So Biden-Haters: why Trump over Biden?

[Phoenixmgs]

Consider that if you need to give yourself an excuse not to give a shit about the outcome of your vote, that doesn't inspire confidence in your argument. You play the objective. What does that mean in this context? I ask that without irony. What does that actually mean in terms of the 2020 presidential election?

I would love to believe that voting third party is a silver bullet to our electoral problems. But it isn't. We face a complicated problem and no amount of, "third way," fluff is going to change that. Like I said, if you want real change, a good place to start is in the down-ticket elections on the state and local level. That's where ideas become mainstreamed into party platforms, where the new generations of lawmakers and administrators cut their teeth. If all you focus on is trying to get a 3rd party win in Congress and the White House, you're going to be missing that target for a long time.

I'm not saying to only do it on the federal level, I feel that needs to happen on every level, but we are talking about the presidential election here. Vote people in (from the 2 parties) that you either think are above being influenced by money or vote people in that you know aren't influenced by money yet. Even if say Bernie Sanders is the democratic candidate for president and wins, he's not going to be able to actually change much because it wouldn't get through congress much like Trump's wall ain't being built.

 

[Buyetyen]

I'm not saying to only do it on the federal level, I feel that needs to happen on every level, but we are talking about the presidential election here. Vote people in (from the 2 parties) that you either think are above being influenced by money or vote people in that you know aren't influenced by money yet. Even if say Bernie Sanders is the democratic candidate for president and wins, he's not going to be able to actually change much because it wouldn't get through congress much like Trump's wall ain't being built.

No one said this was going to be easy.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Consider that if you need to give yourself an excuse not to give a shit about the outcome of your vote, that doesn't inspire confidence in your argument. You play the objective. What does that mean in this context? I ask that without irony. What does that actually mean in terms of the 2020 presidential election?

If Donald Trump wins, the American people lose.
If Joe Biden wins, the American people lose.
If one of the parties dies, the American people are closer to winning.

 

[Buyetyen]

If Donald Trump wins, the American people lose.
If Joe Biden wins, the American people lose.
If one of the parties dies, the American people are closer to winning.

And a protest vote will accomplish... which of these and how?

 

[tstorm823]

It's not going to happen, he was have to be as stupid as someone like crimson says he is to drop out at this point. But it is possible Warren might be his VP, he has dedicated himself to having a female VP. Although, as much as I like Warren, I would prefer the ticket be balanced with someone younger also, who has less of a chance of just dropping dead.

I mean, if he announces Warren as a running mate and then becomes unable or unwilling to continue running, she sneaks in front and can pick someone younger. Or if Republicans take back the house, 3rd in line is presumably Kevin McCarthy, he's only 55.

 

[Worgen]

I mean, if he announces Warren as a running mate and then becomes unable or unwilling to continue running, she sneaks in front and can pick someone younger. Or if Republicans take back the house, 3rd in line is presumably Kevin McCarthy, he's only 55.

I don't think it works like that. She only would become president if he was elected, if he ends up getting sick and having to leave the running before the election then... I'm not sure what happens, probably an emergency primary or it goes to the candidate with the most electoral votes, IE Bernie. Its really unlikely that republicans would take back the house, I think they have more seats up for re-election and I'm not sure how happy people are with them right now so in all likely hood, Pelosi is still 3rd in line no matter what happens.

 

[Dalisclock]

Its really unlikely that republicans would take back the house, I think they have more seats up for re-election and I'm not sure how happy people are with them right now so in all likely hood, Pelosi is still 3rd in line no matter what happens.

IIRC, the entire house is up for reelection(but the GOP chances aren't particularly good, especially considering the shelacking they took in 2018, particularly in the suburbs). The Senate is a very unfavorable map for the GOP right now(as opposed to 2 years ago, where it was an unfavorable map for the Dems) due to having to defend quite a few seats(23 GOP to 12 Dem, per ballotpedia) but having very few pickup opportunities.

There's also the fact 3 GOP Senators vs. 1 Dem and 27 GOP house members vs 9 Dems have announced they are not running for reelection, which takes away a number of incumbency advantages in upcoming elections.

It amounts to a steep uphill climb for the GOP to retake the house and a bitter fight for the Senate.

 

[tstorm823]

I don't think it works like that. She only would become president if he was elected, if he ends up getting sick and having to leave the running before the election then... I'm not sure what happens, probably an emergency primary or it goes to the candidate with the most electoral votes, IE Bernie. Its really unlikely that republicans would take back the house, I think they have more seats up for re-election and I'm not sure how happy people are with them right now so in all likely hood, Pelosi is still 3rd in line no matter what happens.

I'm pretty sure it would go back to convention, and the Democratic convention can do basically whatever they want from there. Broker away!

Not even covid-19 is going to get Republicans to shrug off impeachment and move on to something else. Republicans are coming into the election fired up as hell, and that has down ballot effects.

 

[Worgen]

IIRC, the entire house is up for reelection(but the GOP chances aren't particularly good, especially considering the shelacking they took in 2018, particularly in the suburbs). The Senate is a very unfavorable map for the GOP right now(as opposed to 2 years ago, where it was an unfavorable map for the Dems) due to having to defend quite a few seats(23 GOP to 12 Dem, per ballotpedia) but having very few pickup opportunities.

There's also the fact 3 GOP Senators vs. 1 Dem and 27 GOP house members vs 9 Dems have announced they are not running for reelection, which takes away a number of incumbency advantages in upcoming elections.

It amounts to a steep uphill climb for the GOP to retake the house and a bitter fight for the Senate.

Ahh, my bad, I must have been thinking Senate. But yeah, things aren't looking the best for the GOP, which is good.

 

[meiam]

Current plan is the Green party, which is looking like Howie Hawkins. And because his policies actually align with mine to at least some extent. Single-payer healthcare, really trying to mitigate climate change, campaign and electoral reform, tax reform, etc.

Things Biden is adamantly against.

I mean, if all the green had voted Hillary last election, Trump would not have become president and he wouldn't have been able to gut the EPA. What did their vote accomplish? How is anything better because they voted Green?

Traditionally, president almost always get elected on their second terms. So if Trump gets re elected, the democrats certainly wouldn't take it as a sign that they need to change radically, it would just be business as usual (especially since none of the more leftish candidate had better hope then Biden at flipping purple state). If anything they'd start taking a lot more page out of Trump book since, hey, apparently being a raging asshole works. Conversely if Trump lose, that'll seriously shake up the republican and might actually force them to seriously change, especially since demographic is really not favourable to them.

Like it or not, a president should strive to represent everyone in the country, plenty of people obviously do not want the country to take a massive leftward turn, it would be far more unresonable for the dem to promote a candidate whose policy only please a small number of peoples. People might not realize it, but Biden policy are pretty left wing compared to traditional policy of both the country and the democrats, it's obvious which direction the path is going. But that's only if he get elected, if in the end the more strident left wing voter either don't vote or vote 3rd party, the dem could very reasonably decide to just ignore the left and take a rightward turn.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I mean, if all the green had voted Hillary last election, Trump would not have become president and he wouldn't have been able to gut the EPA.

Instead nothing would be done as has been the case for decades and the climate would still be spiraling into the bin. A step in the right direction has to be a step in the right direction. Not a smaller step in the wrong direction.

The rest of your post can be summed up with "progressive policies are some of the most popular policies in the country when you ask people about policies and not people". M4A is popular among Republican voters, let alone Democrat voters. A mainstream Democrat candidate shooting it down just comes across as grossly out of touch.

Public Opinion on Single-Payer, National Health Plans, and Expanding Access to Medicare Coverage | KFF

For many years, Kaiser Family Foundation has been tracking public opinion on the idea of a national health plan (including language referring to Medicare-for-all since 2017). Historically, our polls have shown support for the federal government doing more to help provide health insurance for...

www.kff.org

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1907190926.pdf#page=3

The only ones standing between you and good healthcare, a clean environment, tax reform, and so on, are the two major political parties. Let them die.

The Democratic Party's deceitful game

They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass

www.salon.com

The Democrat establishment are the biggest spoiler to progressive policies in the country.

 

[Kwak]

...
the protest vote is entirely out of vanity.

Would that make all personal morals and stands of principles just vanity?

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I don't want to vote for either of them.

I've got a fraction of a percentage of a modicum (even less, given my county/state's hard leaning) of weight in all of this...so, if I'm even participating at all, why would I ever throw in that ridiculously meager amount of support behind a person I don't like, respect, or particularly want in power? I didn't do it in 2016 and I have no intention of doing so in 2020.

I have no interest in rewarding the Democrats for the last few years of incompetence. For people who fervently believe they're opposing the modern incarnation of Hitler, they can't seem to stop shitting the bed long enough to mount a proper counter-offensive, let alone put forth a worthwhile candidate. And, no, I don't think Bernie was the answer either.

So why choose between the two? Because somebody else wants me to? Because they'll whine, gnash their teeth, and cast aspersions on my character while claiming moral superiority if I don't?

Nah.

1. Stuff that "lesser of two evils" nonsense.
2. Sit.
3. Spin.

So hey, I'll do a write-in or something.
Maybe Tulsi.
Has about the same relevance and level of import.

 

[Buyetyen]

Would that make all personal morals and stands of principles just vanity?

There's a more profound question there than you might have first thought. I take your point, though I would add that this is true for a lot of people. A lot of people don't actually know what it is they believe. Not trying to call anyone out with that, just saying we've all met people who don't know what they mean but they know that they mean it.

 

[Kwak]

There's a more profound question there than you might have first thought. I take your point, though I would add that this is true for a lot of people. A lot of people don't actually know what it is they believe. Not trying to call anyone out with that, just saying we've all met people who don't know what they mean but they know that they mean it.

I'll have you know all my profundity is intended.
Profound means vague and poorly defined right?

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Would that make all personal morals and stands of principles just vanity?

I'd say no. In this case vanity is mostly just refusing to choose a relevant option. Personal morals and stands can sometimes have an effect that isn't just washing one's hands of a situation to little effect.

 

[tippy2k2]

There are a LOT of things that I want but right now, there is one priority with a bullet for what I want if Biden wants my vote

Medicare for All

I'd feel dirty but I would vote for Biden if he gave that one concession. Lots of other concessions I want as well but as someone going through the medical meat grinder right now, this is non-negotiable for me. Our Health Care system is so absolutely fucked right now and someone wanting to do some half-assed patch work job like making Medicare eligibility to 55 or 65 or whatever age he tossed out there is not nearly good enough and I'm sick of being told every election that THIS one is too important to let "Insert Republican Opponent Here" win but NEXT time we'll totally work on the issues that you want to work on!

If Biden is going to insist that he would veto M4A if it came across his desk, then I will still go out and vote Progressives down the ballot but I'll throw my vote to a third for presidency if he won't even consider M4A or some kind of complete health care overhaul

 

[Worgen]

I'd feel dirty but I would vote for Biden if he gave that one concession. Lots of other concessions I want as well but as someone going through the medical meat grinder right now, this is non-negotiable for me. Our Health Care system is so absolutely fucked right now and someone wanting to do some half-assed patch work job like making Medicare eligibility to 55 or 65 or whatever age he tossed out there is not nearly good enough and I'm sick of being told every election that THIS one is too important to let "Insert Republican Opponent Here" win but NEXT time we'll totally work on the issues that you want to work on!

Well, according to his site he already is in favor of medicare for all.

Plan to Protect and Build on Obamacare | Joe Biden

Joe Biden will protect and build on Obamacare by giving Americans more choice, reducing health care costs, and making the system less complex to navigate.

joebiden.com

"Giving Americans a new choice, a public health insurance option like Medicare. If your insurance company isn’t doing right by you, you should have another, better choice. Whether you’re covered through your employer, buying your insurance on your own, or going without coverage altogether, the Biden Plan will give you the choice to purchase a public health insurance option like Medicare. As in Medicare, the Biden public option will reduce costs for patients by negotiating lower prices from hospitals and other health care providers. It also will better coordinate among all of a patient’s doctors to improve the efficacy and quality of their care, and cover primary care without any co-payments. And it will bring relief to small businesses struggling to afford coverage for their employees."

 

[tippy2k2]

Well, according to his site he already is in favor of medicare for all.

Plan to Protect and Build on Obamacare | Joe Biden

Joe Biden will protect and build on Obamacare by giving Americans more choice, reducing health care costs, and making the system less complex to navigate.

joebiden.com

"Giving Americans a new choice, a public health insurance option like Medicare. If your insurance company isn’t doing right by you, you should have another, better choice. Whether you’re covered through your employer, buying your insurance on your own, or going without coverage altogether, the Biden Plan will give you the choice to purchase a public health insurance option like Medicare. As in Medicare, the Biden public option will reduce costs for patients by negotiating lower prices from hospitals and other health care providers. It also will better coordinate among all of a patient’s doctors to improve the efficacy and quality of their care, and cover primary care without any co-payments. And it will bring relief to small businesses struggling to afford coverage for their employees."

Alright, let me be more specific since I guess M4A has a bunch of different meanings depending on who is offering it.

I want what Sanders defined as M4A

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/medicare-for-all-2019-summary?id=FA52728F-B57E-4E0D-96C2-F0C5D346A6E1&download=1&inline=file

The important part:
"The Medicare for All Act will provide comprehensive health care to every man, woman and child in our country -- without out-of-pocket expenses. No more insurance premiums, deductibles or co-payments. Further, this bill improves Medicare coverage to include dental, hearing and vision care. In other words, this plan would do exactly what should be done in a civilized and democratic society. It would allow all Americans, regardless of their income, to get the health care they need when they need it"

People should not have pay for what should be basic rights to healthcare

 

[Silvanus]

As I described in the other thread, whenever posts seek to draw an equivalence between them, it's always in broad, sweeping, vague language, or on the broadest areas of policy. Neither candidate will address the deep-seated economic equalities in American life in a meaningful way; neither will address the grotesquely outsized influence of money in politics; and for this reason, "whoever wins we lose".

It's true that neither of the candidates will significantly address those areas of policy. But the conclusion being drawn from that is absolute bollocks. There are a thousand other areas of policy, which have concrete, measurable, drastic impacts on peoples' lives-- and on which the candidates obviously, hugely differ. I made a list of them in the other thread in response to another conversation like this, and nobody really addressed it.

But to ignore the differences in some policy areas because there aren't the meaningful differences you want to see in other areas is.... well, dismissive and borderline insulting, when we recognise the fact that lives and livelihoods are lost over this stuff.

So, sure, yes. Neither candidate will meaningfully ameliorate the enormous economic inequalities, financial influence, lobbying, etc, etc. On that, they're both broadly in the same ballpark. It's fucking tragic, and both candidates are shite because of this utter failure of vision or morality.

But one candidate wants to increase the corporate tax rate by 7%. The other candidate doesn't. Are these the same?

One candidate wants to create a public healthcare option available to all, and introduce a lower limit on the cost of healthcare received. The other candidate doesn't, and only promises to cut 10% from the budget of the existing medicare options. Are these the same? Look at them closely, because thousands of lives depend on which one fucking wins.

One candidate wants a ban on fossil fuel subsidies and net-zero emissions by 2050, and readmission to the Paris Accords. The other candidate doesn't, and has only repealed environmental protection and expanded fossil fuel subsidies. Are these the same? Again, thousands of lives depend on which one wins.

One candidate claims he'll end the Federal use of private prisons. The other doesn't. Are these the same? Thousands of lives... etc, etc.

They don't represent meaningful difference in terms of endemic, systemic economic issues in American society. They're still obviously-- to anybody paying attention-- hugely different, and those differences mean tens of thousands of lives and innumerable livelihoods. You do not ignore that in order to gamble on the idea that at some mythical future point, people will somehow become so sick of right-wing fuckwittery that they'll finally elect a Bernie Sanders. Even if they did, how many lives will have been lost in those decades waiting? How can any moral person willingly accept that cost, if they claim to want the best for people? And what kind of blasted hellscape would that future (hypothetical) good President even inherit?