…nobody is asking you too. We are talking Democratic strategy, not who you should or you shouldn’t pander too.
I think that “giving people something to vote for” is a rather obvious thing one should do in any election cycle. And you can do that as well as basing much of your campaign on character. But you are really rolling the dice if you base the campaign on character, when there are enough people in the states that matter have major issues with Biden’s character.
My point is that anyone saying they can’t see any significant difference in Joe Biden’s character and Donald Trump’s character is somebody who has a poor awareness of reality. To reach out to this person and convince them to vote for Biden would require embracing their delusions.
The Republicans are willing to do that. They will reach out to people who are racist or homophobic or gun nuts or pro-lifers or anti-vaxxers. So those people vote Republican.
Not doing this is one of the reasons I support the Democrats. We don’t pander to various fringe groups. We’re the party for grown-ups.
So if there’s somebody out there who says Biden and Trump are the same because neither one of them will support a law making veganism mandatory, then I have no problem saying we shouldn’t be trying to reach out to that person.
…how about this Haroon Alzookery? Are they allowed to have an opinion on Biden’s character?
Personally, I don’t see much difference in character between the two myself. Not after the events of the last nine months. If you want to think I’m an idiot, then go ahead.
Trump is certainly the bigger threat to democracy. But if I did have a vote, and you asked me to pick one just based on character alone? I couldn’t do it.
If you told me though that the Democrats had an actionable plan to be able to achieve various pillars of a policy platform I support, and if they could bring me on board, then maybe I could hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. In fact, I’d probably vote for Biden for the sake of delaying the descent into darkness (and its only delaying, because you are already most of the way thee). But I wouldn’t be voting for him based on his character.
Again: I don’t see how “giving people something to vote for” is embracing anyone’s delusions. That’s just what you do at elections, is it not? How is that even controversial?
And I’m talking about people that want to stop the militarization of the police, support trans rights, support the right to abortion, affordable healthcare. Do the Democrats not want to reach out to them?
Are the things I listed considered “fringe?”
Then America is doomed.
Strawman.
No, those are all important issues. Which is why people who are saying there’s no difference between Biden and Trump are wrong.
Anyone who thinks Biden and Trump will handle those issues equally in the next four years has, as I have said, a poor awareness of reality.
Trump will be far worse on militarizing the police than Biden. So if you oppose militarization of the police, vote for Biden.
Trump will be far worse on trans rights than Biden. So if you support trans rights, vote for Biden.
Trump will be far worse on abortion rights than Biden. So if you support the right to abortion, vote for Biden.
Trump will be far worse on affordable healthcare than Biden. So if you favor affordable healthcare, vote for Biden.
This is where you’ve put me in an awkward position. I was willing to express my opinions about people like you’ve described when you were discussing them as an abstract group.
But now you’ve chosen to identify yourself as a member of this group. Which makes me concerned that any further opinions I express about this group might be seen as a personal attack on you.
Therefore I’m dropping out of this discussion.
…I haven’t argued that there is “no difference between Biden and Trump.”
You’ve argued that they should just focus the campaign on character. And if that’s all you’ve got, I wouldn’t pick either candidate.
Trump will put a sledgehammer through them. Biden will play defence, and in doing so will continually concede ground that probably won’t be recovered short of a revolution.
And all of a sudden it isn’t about character any more.
But it’s still about voting against something. Why are you stopping there?
Why not just take it a step further, and give them something to vote for?
Vote for Biden because, with a Democratic congress, he would raise the minimum wage, establish universal health care, codify the right to reproductive health care, maintain the rule of law, and the many, many other good and progressive things that Biden has endorsed.
…you think Biden will bring about universal healthcare? Just looking it up, I see he got a community not on Twitter:
How about codifying reproductive healthcare? Why didn’t he do that when they had the house and the senate?
What does “maintain the rule of law” mean? Under his watch we’ve just seen the Supreme Court declare that the President of the United States is above the law. And as long as the balance of the supreme court remains as it is, then the rule of law will continue to be eroded. So does Biden have a plan to deal with the supremes? We know he doesn’t support packing the court. How would he keep this promise?
When I said “give the people something to vote for”, I didn’t mean a random list of things that the president has never supported. I’ve already talked about reproductive healthcare in this thread. Biden promised to bring back Roe vs Wade. Just a few days ago. Do you believe him? How do you think he’s going to do it? Because there isn’t a plan or a strategy to do that.
The plan is to get Democratic congress and legislate for those priorities. That’s the only way these things could get accomplished.
It didn’t happen before because of Manchin and Sinema. With a large enough majority (or with Sinema replaced by an actual Democrat) that obstacle would no longer exist.
…how is Biden going to legislate for these priorities? He doesn’t even support universal healthcare as far as I’m aware. Can you show me where he does?
How is President Biden going to bring back Roe vs Wade? Lets pretend they do win the house and the senate: what then?
How are they going to “maintain the rule of law” when the supreme court is busy smashing everything apart?
What will the Democrats do about rogues like Manchin and Sinema? We know they won’t be the only people that will battle the progressive agenda from within. I bet very shortly you will be adding Fetterman to that list. Is it just to get a bigger majority so they won’t have to worry about it? It isn’t to purge them all together? Then how much more of a majority do they need in the house and the senate? What are the numbers? What is the plan?
The thing is…this isn’t far from what the Democrats are actually doing. Empty promises. No real plan or vision on how they will get any of this done. Because many of them don’t really want any of this done anyway.
Which is fine. Its just that, if you do end up losing the next election, the blame has to go on the Democrat leadership. Its a lacklustre, risky, low-effort hope-for-the-best plan that disrespects the base, and while it may have worked last time, I don’t think is going to work now.
This is all basic US civics. He’s said health care is a right. With a fully Democratic congress willing to pass universal health care, he would sign the bill.
To bring back Roe v Wade, congress would pass a bill making this law, and Biden would sign it.
To fix SCOTUS, congress would pass a bill expanding the size and Biden would sign it.
Your criticisms are no different than the exact same things I’ve heard about Democrats for my entire life. Yeah, sometimes we need to message better. Sometimes we need better Democrats in congress. But you’re offering nothing but extremely vague criticisms, with no actual specific recommendation, and coming from an apparent lack of understanding of how the US government works.
…but there aren’t any signs that a fully Democratic congress would even support universal healthcare, let alone put together a bill. This isn’t on the agenda, right?
Or if it is, can you point me to it? A universal plan that has universal backing?
I don’t actually thing bringing back Roe vs Wade is enough, not that I believe a Democratic congress would do it anyway. But the Democrats for years have failed to codify this, even when they’ve had the executive, the senate and the house, so why would anyone imagine they’d do it next term?
When I said “give people something to vote for”, this is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about. If expanding the court is on the agenda, then let everybody know.
But is it actually on the agenda? If the people vote and give the Democrats everything they need, is this something they will actually do? Does Biden even support this? I’ve never heard a squeak out of him indicating this is on the cards. Outside of the progressive bloc, who supports this? More importantly, how many oppose it?
And looking at the current state of the country, those criticisms are warranted, yes? I mean, how’s this looking?
https://thehill.com/homenews/pr/4695531-first-2024-forecast-from-the-hill-and-decision-desk-hq-projects-gop-has-edge-for-president-and-u-s-senate-closer-call-for-u-s-house/
The Democrats are running against Donald Fricken Trump. Why are they on the backfoot?
Perhaps running on “not Trump”, “character”, and empty promises that nobody will actually commit to isn’t a winning strategy any more.
If you think I’m just talking about “messaging” you are very mistaken. Because all the messaging in the world won’t save you if people no longer believe you. I don’t think universal healthcare, expanding the court, or bringing back Roe vs Wade is actually on the cards. And if they are on the cards, but the Democratic strategy is to keep those cards secret, then I don’t understand the strategy at all.
I’ve offered a very specific criticism. One that people in this thread disagree with. My very specific recommendation is that if you plan to expand the court, then you campaign on that. And if you need a certain number in the house and the senate to pass it because you know that it will be opposed by people in your own party, then tell us where resources need to be focused to get enough people through so they can pass their legislative agenda.
“Listen to the people and then give them something to vote for” isn’t a thing that is predicated on “understanding how the US government works.” It isn’t exactly an outlandish, left-field suggestion.
I’m with @Banquet_Bear here. We know what doesn’t work, or what barely works. Let’s figure out a couple of tangible, not-impossible goals and promise we’ll deliver them.
Oh, but the GOP will characterize it as socialism! So what, they do that anyway.
Oh, but my district is too centrist for that! Then tell them why it’s so important.
Oh, but we might not be able to get it done because of X. Y and Z. Then do your best anyway and make sure everyone can see why X, Y and Z are the problem.
Every indication is that we’re going to lose in November. If we’re going to change the strategy, now’s the time.
I’d like a magic pony too. This is aspirational - and it’s something many Democrats, including Biden and Harris, have spoken about frequently. But there’s no easy path to this, it would take a lot of negotiaton within the party, and won’t happen until we actually have that majority in congress.
Because last time they had the majority in all three, Roe v Wade was the law of the land, so there didn’t appear to be any reason to codify it. Now it’s not. Democrats, including Biden and Harris, have said they would do this many times.
The campaign has barely started. Biden sucked in one debate. Most of the country still isn’t paying attention, and polls this early still mean almost nothing (plus the continuous polling error that has recently been significantly and consistently underestimating Democratic support).
We may be in a country that wants Trump and what he offers. If this is the case, then there may be nothing we can do.
I don’t think this is the case, though - and I think Democrats will continue to make the stakes as clear as they can through the rest of the campaign.
…so hold on a second: when you said “vote for Biden because he will establish universal healthcare”, you didn’t really mean it?
But it won’t even happen then, right? It isn’t really aspirational at all. Outside of the progressive block, there isn’t support for universal healthcare at all. So why did you say it?
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You don’t think that by now that people don’t know this? That the reason why they aren’t campaigning on this is because the Democrat leadership have no intention of making it happen?
This isn’t aspirational. Its simply “messaging.” And it isn’t even messaging coming from the Democrats.
Another stupid strategic mistake. Who didn’t see this coming?
But even if they did codify it, I’m pretty sure the Supremes would have figured out a way to undermine it. Which is why any plan to codify it now is unlikely to get any traction. It’s too late. I don’t think you are going to win the senate, let alone get enough votes to actually make a difference.
The reasons why my criticisms sound no different than the exact same things I’ve heard about Democrats for your entire life is because the Democrats have simply been outplayed. The plan to take the Supreme Court started decades ago. People sounded the alarm bells but nobody listened.
I’m not even talking about the debate. To push this “aspirational” agenda through they need to capture the senate, the house and the presidency in big enough numbers to overcome internal dissent. And it needs unified leadership to push what is plainly a progressive agenda.
But the progressives aren’t in charge. And the centrists will do what they always will do, which is to push back on any moves to the left.
And I don’t think that will be enough. And I don’t think even if they did everything I suggested, it would be enough to squeak out a win. But at least you wouldn’t be going down without a fight.
No thanks. I’ve had these discussions before and it’s pretty boring. There’s nothing actually new here. The Democrats have definitely made mistakes and hopefully will continue to improve. We’ll see what happens.
They’re both lame ducks/will be gone. Both terms are up this year and neither is running again.
Fairly liberal Democrat Ruben Gallego probably has a slightly better than even chance of replacing Sinema in AZ, though it might be a tight dogfight with mad-as-a-march-hare Kari Lake (a remotely possible potential Trump VP candidate according to some). Barring an intervention from the planet Mars, Republican Jim Justice (the current coal baron governor of West Virginia) will be replacing Manchin as senator in WV.
That’s why this is so perplexing to me.
It seems like the big segments that are still undecided are people who either somehow don’t see the problems and threat from the Right, and who are still trying to weigh things on their merits, or they’re people who voted Biden in 2020, but for whatever reason are very disgusted with him since, or who are really put off by the debate performance and who are actually considering Trump now. Everyone else has made up their minds by now.
The first group above are the hard ones- if being a convicted felon, extramarital porn-star screwing, constantly lying, being impeached twice, etc… doesn’t put them off, but they aren’t for him either, I don’t have a clue how to reach and motivate them. For the second group, the key is to make the threat of his election worse than anything Biden has done or could do. But the Democrats seem to be somewhat afraid of mudslinging, so from where I sit, they’re not hammering on that, and seem to be taking the high road and talking about what they offer, rather than fighting the GOP on their own turf and talking about how bad Trump and the GOP is
…I wasn’t really specifically talking about them. More how do they deal with obstructionist senators the next time they inevitably pop up again? Just “wait a few years and hope they go away” is the current strategy.
I agree that Biden (or whoever replaces him) should come out squarely in favor of single-payer health care and rightsizing SCOTUS. That’s what leadership looks like, not sitting back and waiting for the entire party to reach consensus.
But the Constitution doesn’t really give a President or a party any options for “dealing with” obstructionist Senators other than finding a majority without them. As long as their own voters like them, the rest of us are stuck with them.