I don’t know how many times this has to be emphasized, but there is a direct connection between people (including dissatisfied Bernie supporters) staying home on election day in 2016 and the events of today. It has zero to do with the policy positions of either Clinton or Trump. Nothing to do with the progressive chops of Clinton or Bernie. The only thing that mattered was the party of the president and whether the justices came from the Federalist Society rolls or not. That’s it.
As for whether Bernie could have won; I dunno, it’s far too hypothetical for me to consider seriously. What is not hypothetical is that if every adult on the left had thought gee, maybe it’s pretty important this time around that we don’t let the right stack the courts given the vacant seat and the makeup of the rest and gotten their asses out to vote, we wouldn’t be in the current mess.
Sorry, but this is missing the point. All the denunciations of mainstream Democrats as being the ones to blame for Democratic lack of success, because they’re not being aggressively progressive enough, are wilfully ignoring the fact that Republicans and conservative media are trashing governance protocols, deliberately deceiving and misleading their voters, and manipulating legislative procedures in an anti-democracy assault unprecedented in at least the last half-century.
As a progressive, I’m all in favor of moving the Democratic Party leftward to align it with the progressive goals that most Americans actually support. But I’m not going to engage in this sort of recreational chastisement of one team for not playing a strong enough offense, when the real problem is that the other team has simply torn up the rulebook and decided that they’re entitled to ignore the official regulations of the game.
I’m not giving Democrats a pass on their bad policy decisions, their subservience to moneyed interests, and their messaging problems. But those failures on the part of Democrats are not the root cause of “the minority party taking the country to the cleaners”. There is only so much that any party policy, no matter how progressive and well-organized, can do against systematic deliberate deception and abandonment of democratic-governance norms.
A lot of progressives IMHO are just blaming mainstream Democrats because it makes them feel as though the problem could actually be fixed, since most mainstream Democrats at least qualify as rational and good-faith adversaries. (Same for mainstream Democrats blaming progressive Democrats for not adequately supporting mainstream Dem candidates. It’s very comforting, even if frustrating, to feel that the root cause of your problem is just that some of the people on your side don’t quite get it and need to be scolded or lectured into changing their approach, and then we’d be fine.)
And I get that for progressives in countries where basic governance norms aren’t under such assault, as in your own New Zealand for example, it feels as though the problem ought to be fixable by Democrats’ just adopting better strategies.
But that’s not what’s happening here in Yankland. We can’t just “re-strategize” our way out of our current problems.
Sorry, but this is missing the point too (see above about mainstream Democrats blaming progressive ones). We can’t just “unify” our way out of our current problems either.
Half the team is saying that in order to win the game we need to be playing a different strategy, and the other half is saying that in order to win the game we need better teamwork in our current strategy. But both of these arguments are disregarding the fundamental problem that the other team has decided that they don’t have to abide by any of the rules anymore.
The “other team” has figured out how to successfully manipulate the levers of power even when, by rights, they should be out of power. That centrist dems have both failed to do the same and allowed this “other team” to persist is precisely the problem.
I don’t completely disagree with this point, but I’ll suggest that Republicans have not yet seriously violated any rules*, only norms. McConnell’s behavior with Garland was a disgrace but was within the rules. Trump’s involvement in Jan 6 was basically stochastic terrorism–repugnant, but probably not a crime. And so on.
Should Democrats take a harder stance and also discard some norms (like the Supreme Court justice count)? Maybe. But as with nuclear weapons, it’s an arms race. Is “deproliferation” possible (by translating some norms into rules)? Also a maybe, but like any other deproliferation treaty it potentially locks in rules that benefit one side more than another. There are no easy answers here.
Although the power of norms in our government has been on a slide for a long time now, there did seem to be a step change with Trump. That’s one of a few areas where I think even another Republican candidate would have been notably better.
* Sure, there have been crimes committed, but I don’t think they’re much at play in this discussion.
Yours was a good and reasonable post, but I think what you’re missing is that the democratic party is almost passively complicit in the republicans throwing out the rulebook by still treating them as though they are a good faith actor. The democratic party should be a main check on the republican party. But they are still basically preaching don’t rock the boat, no severe resistance, no calling out just how bad the republicans are. A big reason why most people are able to convince themselves that we’re seeing politics as usual even though the republican party is enacting a coup and detaching their cult from reality is that the democrats are basically not contesting them.
Essentially, the democrats are accelerating and enabling the republican agenda by 1) not offering a politically savvy resistance and basically always losing due to their own incompetence and corruption, 2) pretending that republicans can still be good faith actors, that we need to reach across the aisle, that everything is still within the bounds of normal politics even in the face of the absolute batshit insanity we’re seeing now, and 3) basically acting as the only major political institution that has the power and standing to fight the republican party and abdicating that responsibility.
Even though the country has gone batshit insane over the last - at least 7 years - would you be able to tell the difference between today’s democratic party and the democratic party, of, say, 2013? I couldn’t. Because they’re basically treating an off the rails, crumbling, collapsing system that’s probably past the point of no return as though everything is within the realm of normal and no one should rock the boat.
Whatever limitations they have on their power within government, this is a way of ideas and values and messaging. They are, irrespective of their governmental and institutional incompetence, somehow losing the messaging war against a fascist cult that is demonstrably detached from reality whose cult leader is a pathologically lying sociopath that stands for everything his cultists claim to hate. You couldn’t design an easier messaging war than that, and yet they have somehow consistently lost through pure incompetence and lack of even trying.
Progressives would’ve at least put up a fight. Democrats are just rolling over and letting it happen.
Besides the mob-stupid mentality that put a failed real estate huckster-turned-gameshow host in office was a not unreasonable demographic who wondered if, the only choices for their 45th POTUS being either the wife of #42 or the son of 40/brother of #43, the system wasn’t rigged.
…nah. Not really. Voter turnout was up on 2012. About as many people turned out to vote as they ever did. You probably would get more out if voter suppression wasn’t so rampant.
Did you not understand what I mean when I said “their campaign completely derailed by the inability to respond to a couple of talking points?”
“But her emails” and “the deplorable’s” did more damage IMHO to her campaign than anything that Bernie did.
I never said this is about policy. I never argued that “Bernie would have won.” I think that Clinton should have won. That she didn’t was, IMHO, a strategic failure to understand how the political landscape has shifted. And under Biden, that strategic failure has just compounded.
I don’t think I suggested that mainstream Democrats weren’t being aggressively progressive enough?
I don’t think I’ve engaged in “recreational chastisement.” Because yes, it’s true that one side has simply torn up the rulebook and decided that they’re entitled to ignore the official regulations of the game.
And when one side does that: it requires the other side to step up it’s game. And it’s that which is being criticised here. The lack of a plan to counter what we all saw coming months, even years ago.
But the thing is: there is no second chances now. There won’t be an opportunity to get a do-over. You are in the endgame. Its either shoot-your-shot now while you still have control over the Senate and the House, or not.
No. It isn’t fair. Tough shit. Get over it. They will not stop until abortion is banned nationwide. They will not stop until gay marriage is made illegal. They will not stop being allowed to transition is made illegal.
It’s either put up a fight now: or don’t.
And it looks like “or don’t” is going to win out.
Yeah, give me a fucking break.
Right now there is a very good chance that a right-leaning coalition lead by a man who believes that abortion is murder is going to win the next election.
Over the last year we have seen a significant rise in disinformation between August and November last year. It was comprehensively tracked, we could see where much of it was coming from (the USA), what they were saying, and who they were targeting. You can read the report here:
As a result of the increase, we saw the public rise of several groups and protests that lead to the destabilization of our covid strategy and ultimately broke out strategy. It lead to a 23 day occupation of Parliament grounds.
We are all in the same boat. They have got a foothold here now and they are never ever going to stop. I’m going to be in the trenches just like you. Because this isn’t just about America. What happens there will have a ripple effect worldwide.
Worse. Centrist Democrats are actively out to vilify the progressive caucus of their own party rather than take heed and act aggressively to defend democracy from the GOP. e.g. this very thread.
I got to back @Dr.Strangelove on this: the fact that so many people, who could have voted, sat out the 2016 election is why Trump got elected. The electoral fluke that overrode Hilary’s 3 million popular-vote margin was a result of 77,000 people, over three states, that went for Trump. I’d bet a Big Mac that number was less than the people in those states who sat at home on Election Day '16.
2012 had Obama, an incredibly charismatic man, running for his second term against Romney, yet another Repub Saint Ronnie-wannabe. Not exactly a Choice Between The Lesser of Who Cares. And while there were attempts at voter suppression back in '12, I doubt they were anywhere near the levels they soon probably will be.
…the amount of people that sat out in 2016 was about the same amount of people that sit out every election since elections started to be a thing.
It is entirely expected that millions of people are not going to vote. That’s just how elections work.
This isn’t an “electoral fluke.” It was a statistical likelihood. Your system is fundamentally broken: any system where the results of the election hinge on a statistically insignificant number of voters in less than a handful of states is system not fit for purpose.
But that’s what living in a democracy is supposed to be about. You are allowed to vote third-party. You are allowed to vote for either party. You are allowed to sit home and not vote at all.
And every single presidential election millions of people exercise their right not to vote. Not every single one of those people stayed home because they were upset “that it wasn’t Bernie” and even if they were, they are allowed to do so.
You aren’t entitled to everyone’s vote. And in a system as broken and open to gamification as the American system is: then you have to go out and fight for every last vote you can get.
And what is becoming more obvious now than ever before is just how little fight the Democrats have in them.
Irrelevant. About as many people turned out to vote for Hillary as they ever did for every other election. A bit higher than some, a bit lower than others. It wasn’t an election that turned because of voter turnout. So many other things influenced what happened in 2016. And ultimately it came down to a statistically insignificant amount of people in less than a handful of states.
Well I hope you’ve got a better plan for what is coming than just “vote blue no matter who.”
I’m not specifically disagreeing but I think that it’s important to remember that it wasn’t only Jan 6, it was years of preparation and laying of groundwork by stating way beforehand that the election would be/was rigged and pushing it on several million idiots who believed it, not because there was any evidence but because the several million idiots were too lazy and/or stupid to do any critical thinking or independent analysis.
And sadly the anti-Clinton narrative was so powerful, and much of the electorate so unanalytical or lacking in awareness of the world that they ignored what could be an existential crisis.
Oh yeah, definitely. That’s what makes stochastic terrorism so insidious. No one thing rises to the level of a call to action. It’s just a persistent message over time that eventually reaches the extremists of your group (and creates some extremists as well).
And to be clear, I think norm violation is in many ways worse than rules violation. I was just trying to make a distinction there. It’s not possible to put every aspect of running a government into writing. There have to be some basic unspoken agreements, as well as some institutional inertia. A rule violation you can prosecute. A norm violation… well, you can retaliate, but the end result may be an utterly dysfunctional government (people complain that the current government is dysfunctional, but it can get a lot worse).
That’s certainly true. Hmm, do you know who ultimately decides the rules for whether some particular form of voter suppression is legal or not?
To be honest, I’m not sure specifically what you’re referring to. What I do know is that not once in his modern political career has Trump made a coherent point about anything, on any subject. Every single sentence out of his mouth has been a complete rambling mess that would have been an embarrassment for a fourth grader giving a class talk. I can’t recall a single time where there even seemed to be some underlying insight that could be parsed out from his word-vomit, even giving the maximum benefit of the doubt.
So in comparison, if Clinton was unable to answer a few questions at some point… I can’t see how that would make the slightest difference to anyone paying attention.
Well, maybe. But regardless, it’s not exactly a good look for the voters in question.
I don’t personally have anything against Bernie or Bernie supporters. My ire is reserved completely for those progressives that stayed home or voted third party in 2016, and furthermore for those unable to look in the mirror and admit they fucked up if they did so. I applaud @ASL_v2.0. @SmartAleq , not so much.
Took you two days to come up with that limpdick rejoinder? With assholes like you around it’s no wonder this country is so fucked up. Now isn’t there a cactus that needs fucking? Better hop to it.
…we all know who is responsible for voter suppression. But the fact that voter suppression happened is a reason why many people ended up not voting.
AKA the 45th President of the United States of America. What a country. A person that has never made a coherent point about anything, a complete rambling mess, an embarrassment, spewing word-vomit, got the support of millions of Americans and got elected to the most powerful office on earth. Its true. Anyone can be President.
And its likely he will win again if he runs.
“But her emails” dominated news cycle, was on every front page, and coverage continued right up to the elections. “The Deplorables” became a rallying call. Everyone was paying attention. And it made a difference.
The Republicans have a huge messaging advantage that the Democrats have shown an inability to counter. The very best at being able to understand the Republican tactics and be able to provide effective counter-messaging are people like AOC, like Elizabeth Warrren, like Katie Porter, but they get sidelined by their more moderate colleagues. The old guard: people like Biden, like Pelosi, are like deer in headlights.
Who gives a fuck at how those voters “look?”
We won’t ever really know why they didn’t get out to vote. All we do know is that they didn’t, just as millions of people didn’t vote in all the other elections. That’s just how elections work. So six years later “it’s not exactly a good look for the voters in question”: at this point, who cares?
You can’t go into the mid-terms without a viable strategy. The Democrats need to be crystal clear on what States needs to be won and what else they need in order to pass their legislative agenda. They also need to present a legislative agenda. The very least they need to be doing right now is giving people something to vote for.
This recent back and forth has reminded me that as much as I would love to blame the Bernie Bros for their protest votes, I think I lay pretty much the entire blame for Hillary’s loss at the feet of James Comey. That was some Grade A bullshit.
Horse hockey. 2016 was a 20-year low at 55%. By contrast, 2020 was 67% - and while that was the highest in about a century in the US, it would be considered piss-poor in most developed countries. Frankly, I’m at the point where anything below 90% from here on out is a failure of the American people as a whole.
