comprise a larger share of the Fox News audience than Republicans do of CNN's audience.

www.pewresearch.org

I'm talking about cable news brain worms, and if you think CNN and MSNBC aren't "foxing" Democrats, I have some fantastic beachfront property in Montana to sell you.

..are more likely to desert the Democrats under Sanders than they are under a candidate like Biden or Buttigieg.

That article encapsulates perfectly the phenomenon I'm calling out: identifying "swing voters", but burying the lede swing voters barely exist and what are actually being measured are mobilization and turnout. Meanwhile, discussing potential outcomes in terms of vote share without making the distinction clear.

 

[SupahEwok]

I'm not sure if it's been brought up, but I've heard that Biden has adopted most of the Green New Deal portion of the proposal into his platform. At this point, that just helps me feel a little better, I'm already resigned to voting for him so Trump can quit smashing apart the Constitution. I don't know how much of that he really means to get accomplished. Suppose we'll just have to see.

 

[Agema]

I'm not sure if it's been brought up, but I've heard that Biden has adopted most of the Green New Deal portion of the proposal into his platform. At this point, that just helps me feel a little better, I'm already resigned to voting for him so Trump can quit smashing apart the Constitution. I don't know how much of that he really means to get accomplished. Suppose we'll just have to see.

I'm sure lots of it can conveniently disappear somewhere in Congress. Just be a bit half-hearted getting it done, think about it for a really long time, let the Republicans block it, etc.

 

[Worgen]

I'm sure lots of it can conveniently disappear somewhere in Congress. Just be a bit half-hearted getting it done, think about it for a really long time, let the Republicans block it, etc.

Dude, don't you start with the 'both sides' bullshit, I know you are better then that.

 

[SupahEwok]

Dude, don't you start with the 'both sides' bullshit, I know you are better then that.

Ideological purity testing confirmed, huh. Why don't you ask him for his party card while you're at it?

 

[dreng3]

Apparently the task force all included current members of congress so it seems like Biden might have a great opportunity to get a running start on the issues if he wins.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Dude, don't you start with the 'both sides' bullshit, I know you are better then that.

This is not an argument.

 

[Worgen]

This is not an argument.

You just prove my point, while more democrats did vote against it then for it, there was still a split. It's ok, I already know you are lost.

 

[Avnger]

This is not an argument.

Now tell us about how they're the same on LGBT rights, health insurance, and voting rights, or maybe minimum wage, unemployment, and police oversight, or how about covid policy, net neutrality, and immigration.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Now tell us about how they're the same on LGBT rights, health insurance, and voting rights, or maybe minimum wage, unemployment, and police oversight, or how about covid policy, net neutrality, and immigration.

Stood by DADT/DOMA for decades before having their heads caved in on opinion polling and referenda, baby stepped to the left.

Not even willing to pretend to fight for universal health care in the middle of a global pandemic.

More than happy to watch Republicans gut voting rights in primaries then tell people to vote in person during a global pandemic, won't do shit to shore up voting rights even in Democratic-held state legislatures.

"Fight for $15" has gone on for so long $15/hour isn't even a living wage in most states, and Democrats have only just now started to begrudgingly accept the proposal.

Doubling down on free trade and work visa programs. Not even a hint at a clear, coherent jobs program.

Want to increase funding for COPS programs despite them being proven failures and unaccountable slush funds for police militarization.

COVID? What about it?

Spoiler

Downplayed and played for politics just as Republicans did, wanted to means test "too little too late", let the biggest wealth transfer in American history sail through the House, fucked over the elderly in NYS, then fucked off to recess.

Too little, too late on net neutrality, especially with the eight years of telecoms and media mergers through the Obama admin.

Deporter-in-Chief. Built those kid cages to begin with.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Stood by DADT/DOMA for decades before having their heads caved in on opinion polling and referenda, baby stepped to the left.

Not even willing to pretend to fight for universal health care in the middle of a global pandemic.

More than happy to watch Republicans gut voting rights in primaries then tell people to vote in person during a global pandemic, won't do shit to shore up voting rights even in Democratic-held state legislatures.

"Fight for $15" has gone on for so long $15/hour isn't even a living wage in most states, and Democrats have only just now started to begrudgingly accept the proposal.

Doubling down on free trade and work visa programs. Not even a hint at a clear, coherent jobs program.

Want to increase funding for COPS programs despite them being proven failures and unaccountable slush funds for police militarization.

COVID? What about it?

Spoiler

Downplayed and played for politics just as Republicans did, wanted to means test "too little too late", let the biggest wealth transfer in American history sail through the House, fucked over the elderly in NYS, then fucked off to recess.

Too little, too late on net neutrality, especially with the eight years of telecoms and media mergers through the Obama admin.

Deporter-in-Chief. Built those kid cages to begin with.

Would this meme seem appropriate for your feelings on the previous and coming election?

 

[Avnger]

Stood by DADT/DOMA for decades before having their heads caved in on opinion polling and referenda, baby stepped to the left.

So they are different then.

Not even willing to pretend to fight for universal health care in the middle of a global pandemic.

If you're not going to address the question, why pretend to answer? Pretending health care plans are either "everything I wish for" or " literally nothing" is blatant nonsense.

More than happy to watch Republicans gut voting rights in primaries then tell people to vote in person during a global pandemic, won't do shit to shore up voting rights even in Democratic-held state legislatures.

So, again, they are different.

"Fight for $15" has gone on for so long $15/hour isn't even a living wage in most states, and Democrats have only just now started to begrudgingly accept the proposal.

Again, they are different then.

Doubling down on free trade and work visa programs. Not even a hint at a clear, coherent jobs program.

Which is different than the Republican position.

I don't care much whether you like them or not, but this and this are jobs plans.

Want to increase funding for COPS programs despite them being proven failures and unaccountable slush funds for police militarization.

No comment on police oversight then and the times Democrat led DoJ called for reforms of local PDs only to have the Trump admin stop/scale them back, I see.

COVID? What about it?

Spoiler

So addressing these tweets one at at time...

1. Trump's ban did nothing to stop the virus and was limited in scope. Unless you somehow believe only non-US nationals can act as virus carriers, it seems odd to use this as evidence particularly when 40,000 people still entered the US from China after the ban was implemented.

2. How the everliving hell was a travel ban of AFRICAN countries supposed to stop COVID in JANUARY?!!?!?!

I love the lack of mentioning issues with PPE, the downplaying of the virus by Trump and Co from March on, and the "deaths from early re-opening are necessary sacrifices for the economy" which Republicans trumpeted. Some might calls those differences...

Downplayed and played for politics just as Republicans did, wanted to means test "too little too late", let the biggest wealth transfer in American history sail through the House, fucked over the elderly in NYS, then fucked off to recess.

So no mention of the several further support bills passed through the House only to languish in the Senate? Again, ignoring events doesn't mean they didn't happen.

Too little, too late on net neutrality, especially with the eight years of telecoms and media mergers through the Obama admin.

So, (fourth time?) again, there are differences.

Deporter-in-Chief. Built those kid cages to begin with.

Did Obama try to end DACA like Trump and Co did? Did Obama scare up xenophobic sentiments and deploy soldiers to the border to protect against non-existent "invasion" caravans? Did Obama call for literally shooting migrants trying to cross the border? Did Obama institute a "Muslim ban?" Some rather major differences to me. Obama also allowed monitored release prior to hearings, didn't institute a policy of jailing entire families with cruelty literally being the purpose, and didn't "lose" thousands of children who crossed the border like the current administration.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, your post is either the epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect or purposeful lies and misrepresentations of reality. I'm honestly not sure which would be worse.

It's really not that hard to admit "Yes, there are differences between the two parties." You're still allowed to disagree with them; just stop the bullshit that they're the same.

edit: Fixed China travel ban facts. I had been going off memory.

 

[Agema]

Dude, don't you start with the 'both sides' bullshit, I know you are better then that.

I think anything that looks "Green New Deal", Republicans will attempt to kill stone dead with 100% opposition. The Democrats can wheedle, bargain, offer compromises and a million other things, and they will get not a speck out of the Republicans. They will thus need to hold the House and Senate, and for anything more than the mildest milquetoast will also want to be filibuster-proof in the latter.

Now, with enough vigour and ruthlessness if they hold both houses, they possibly could push it past Republican opposition. My comment is more along the lines that they won't, because enough Democrats are skeptical (pro-business, etc.) that they'll force any bill to be watered down to minimal, or will even join the Republicans to vote against. The will does not currently exist either in Biden or the legislative Democrats to do anything adventurous and push that stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I think simply getting it on the agenda is some progress. But I think it's relatively easy to promise when the chances are it will never go anywhere. At worst, that's even the expectation.

 

[dreng3]

I think anything that looks "Green New Deal", Republicans will attempt to kill stone dead with 100% opposition. The Democrats can wheedle, bargain, offer compromises and a million other things, and they will get not a speck out of the Republicans. They will thus need to hold the House and Senate, and for anything more than the mildest milquetoast will also want to be filibuster-proof in the latter.

Now, with enough vigour and ruthlessness if they hold both houses, they possibly could push it past Republican opposition. My comment is more along the lines that they won't, because enough Democrats are skeptical (pro-business, etc.) that they'll force any bill to be watered down to minimal, or will even join the Republicans to vote against. The will does not currently exist either in Biden or the legislative Democrats to do anything adventurous and push that stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I think simply getting it on the agenda is some progress. But I think it's relatively easy to promise when the chances are it will never go anywhere. At worst, that's even the expectation.

At least Biden has ceased his complete opposition to killing the filibuster. So if the democrats manage a majority in senate and congress and the republicans play obstructionist the dems might just kill it.