What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Berkut]

I think there is a good argument to be made (in fact I think I tried to steel man the "woke" position in this manner) that the best way to deal with the far left is to simply ignore them.

That positions like mine just play into the far right's desire to define the entirety of the left by is most radical elements (which is pretty standard politics), and in fact, they largely don't actually matter, and are best just ignored.

I am just not sure that is possible, especially in the culture war, which is almost entirely defined by perception rather then reality.

Of course, like you said, the ones who have done so did it by making there be something to talk about other then the culture war - actual policy. But that is a different approach then trying to fight and win the culture war. That is more like just giving up that battle and making the war about something else (hopefully actual policy), and winning that instead....

[Josquius]

I wish others saw it OVBs way. I see way too many who seem to think the far left is an actual threat in the US and conservatives are on the defence against a left that is ruthlessly pushing extreme stuff.
Somehow.

Really does seem to me complete and total obliteration of the republicans is the only way. The Democrats are the only sane conservatives left. Let their left split off.

Totally disagree with berkuts fear the left could drive the dems crazy however. They're really quite moderate in the grand scale of things. Not at all like the fundamentalists who harked the reps fall.

[Berkut]

Really does seem to me complete and total obliteration of the republicans is the only way. The Democrats are the only sane conservatives left. Let their left split off.

That really is what needs to happen. The true political divide in the US (by the numbers) is between moderate progressives and "radical" progressives.

The parties have become too entrenched though. There was a time when parties actually had to reform themselves, even re-invent themselves. Some were actually and effectively destroyed.

Maybe we are in the midst of that, and just cannot see it from the middle?

[Jacob]

I wish others saw it OVBs way. I see way too many who seem to think the far left is an actual threat in the US and conservatives are on the defence against a left that is ruthlessly pushing extreme stuff.
Somehow.

Really does seem to me complete and total obliteration of the republicans is the only way. The Democrats are the only sane conservatives left. Let their left split off.

Yea. It's funny how many people buy into Fox's positioning on politics, even when they are opposed to the Fox agenda.

[The Minsky Moment]

The far left has no institutional presence in American life.  AOC and Bernie Sanders are left liberals; they are socialists in the European sense; advocating positions similar to that of mainstream members of European left-center parties like Labour or the SDP.  There are no far left think tanks or media outlets that have any meaningful political influence.  There is a scattered presence across university campuses, but without coherence or organization.

The far right - as in those elements of the right hostile to constitutional democracy in the US - OTOH has a strong and growing presence and influence.  Bannon and Miller had the ear of the last President; there are multiple members of Congress; and prime time slots in the nation's largest cable news network.

the issue is not really whether the far left is preferable to the far right; it is that the far right presents an imminent, real and present dangers whereas the far left does not.

[Berkut]

The far left has no institutional presence in American life.  AOC and Bernie Sanders are left liberals; they are socialists in the European sense; advocating positions similar to that of mainstream members of European left-center parties like Labour or the SDP.  There are no far left think tanks or media outlets that have any meaningful political influence.  There is a scattered presence across university campuses, but without coherence or organization.

The far right - as in those elements of the right hostile to constitutional democracy in the US - OTOH has a strong and growing presence and influence.  Bannon and Miller had the ear of the last President; there are multiple members of Congress; and prime time slots in the nation's largest cable news network.

the issue is not really whether the far left is preferable to the far right; it is that the far right presents an imminent, real and present dangers whereas the far left does not.

But there isn't anything intrinsic about the right/left divide that makes this more then a particular reality in this moment.

We should be looking at the disaster of the far right taking over the right generally and be very vigilant against letting that happen on the left. And it starts (and it did start) with the radicals demanding that those who are not sufficiently radical be defined as not being part of the club.

Further, the same effort that needs to be made to avoid that is the same effort that needs to be made to combat the far rights successful culture war - not letting the radicals define the agenda, and keeping it focused on what most Americans actually care about, and more importantly, what most *progressive* Americans care about, which are in fact a majority of Americans.

[Sheilbh]

I'll say again--I don't know the answers, but this ain't it, and the people running the Democratic party, Schumer, Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Joe Fuckin Biden--this is supposed to be their job and they ain't doing it.

Just to add specifically on this point I saw an article earlier about how Biden and Harris aren't really that popular and maybe the Democrats should look for another candidate in 2024. That may well be right.

From the outside the lack of a bench for the Democrats is extraordinary. This was an issue in 2016 when it was Clinton v Sanders, it was an issue in 2020 when the three front runners were into their 70s and it's still an issue.

Frankly at this stage it looks like negligence. I've said before about the right having an institutional framework that means there's a pipeline of talent for new media or think tanks (at all points on the respectability scale). But there doesn't seem to be a similar framework even within politics for fresh talent to come in, to refresh the party and move it forward.

You may dislike all of their politics - with good reason - but you look at the GOP and you can imagine a Cruz, Rubio, Hawley, Cotton, DeSantis, Haley run (even if right now you have to assume it's probably Trump's - but I'm not sure DeSantis will go along with that). There are probably others I'm missing. I'm not sure what those plausible candidates are for Democrats - I think Buttigieg and maybe AOC at some point but, off the top of my head, that's about it. Maybe I'm way off and there are obvious candidates I'm missing - but that strikes me as a huge institutional failure and it's the leadership and the grandees who are responsible.

I remember watching the documentary about the three candidates running in primaries - and AOC was one. I have no idea if I agree with her or not on most issues - I've no idea. But in that documentary you could see two things, I think - that she just had raw political talent and that there's a fair few senior Democrats who've not maintained their district. I don't get a sense that her talent's being used by the Democrats and I think instead of focusing on how to change, the lesson they've learned was how to tamp that down to stop another senior figure from losing in a primary again.

[Admiral Yi]

@Shelf: All those people you mentioned have one thing in common, they either got elected to Congress or a governorship.  Grandees don't select people for those offices, voters do. 

[Sheilbh]

@Shelf: All those people you mentioned have one thing in common, they either got elected to Congress or a governorship.  Grandees don't select people for those offices, voters do. 

Grandees help with endorsements, with fundraising, with their network including the media, consultants, policy people etc or even just opportunities on the way up for someone to raise their profile - they also are among the group saying whether it's your turn or not.

[The Minsky Moment]

Of the examples you gave -  Cruz, Rubio, Hawley, Cotton, DeSantis, Haley - I think only Rubio and Haley have support from "grandees." And of those two, Haley has been out of a job for over 3 years and is completely untested nationally, Rubio's own presidential effort was a complete dud.

 The rest have gotten high profiles by using (and abusing) conventional and new media to effect and through appeals to the deplorables.

There are younger Democrats in the House and Senate and state houses, but not as many that are as effective in the attention whoring and assorted "jackassery" that seems to draw attention these days.

[FunkMonk]

I'll say again--I don't know the answers, but this ain't it, and the people running the Democratic party, Schumer, Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Joe Fuckin Biden--this is supposed to be their job and they ain't doing it.

Just to add specifically on this point I saw an article earlier about how Biden and Harris aren't really that popular and maybe the Democrats should look for another candidate in 2024. That may well be right.

From the outside the lack of a bench for the Democrats is extraordinary. This was an issue in 2016 when it was Clinton v Sanders, it was an issue in 2020 when the three front runners were into their 70s and it's still an issue.

Frankly at this stage it looks like negligence. I've said before about the right having an institutional framework that means there's a pipeline of talent for new media or think tanks (at all points on the respectability scale). But there doesn't seem to be a similar framework even within politics for fresh talent to come in, to refresh the party and move it forward.

You may dislike all of their politics - with good reason - but you look at the GOP and you can imagine a Cruz, Rubio, Hawley, Cotton, DeSantis, Haley run (even if right now you have to assume it's probably Trump's - but I'm not sure DeSantis will go along with that). There are probably others I'm missing. I'm not sure what those plausible candidates are for Democrats - I think Buttigieg and maybe AOC at some point but, off the top of my head, that's about it. Maybe I'm way off and there are obvious candidates I'm missing - but that strikes me as a huge institutional failure and it's the leadership and the grandees who are responsible.

Yeah, and it looks more and more like the Republican party is the party of the future. Stacked with lots of youngish leaders with presidential aspirations and a continually energized base, on top of its improving numbers with Hispanics. It's looking like a steamroller.

The Democratic party looks like a crusty old folks home at the national level. It's disconcerting. The party which actually believes in democracy can't govern effectively and doesn't look to have a good electoral future while the authoritarian party looks increasingly powerful and effective.

[Sheilbh]

Of the examples you gave -  Cruz, Rubio, Hawley, Cotton, DeSantis, Haley - I think only Rubio and Haley have support from "grandees." And of those two, Haley has been out of a job for over 3 years and is completely untested nationally, Rubio's own presidential effort was a complete dud.

 The rest have gotten high profiles by using (and abusing) conventional and new media to effect and through appeals to the deplorables.

There are younger Democrats in the House and Senate and state houses, but not as many that are as effective in the attention whoring and assorted "jackassery" that seems to draw attention these days.

That's fair but I think that reflects the wider institutional framework that I think the GOP has - it seems designed to allow for a pipeline of talent, including electorally. Often through raising the profiles of insurgent challengers etc. I don't think it's "jackassery" - I think it's a machine that's been built to proivde support for the right.

The Democrats seem to me more of a party with different constituencies and there's a degree of getting them on board to becoming a candidate, rather than new media or insurgencies. Instead it's working with the groups within and around the party. Which is where the grandees come in - and should also know when to move on. Because I don't think their pipeline is working.

There's no doubt in my mind that with a talent like AOC, if she was on the right there'd be think-tanks and new media all building her up and getting super-hyped for her eventual Presidential run. With the Democrats it feels more like the goal is to restrain things and try to integrate into the wider party structures.

Yeah, and it looks more and more like the Republican party is the party of the future. Stacked with lots of youngish leaders with presidential aspirations and a continually energized base, on top of its improving numbers with Hispanics. It's looking like a steamroller.

The Democratic party looks like a crusty old folks home at the national level. It's disconcerting. The party which actually believes in democracy can't govern effectively and doesn't look to have a good electoral future while the authoritarian party looks increasingly powerful and effective.

Yeah - and there's some absolutely catastrophic polling for the Democrats among the young just recently.

[Admiral Yi]

Grandees help with endorsements, with fundraising, with their network including the media, consultants, policy people etc or even just opportunities on the way up for someone to raise their profile - they also are among the group saying whether it's your turn or not.

Fair enough.

Do you know that the grandees have in fact been throwing all that help at candidates that skew older?

[Sheilbh]

Fair enough.

Do you know that the grandees have in fact been throwing all that help at candidates that skew older?

Not so much that - age is a symptom. I think they are set up to protect incumbents and promote good team players who've waited for their turn.

That might work in an era of institutional dominance, as existed for the Democrats in Congress from FDR through to the end of the Cold War, but I'm not convinced it's suitable now when the New Deal and then Cold War hegemony has broken down.

[Admiral Yi]

Not so much that - age is a symptom. I think they are set up to protect incumbents and promote good team players who've waited for their turn.

That might work in an era of institutional dominance, as existed for the Democrats in Congress from FDR through to the end of the Cold War, but I'm not convinced it's suitable now when the New Deal and then Cold War hegemony has broken down.

I wasn't asking if you know they do it on purpose, I was asking if you know they do it at all.

Leaving aside incumbents, because frankly a party would be mad to spend resources on unseating an incumbent, when there is an open seat, do the candidates the grandees pick to back tend to be older?  Are the people they recruit and encourage to run older than the field?