While democrats seem to be cruising to a landslide because of hatred for Trump they seem to be having troubles of their own. Specifically:
The impression democrats do nothing to stop riots and looting.
Democrats doing nothing to stop people from defacing and tearing down any statue they want.
Democrats allowing CHAZ in Seattle.
Democrats pushing legislation to defund police while also being leaders of cities with the highest crime rates and worse schools.
Democrats facing a strong push for far left policies and socialist like Sanders.
What do you all think? Will a senate race in say Missouri be decided on how a Missouri democrat thinks the democrat mayor of Seattle handled CHAZ? Could a mayor race in say Colorado be decided based on if Minnesota democrats vote to defund police?
Despite all of the “concerns” being mooted about, polls of Democrats versus Republicans have only been trending upwards for Democrats. Obviously, the public in general isn’t inclined to blame Democrats for the (vastly overstated by the Right) unrest.
Looks more like more and more people are coming to the realization that there is a systemic problem in the States, and that Republicans share much more of the blame for it.
The people most likely to react negatively to these things are the ones getting their news from sources that describe the situation as you did, with a right-wing spin, and those people were never likely to vote Democratic in the first place. But let’s explore:
#1: What did you expect the Democrats to do to “stop the rioting and looting” that Republicans have done? Democrats have certainly denounced the rioting and looting. I mean, they haven’t deliberately and systemically conflated the protesters with the rioters/looters, they haven’t ignored the documented presence of provocateurs, and they haven’t called for the police and military to double down on violence against the protesters, all of which Republicans have done and all of which have resulted in making things far worse. Is that the sort of thing you’d like the Democrats to do?
#2: Again - what specifically would you like the Democrats to do that they haven’t done but that Republicans have?
#3: The CHAZ was an experiment to see if it would calm the city. And it did for a while. It wasn’t the fluffy-bunny “garden party” some called it but neither was it the post-apocalyptic dystopia others portrayed it as. And I know it wasn’t the latter because the right-wing media, including FoxNews, had to manufacture videos and pictures to support their particular narrative. Personally I think it was a questionable move but better than the draconian crackdowns I mentioned under #1.
#4: Firstly, the “Democrats are leaders of cities with the highest crime rates and worse schools” thing is a common and deliberately misleading right-wing narrative. Democrats are also leaders of cities with the best schools and below-average crime rates - because major urban areas tend to be run by Democrats. Secondly, if you look beyond the soundbite, no one (or no one of any consequence) is saying “no police anywhere”. “Defund the police” has to do with both demilitarizing them and removing responsibility for a variety of social services that got lumped onto them when politicians (usually but not always Republican) cut those services elsewhere. Cutting the police back to what they once were while using those funds to re-expand social services pertaining to mental health, homelessness, child welfare etc would be a far more effective use of that money and avoid the gratuitous abuse and incarceration of the poor and sick as happens now.
#5: Last I checked the Democratic nominee is Joe Biden, who is not remotely progressive let alone socialist. There are certainly progressives in the Democratic Party (plus Sanders, depending on which party he’s claiming to belong to) but they’re not running the show by any means. It’s a pretty weak push.
But let’s flip that on its head. Are the Republicans “having troubles of their own”? Specifically:
Republicans stirring up greater hatred and divisiveness while encouraging the police to commit unprecedented levels of violence against non-violent protesters and even innocent bystanders (including people standing peacefully on their own porches).
Republicans defending statues of traitors to the US that were put up for the explicit purpose of intimidating black Americans.
Republicans using unidentifiable and unaccountable uniformed personnel to enforce order.
Republicans condoning the abuse, torture and outright murder of suspects (and innocents) by police and blocking any attempts to hold those officers accountable.
Republicans pushing for far right policies and authoritarianism like Trump.
Lord knows both parties have their significant issues (which is why I ended up an independent) but if you want to look at the issues that might drive people away from the Democrats you need to consider whether the alternatives are likely to be seen as any better (or indeed as much worse). Sometimes people opt for the least worst option.
On points 1, 2, 3, and 4, I think Democrats should be careful to make sure that the revolution doesn’t go too far, but I think that for the most part people see these in their proper context. With regard to number 5, the pandemic and its economic consequences have made Sanders’ policies a LOT more attractive than they were even 6 months ago.
I think 2020 is shaping up to be a great opportunity for democrats. It’s what happens after 2020 that concerns me more. They will have limited time and not unlimited patience to really put together and execute a bold plan for re-balancing some power in this country. If they get stuck in circular firing squads, or if they somehow get filibustered or out-maneuvered politically, then the entire country will be at an increased risk of falling apart. America hasn’t been this polarized since the 1960s, but as bad as things were then, it’s worse in some ways now because Americans are fighting over what “America” is and what it means to be “American.” Moreover, wealth inequality hasn’t been this bad since probably the end of the Gilded Age. A democracy dealing with these conditions isn’t sustainable - at least not as a democracy.
Points 1 and 4 are in direct opposition to each other. We’re not completely stopping the rioters, but we’re at least taking them off the public payroll.
Let me state that again, to make it clearer: The reason the police aren’t going after the rioters is because, in many cases, the police are the rioters. In Minneapolis, it was the police who were slashing tires. In Cleveland, just-released police video shows that the protests turned violent after the police started pepper-spraying, not before. In DC, a lot of questionable incidents involved police officers brought in from other states, and who refused to identify themselves when asked.
Except that “Democrats” aren’t in charge of “the revolution”. No one is. It’s that sort of revolution. Not the Democrats, not BLM, not Antifa, not Soros. There is a genuine grassroots element at play here.
Yes, the individuals involved in the protests are far more likely to vote Democrat (if they vote at all) but there’s no centralized control of them, political or otherwise. I mean, getting regular Democrats to agree on anything is hard enough; getting “revolutionaries” to comply with some central plan or directive would be nigh impossible.
There is also the strange disconnect of Democrats are such far left lawless socialist crazies and trying to pin all of that on… Joe Biden. Who even the majority of Republicans realize is the farthest thing from a radical.
I know here in Kansas City the current democratic mayor allowed people to protest on the plaza ( a wealthy shopping district) and of course, their was rioting and looting.
Now 20 years ago with Rodney King many were calling for protests on the plaza but back then the democrat mayor put his foot down and said no because he knew this would happen. They had to protest somewhere else.
If that shit flares up again, and it probably will, Biden will have to address it in some way that will cause twitter to shit a brick for a couple of days, dems will do a buncha handwringing and he’ll win anyway.
There’s a little vulnerability there; if you think white suburban soccer moms (or whatever they’re called these days) give a shit about BLM, you’re badly mistaken.
Those aren’t presumptions some people are making. Those are desperate points Republicans have started pushing, hoping that they would stick with the general public. It is yet another version of “Some people are saying…”.
To a degree, they realize this and so they’ve given up trying. One charge is that Biden is so weak he won’t be able to do anything about the “radicals” in his party.
“Of course”. Were the protesters and rioters/looters the same people? Because in equally-Midwestern Lincoln, Nebraska protesters were allowed to demonstrate (even after curfew) and the protests were pretty much peaceful. There were other groups that engaged in some violence and looting but they weren’t the same people (who had largely all gone home at that point).
I know there are many people and media outlets desperate to conflate peaceful protesters and the violent elements in order to be able to ignore the valid reasons the protesters are out in force in the first place, so it’s important to have these things clarified, particularly given the repeated appearance (and recording) of white people clad all in black including ski masks caught vandalizing properties and spraypainting “BLM” on things, often before any other violence or looting had occurred.