yeah but was obama being uncivil when he did warcrimes? checkmate trumptards
2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Biden has already told multiple people during this campaign to go vote for other people if they disagree with him. Who are his supporters to tell people otherwise?
Obama never sent people mean tweets after droning weddings.
really, how can you be against someone this eloquent and handsome putting children in cages
Yes, the two people he has told this to should go vote for whoever they please.
That's really remarkable! Since he only told 2 people to their face to not vote for him, only those two shouldn't. So, the only people who are voting for him should be the ones he requests a vote from face-to-face. It's not like hes a candidate for president and his public statements are acutally a message to all voters, that would be ridiculous.
Bold strategy hope it works out.
Ironically, a lot of that information posted there will make more people want to vote for Biden of those hovering center right. If you think it does the opposite then you don't know America.
joe biden hasn't personally told me to vote so i don't know if i'm allowed
It worked well for Trump, so why not give it a shot.
I don't remember Trump telling people to vote for Hillary. So I googled and I found
'You have no choice but to vote for me,' Trump tells N.H. rally
'You have no choice but to vote for me,' Trump tells N.H. rally
He also told several voters who asked him tough questions they were never going to vote for him anyway. He generally says what he wants. As for Biden, he shouldn't waste his time with powerless squealers from the fringes, since they too wouldn't vote for him in any case. It would be a waste of time, especially as there are more votes to be gained among center leaning independents than on the political fringes.
Dunno man, this sounds eerily similar to Schumer's "for every blue collar democrat..." plan.
I agree, though I wouldn't call people fighting for immigration rights "squealers". But of course, lack of respect for life is part and parcel of being among the "centre leaning independents".
Come again? What does that phrase mean to you, exactly?
squealers? or centre-leaning indps?
how can you lean towards the center? What the feck? Thats not how leaning worksMy favorite is when he screwed over public schools with no funding, more standardized testing and onslaught of charter schools.
Aside from what eboue pointed out, the part I underlined. How do you come across centrist Independents as having a lack of respect for life?
They often consist of people wary of the government and both parties, but okay with things like improved healthcare coverage.
Last edited:
@berbatrick and @entropy thanks for those links. Looks like I have some reading to do.
If one is tends towards the centre of the 2 parties, the position on Iraq would be something like: I want the war, and I'd like to continue the war, but I'd like to spend less money on the war. The 1st point is GOP with major Democratic support, the 2nd point is fully bipartisan, and the 3rd point is Dem with some light GOP support. Similar applies to Vietnam and also to drone strikes. So the centist foreign policy has no respect for foreign life.
The position on healthcare would be, I don't want medicare for all (bipartisan), I don't want a public option (GOP with Dem support), I don't want expanded medicaid coverage of poor people (GOP), I do want some type of expanded subsidy, directly or indirectly, to insurance companies (bipartisan).
The position on immigration would be, I want a border fence but a wall is too expensive (bipartisan), I want more money for ICE (bipartisan), more deportations (bipartisan), I want fewer kids in cages (Democrat) but the concept is ok (bipartisan), and that some immigrants are econoimcally valuable (bipartisan).
And so on.
Centrist independents here refers to normal people who don't really get carried away by political fights on twitter and cable news.
You’re conflating ‘centrist’ with geometry; projecting personal beliefs on war and immigration as though it is a school test problem where it simply divides two in half.
Someone not trusting either party but not comfortable with full government overreach is a perfectly valid opinion that does not entail voting for war or being okay with refugees of the drug war dying.
But then centrism is meaningless. What is it at the centre of? Anarchists, libertarians, Communists and Nazis are also uncomfortable with both parties and government over-reach.
In fact, going back to Raoul's original post, the apparent centrist position would be to consider immigrant rights activists squealers, which is definitely a bipartisan position agreed on by both parties - one candidate told them to vote for the other one, the other one would jail them given a chance.
It can be people at the the center of being liberal on social issues but selectively conservative fiscally. Far too many Americans claim this when they’re trying too hard to be woke when they aren’t, to be fair, but it is a real position.
I‘m not even going to touch on the last sentence, because I’m starting to think this is a worthless debate.
And a final point. The "sensible people who didn't get carried away by political fights" hated MLK and all that he stood for - civil rights, economic rights, and opposition to Vietnam.
https://www.newsweek.com/martin-luther-king-jr-was-not-always-popular-back-day-780387
https://www.newsweek.com/martin-luther-king-jr-was-not-always-popular-back-day-780387
Last edited:
See, one can claim that, but then one is either wilfully blind or ignorant of the econoimc and political connection between fiscal conservatism and social injustice. And, similar to what you said about my model centrist, this too is some kind of geometric mean, where a deviation on one side is corrected by a deviation on another.
Finally, contrary to your last sentence, social liberalism and fiscal conservatism is the least popular American sentiment in reality:
That sentiment would be bottom right, which is virtually unpopulated save for a handful of libertarian party voters.
Most definitional debates are, but I'm right about all 4. None of them trust the US govt or either party.
Centripetal force works that way. Or Centrifugal. One of the two, I'm sure.
Do better than this dude. You are doing a Ph.D. after all, you typically show some critical thinking in your posts.
This is an Eboue-calibre of post.
how does america end up with their politic if that's the general publics ideological make up
Because that graphic is a load of shite.
I've met hundreds or even thousands of independents/non-partisan registered voters and none of them would fall into Raoul's "centrist independent" rubbish. All the actual centrists I've met in 20 years were either Rep or Dem registered. Independent/non-partisan voters are far more eccentric with opinions like "unions are too powerful and should be less influential but I believe there should be a heavy wealth tax on anyone with assets more than $10 million" or "I think government should stay completely away from most industries and let the markets work but there should be universal government healthcare because the markets can't provide it".
Going after the mythical "centrist independent" vote is exactly how HRC lost in 2016 and its a losing strategy for Biden in 2020. He'd be better off trying to figure out how to appeal to Michael Moore's upper midwest that Obama abandoned. As Moore said, "Well maybe it’s because he’s said (correctly) that the Clintons’ support of NAFTA helped to destroy the industrial states of the Upper Midwest. Trump is going to hammer Clinton on this and her support of TPP and other trade policies that have royally screwed the people of these four states."
You aren't going to win those lost Obama voters back by being a milquetoast establishment shill for the neo-liberal policies of the last 30 years.
The Dems also need to learn how to micro-target and craft different messages to hundreds of different groups rather than just these overly vague handful of polling categories that are meaningless or they are going to get demolished by social media ads again:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/03/09/the-man-behind-trumps-facebook-juggernaut
Last edited:
It's from here (paywalled) https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trump-won-in-two-dimensions-1502320256
My professor believes that the GOP was a decent party before Trump ruined it; I don't think acadamic qualifications mean good political analysis.
There's been other studies that legislators consistently think their voters are more conservative than they are in reality, and ones about how public opinion has zero bearing on laws passed. You can probably make an explanation by combining the effect of big money, the effect of media, and the fact that there hasn't been a credible answer to neoliberalism for 40 years, and finally that many voters choose for cultural/racist reasons.
My point was about your absolutist statements in your rant.
Sure, Medicare for all is great and should be the goal (I don't necessarily have a strong option if it should be single-payer or not, but I think that absolutely everyone should be insured and get medical service without going bankrupt). But just because Biden (or Obama) do not endorse M4A, it does not mean that they are same as GOP/Trump. Affordable Care Act ensured that tens of millions get insurance (which they wouldn't have got otherwise), while Trump was a McCain vote away from removing that service to them. A worst-case Biden scenario about health service is that nothing changes (same as a best-case scenario for Trump), while a worst-case scenario for a second Trump presidency is that those people lose their insurance.
Similar to every other issue. If Biden is president he likely won't choose very left-wing judges, but instead, he would choose center-left judges. If Trump is president he will choose right-wing to far right-wing judges. Yet, in your eyes (and many others here), there seems to be not much difference between them.
I find it incredibly disturbing how even after this total mismanagement of pandemic, some people seem to be able to accept only the perfect choice (for them, Bernie). If it is not perfect, then abdicate all the responsibilities, and to hell with the world, it might well crash and burn.
It's a real position (in the UK 1997 election these were the voters called Essex Man / Mondeo Man that Blair wanted to win back) but post-2008 i think you're far more likely to find the other side of the coin being more decisive in elections (socially conservative, economically liberal).
There's a very long response to all of this. I'll just say two things:
1. The leaks have shown the centrists in the Labour party were very disappointed with an unexpectedly good showing by Corbyn in 2017. This was on election day. At that time it was unclear if the Tories had the numbers to form the government, so there was a non-zero chance they were going to be in government and a non-zero chance they could avoid a hard Brexit. Both are things that they publicly and even privately wanted.
But they were very disappointed, and for a good reason. They correctly see the left as different from them. For me their reaction clarifies a lot about what the fight is here, and at least the centrist party bureacracy can see which side they are on and who their principal enemy is.
2. I have no standards in elections. In Jan 2019 it looked like the alliance between the very hard-right party ruling India and its very hard-right alliance partner in my state might be broken, and I was willing to vote for our local fascists to keep the national fascists out. That idea collapsed after late February, but it shows I'm willing to vote for anybody.
The thing is, I have seen the arguments about not voting for the lesser of two evils. You can have a simple moral argument (as opposed to the utilitarian argument that is the default). You can have an argument like the centrist party officials of Labour, seeing them as the real enemy. Obama suddenly snapping into action after 4 years on the sidelines to make sure Biden's path is smoothed hints at the same calculation from him. You can cite the example of the conservative takeover of the GOP, losing multiple elections to make sure the party is purged of all centrism. You can argue about how constantly accepting the lesser choice leads to exactly the same drift to the right with no way to stop it. You can argue that the centrist approach is doing so little of what is rrequired that is like doing nothing. I don't have solid counter-arguments.
Last edited:
So all Biden has to do now is not to say anything stupid and let Trump hang himself? I think the less time Biden has for campaigning the better for him.
AOC went on the Daily (NYTimes) on Friday and was as impressive as ever. She's very good at articulating both why more 'politics as usual' will do nothing for a huge swathe of Americans, but at the same time acknowledging the flaws in the Sanders campaign and the reality of the situation. Also why she didn't support the covid bail-out bill.
She navigated some pretty hard-hitting questions really well too - bodes extremely well for the future if she stays in politics. One would assume she needs another two cycles before being 'experienced' enough to be taken seriously.
Anyway worth a listen.
She navigated some pretty hard-hitting questions really well too - bodes extremely well for the future if she stays in politics. One would assume she needs another two cycles before being 'experienced' enough to be taken seriously.
Anyway worth a listen.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
This is the reason I think Biden stands a chance against Trump. These are the type of ads you need to hit the Trump support. The fact that Biden himself called the china ban racist doesn't matter -- not to the Trump voters. They don't care if Trump lies, is a racist or any of that. It's the belief that Trump is "America first" and democrats need to hit that hard.
Didn't see this in Bernie and the current political landscape just isn't there for him. It's too polarized.
- Status