Problems arise between 2. and 3. Which IMO mitigates against its being much of an accomplishment.
The SDMB and progressives in general appear to be limiting their expectations, which is good because they will not be disappointed. If Biden wins the general, which is by no means certain, they will be happy if he is not Trump. That, I believe Biden can accomplish. If he can’t accomplish anything else, the rest of the country may not be so easily satisfied.
If global warming and health care and whatever other issues are as critical and urgent as Democrats, especially progressive Democrats claim, achieving nothing more than not being Trump is not going to improve the situation. As Iran announces its development of a nuclear weapon and the COVID-19 virus continues to spread and the economy goes into recession and health care costs continue to rise and Biden blathers cluelessly thru his administration, a diminution of tweets and a failure to enact - well, anything - is going to be cold comfort.
If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it will because the current administration tore up an agreement simply because it was made during a black man’s administration. Global warming cannot be addressed as long as the current administration denies it exists. If Biden were to do nothing except defeat this piece of shit in November, it still makes his administration an unqualified success. If he puts Don the Con in prison, then put old Joe on Mount Rushmore.
But, WHAT IF, simply not being Trump, allows the U.S. to re-establish good relationships with our traditional allies. Thus allowing for the re-negotiation of the Iran nuclear non-proliferation agreement. While also addressing the COVID-19 epidemic in a more coherent and competent manner without idiotic statements at the CDC, which restores confidence in the markets and the recession is either mitigated or avoided?
That’s another way to go, right? Wouldn’t even require an April miracle (just a bit of luck in November).
Ah yeah, the Radical Republicans’ approach to Reconstruction. Worked well back in the 1860s and 1870s, didn’t it?
Personally I think that’s the WORST possible thing the Democrats could do. You’re just making the pendulum swing further than before, rather than trying to damp it out if you ramrod through a bunch of ill-considered legislation.
I think it’s also a colossal misread of the nation to assume that if you win vs. Trump, that it’s some kind of mandate for left-wing policies. IT’S NOT. It’s a big mandate to get rid of Trump and his bullshit, that’s it.
If Biden is elected but the Republicans retain control of the Senate (assume Democrats retain House) he might or might not be relatively more effective in getting a few things done legislatively than Obama, or Trump, did after losing Congressional majorities. But basically not much, just like the former two did not after losing their two-house majority. The Republicans refused to consider Merritt Garland, but Obama still got some lower court judges through a GOP Senate more liberal than a GOP president would have nominated, Biden would probably do the same. Trump since 2019 has still had Senate majority so able to name judges at all levels pretty much without considering what the Democrats think of them, so the comparison would be closer to Obama post 2010 election, again assuming the GOP holds the Senate.
Plus the executive branch by itself can do various things, again see either Obama or Trump admins after loss of two house Congressional majority.
But partisans looking for big shifts, and feeling their party’s president is kind of half hearted to begin with, are probably going to tend to view that president as ‘ineffective’ if he or she lacks Congressional majorities. In that respect the recent GOP example is GW Bush, widely viewed as weak in the GOP base later on. Obama and Trump were/are both viewed as fighters against a recalcitrant opposition so kept their party bases generally satisfied despite lack of significant legislative accomplishment after losing their two house majorities in 2 yrs. I think Biden might tend toward Bush’s fate in terms of view of his own party’s base’s opinion, since they aren’t big fans of his to begin with, he’s mainly just the handiest instrument to get rid of Trump.
If Biden sweeps in with majorities in both Houses, different story but depends obviously how big a majority and how dependent on ‘moderate’ Democrats. Seems hard to me (besides general difficulty predicting the future) to say anything about what Biden would get done, besides strictly executive branch functions, without saying what Congress you assume he’d face.
The problem with that approach is that all it would effectively result in would be perpetual unilateral Democratic surrender. The worst possible outcome here would be the GOP becoming increasingly radical and actually achieving their political goals while Democrats continue to cling to milquetoast moderation that never produces results. For example, you can see this now in the Republican lock on judicial power through blatant theft (Merrick Garland) even though the GOP itself continues to receive fewer votes and represent fewer people than Democrats.
It’s all fine and dandy for Biden to talk about how terrific his proposed public option would be, but unless he is willing to steamroll the opposition and undertake the radical approaches to pass his plan, then Biden’s talk will never amount to anything and Democrats will routinely be annihilated in elections.
The problem with Reconstruction wasn’t that it went too far; it was that it didn’t go far enough, and as a result, we’re still fighting that damned war 150 years later. Yes, the North should have been more merciful. But “more merciful” would have meant confiscating plantations and giving them to the former slaves, not “Oh, you people who were oppressed can go on being just slightly less oppressed”. With a just Reconstruction, states flying the Confederate battle standard over their statehouses would be interpreted as what it actually means, that those states are still in open treason against the federal government, and so have all of their federal representation removed.
Well, no offense but you are assuming that “not-Trump” will automatically be able to achieve things. I am talking about a situation where it isn’t Trump on the other side of the negotiating table, and Iran doesn’t abide by the treaty any more than when it was Europe, or the COVID-10 virus spreads the way viruses spread even when people say the right things. Etc.
“Everything would have been worse if it had been Trump” is an argument you can make, but you can’t necessarily assume it. If Biden and the Democrats take over, and immediately things start heading downhill - just because Trump is no longer in charge of the handbasket doesn’t comfort everyone about our destination.
So one of the main things the next President will be doing is rebuilding the federal government. There are agencies that are running on fumes right now as high level people have quit and their roles haven’t been filled (either due to the hiring freeze or because the Administration didn’t care to hire anyone for the role). I do think that’s going to take up a substantial period of the next President’s time - heck they’ll have to basically recreate the EPA from the ground up. I think Biden can do a good job there and that is something that doesn’t require that much from the Senate aside from approving Cabinet officials.
And the earth might get hit with an asteroid the day after Biden’s inauguration. That would suck.
Sure I can. Given Trump’s quotidian incompetence, one can argue that a President Romney would have a positive stabilizing effect on the nation.
But say you’re right. Say things start heading downhill after Biden and Dems take over. Then we’ll potentially have someone new to blame. But for now, we have Trump to blame. And for demonstrably good reasons.
All else being equal, it all comes down to actually prioritizing institutional reform, which is something that Biden will never, ever do simply because he does not view any of the Democrats’ structural barriers as genuine problems, or, if he does, he views such issues as holy grails that Democrats will just have to live with and never affirmatively fix.
It absolutely comes down to whether a Biden administration could induce a Democratic reclaiming of the Senate, which I am dubious about because a Biden-led ticket will inspire less enthusiasm from younger voters. If Biden does help the Democrats regain the Senate, great!
But even if he does, I do not believe a newfound Democratic Senate will matter because Biden will be unwilling to prioritize doing anything with Senate majority power.
I don’t know how you can be so sure about what Biden will fail to do, but I’m willing to grant it, for the sake of argument.
Is it your position then, that Sanders will have more success in down ballot elections? Based on what evidence? What is Sanders’ record in helping down ballot Democratic candidates? Compare and contrast it to that of Biden.
We had a major setback in our country, with Trump in office. We need anyone but Trump as President to heal the wounds that have occurred. Anyone but Trump. Anyone. Sad to say, that is the reality, and maybe it will be OK with Biden. So much is yet unknown in this election, and so much could happen. If we end up with Trump and Ivanka and all of them for the next 10 years, nothing will matter. So Biden’s ineffectiveness seems much more acceptable, knowing what might happen.