This is how you blow a very winnable election

So if I were to say to you that I am very much in favor of “Transform the Police”, by which I mean: some increased funding to improve training, screening, diversity, socially responsible community policing, reduce militirization, increase staffing, augment police with specialized staff like sociologists, mental health professionals, wellness checks for high risk members of society, etc…

Do you find that is something that aligns with your views or is in complete contrast to them? Any common ground here if “defunding” is off the table?

Except that at least @Boudicca90 is treating it more like a policy platform s/he would like to see implemented. And it sounds like his/her fellow DSA members would feel pandered to if politicians used the term imprecisely.

Everything you have listed are things we are fighting for and support in defunding, but I feel like “Transform” is like “Reform” in that it’s too wishy-washy and can be interpreted even more broadly than “Defund”. Defund and Reallocate would be a more accurate slogan, or something along those lines, if you wanted a more complete slogan. I’m fine with just Defund the Police though.

“Goddamn those uppity blacks”, amirite?

It matters if Biden actually says he opposes the violence and doesn’t want to defund the police, but not that much. Because if the Republicans can’t pin the violence directly onto Biden, they’ll pin it on the Democrats in general, and Biden is their candidate. That’s what Democrats would do if the tables were turned. If you can’t get the candidates to say things crazy, you go nut-fishing. You come up with a Christine O’Donnell, and cast HER as the face of the Republican party.

Unfortunately, the Republicans have a rich target environment. There are plenty of Democratic mayors, governors, congresspeople, and Senators who have lent support to the protests, refused to enforce the law, actually defunded police (or say they are in the process), etc. So if Biden comes out every day and denounces the violence, the Republicans will simply say the problem is with the Democratic party as a whole, or with its activist wing that the rest of the Democrats won’t do anything about.

For example, Bill DeBlasio has been acting like a complete idiot. All Republicans have to do is run some of his crazy statements, then find a clip of Biden saying DeBlasio is a great mayor or something, and now Biden owns DeBlasio’s idiocy. That’s what Democrats would do to a Republican, so expect the Republicans to do the same - and be prepared to counter it.

And there’s a trap waiting if Joe comes out and says he’ll crack down on the violence and Kamala is just the person to prosecute it. You’ll get this from the Trump campaign:

"Joe Biden now says he’s going to ‘crack down’. Of course that’s Joe’s instinct - he is the person who helped author the 1994 crime bill that put so many young black men in jail. Donald Trump is the first president to sign significant justice reform - and the unfair laws that most needed reforming are the ones Joe Biden helped put into law.

As for Kamala Harris, she put 1500 people in jail for minor marijuana offenses. She fought to keep exculpatory evidence out of court that would have exonerated many people. The police aren’t the problem - it was prosecutors like Kamala Harris, an ambitious politician willing to throw innocent black people into jail to achieve her own ambitions."

I’m not going to debate whether that argument is fair or not. The question is, if it’ made, how do Democrats refute it?

Here’s another potential trap that Trump might set: He might come out in favor of pot legalization, just so that he can contrast with Harris putting 1500 people in jail for pot offenses. He could also pull a stunt like pardoning some of Harris’s convictions (making sure there are some photogenic black people on the list) because she was ‘crooked’.

The problem for Democrats here is that in an era of defund the police and smash the system, the Democrats are running perhaps the most hard-line law enforcement people in the party. In any other year, that would be an asset because Democrats are often perceived as weak on law enfoorcement. This year… who knows? And the Kamala Harris attacks are going to be tough, because it will force the Democrats to talk about her record - and ‘justice’ Democrats aren’t going to like it.

Goddamn people who could be allies shooting us all in the foot.

They wouldn’t refute it, they’d love it. It would be a waste of Trump’s money, unless he has some to spare just to ineffectively needle Biden/Harris.

It’s been 24 hours or so. Any new insight?

“it’s just ice cream”

Done. I have never used it. I have only explained why it doesn’t make me fear voting for Biden. I have tried to explain the reasons why it would resonate and go viral, and why it is a futile effort to try to get people who are being terrorized by the police that their actions are making white suburbanites uncomfortable.

Anything else?

How about the democratic party actually listens to the concerns of the people, and instead of trying to tone police and ask them to wait, actually address the issues.

If increasing funding in order to have better training and better cops is what is necessary, even most die hard “defunders” will get behind it. However, with increase in social services, programs, and deescelation of proactive policing, there will be less of a need for as many cops roaming the streets, and therefore, in the long run, should decrease the need of funding for not only the police, but for the justice and prison systems.

If there is less crime to deal with, doesn’t that mean that we need fewer cops?

That money can be better used to serve the community elsewhere.

Now, I also acknowledge that there is a non-negligible number of people who would like to see police abolished or reduced to nothing, but those are a pretty small minority, and if someone were to pick up their tweets and use them as “proof” of some sort of hypocrisy or disingenuousness, then they would would be engaging in nutpicking, not an actual argument or debate.

And I get where they are coming from. There are certainly those whose lives have been objectively made worse by the presence of the police. You posted a video in another thread about a guy who got shot for pulling into a gas station. If he was screaming “Abolish the police!” would you really try to argue that he doesn’t have a point?

An ideal world wouldn’t need any police. We will never have that ideal world, but that is no reason why we shouldn’t work towards it.

Ugh. We are in big fucking trouble, is the bottom line. What it boils down to is that the Democrats haven’t built a strong coalition, and they don’t know how to sell an idea. All of these other things being discussed are secondary to that, but the reason why they are going to be divisive wedge issues in this election and very likely hand Trump a victory, is because of it.

We want the same things with respect to overhauling the police but disagree on how best to frame the arguments for getting there.

Problem is that the Democrats ARE building a coalition - with disaffected Republicans. They seem to think that running to the right is the way to go, and that was perfectly shown during the DNC. They are leaving those of us on the left behind, so we are continuing on with our own goals regardless of what the Dems want.

There is a new 538 article on this subject, and I’m actually pretty surprised by a lot of it. Overall it says that the backlash against BLM thus far hasn’t created a bloc of would-be Biden voters who break over it, but it’s of course possible in the future.

Also apparently Biden has denounced Defund the Police

This is a bit worrying however IMO:

Obviously the people at 538 know more than me, but I don’t think voters are rational to look at Biden’s rhetoric, and even a few independent voters responding negatively to BLM could be an issue.

Link: Could A Backlash Against Black Lives Matter Hurt Biden? The Two Don’t Appear Linked So Far. | FiveThirtyEight

Democrats need to stop freaking out. The best you can do in any election is to get as many good people to the polls as possible. It’s the only winning formula. Get 'em registered, get 'em an absentee ballot, or get 'em to the polls. Vote.

Stop worrying aboout trump supporters. Anyone who backs this ‘president’ after all of the lying, the unnecessary deaths, the criminality, the appalling human rights abuses, and the submission to Putin…well, they’re irredeemable. Beyond hope or help. They are the children we are burdened with, dragging them kicking and screaming into a better future. Pity them, for they know not what they do. Tune out their gibbering and dissembling.

Concentrate on what needs to be done.

We’re in big fucking trouble but it has absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats’ coalition. It has to do with the fact that a majority of white Americans are junkies for racial hierarchy. When the apocalypse happens, we’ll hear 7 trumpets, and we will see millions of middle-age white males under bridges all across the land injecting themselves with the opiate of white supremacy

That’s because the democratic party is trying to represent all of the people that the republican party refuses to.

They have at best orthogonal interests and needs, and sometimes even conflicting.

It really is at least two parties worth of planks at this point, with pretty much the only uniting factor being that they are not represented by republicans.

No, I do agree that “defund the police” is not the best way of framing the argument. I have framed the argument entirely differently, never using that term.

We only disagree on whether or not we should try to tell protesters how to protest.

That was from June. On June 10, Reuters/ipsos had support for defunding the police at 39%. June 14-16 had an Economist/Yougov poll showing support down at 24%. The last recent Gallup poll had support for defunding the police at 15%.

That poll is telling you what the real concerns of the people are.

Yes quite a bit: