What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Josquius]

Short of voting reform (HINT HINT) the only way socialists are going to make a break through is if the moderates can cement their hold so much that being crazy just doesn't work for the republicans anymore and they have to fight for the centre (ala Cameron with the Tories).
When the alternative is things going backwards then it makes sense for the Democrats to stick with safe options to secure the sane conservatives.
If the Republicans are angling for sane people though then the way is clear for the Democrats to try something outside the box and try to push forward.

All said though full support for there being socialists within the democrat party. Overton window and highlighting that the moderates are what they are and all that.

[Malthus]

Whether the talk is abhorrent or not to progressives isn't the primary concern; of course progressives believe that failing to follow progressive policies to the letter is abhorrent - putting everything in moral terms, where progressive policies are moral and those who do not follow them are not, is a basic feature of progressivism.

The real problem is whether or not following progressive policies risks losing elections for the left, hence losing power to the Trumpite right.

Didn't you just read OvB's post? He just explained it very clearly: it's not about policies. It's not about progressives scaring away good moderates. It's about the Other scaring away people who do not like them. It's about identity. How do you compromise on identity? When people are proposing identical policies, and one is termed anti-american and the other one is celebrated, it's difficult to not read it as a rejection of who you are, rather than what you say. And if you can't understand how being told "be a little less black, a little less Mexican, a little less gay" is received poorly, I don't know what to tell you.

I understand you really are committed to the narrative of moderation is the greatest thing ever for a political regime. I sympathize with that, but I think this is the product of the political 90s, when such a stance was possible, because a lot of people more or less agreed on some version of neoliberal order. Or so we thought. But this is no longer the type of climate we are in; and the sort of gentleman's agreement about neoliberalism was shown to have been an agreement of elites. We no longer live in the type of political climate where moderation does the sort of work that you think it does.

I did read his post. I am not, however, committed to moderation as "the greatest thing ever for a political regime".

What I am committed to, is avoiding disaster. I see Trumpism as the road to disaster for us all. The pandemic has demonstrated that Trumpites have no answers to dealing with problems, other than retreating into fantasy. Should other serious problems arise - and they will - Trumpites will have no answers for them, either. So avoiding that "trumps" (to excuse the expression) following policies I may prefer.

The question is this: can Democrats best win through moderation, or through adopting progressive policies that we know large swaths of the US public have been programmed to hate? If I was convinced the latter was true, I'd agree with you.

[DGuller]

I did read his post. I am not, however, committed to moderation as "the greatest thing ever for a political regime".

What I am committed to, is avoiding disaster. I see Trumpism as the road to disaster for us all. The pandemic has demonstrated that Trumpites have no answers to dealing with problems, other than retreating into fantasy. Should other serious problems arise - and they will - Trumpites will have no answers for them, either. So avoiding that "trumps" (to excuse the expression) following policies I may prefer.

The question is this: can Democrats best win through moderation, or through adopting progressive policies that we know large swaths of the US public have been programmed to hate? If I was convinced the latter was true, I'd agree with you.

This is sort of my calculus as well.  There is a huge pressure for society to be more progressive on a lot of things.  That means that the only relevant objective is to minimize the electoral chances of Republicans.  As long as Republicans won't be there to fight the pressure by any means possible, often of dubious democratic legitimacy, progress will find its way through the political process.  The marginal difference between AOC and Joe Machin is an order of magnitude smaller than the marginal difference between Joe Manchin and Susan Collins.

[Oexmelin]

The question is this: can Democrats best win through moderation, or through adopting progressive policies that we know large swaths of the US public have been programmed to hate? If I was convinced the latter was true, I'd agree with you.

I feel I am repeating myself: It's not about policies. Progressive policies have support from much larger swaths of the American public than what was previously thought. To the amazement of people like Krugman. It's about *who* carries those policies. Obamacare, bad. Comprehensive medicare that is essentially obamacare, good.

Thus, if it's about who carries policies, rather than the content of policies - which, as experience has shown, isn't actually how voters form their mind - what does moderation look like? How do you moderate who you are?

If both you and BB were essentially saying the exact same thing, and I just always agreed with him, and never with you (with insults thrown in from time to time for good measure), how would you compromise with me, exactly?

[crazy canuck]

Whether the talk is abhorrent or not to progressives isn't the primary concern; of course progressives believe that failing to follow progressive policies to the letter is abhorrent - putting everything in moral terms, where progressive policies are moral and those who do not follow them are not, is a basic feature of progressivism.

The real problem is whether or not following progressive policies risks losing elections for the left, hence losing power to the Trumpite right.

Didn't you just read OvB's post? He just explained it very clearly: it's not about policies. It's not about progressives scaring away good moderates. It's about the Other scaring away people who do not like them. It's about identity. How do you compromise on identity? When people are proposing identical policies, and one is termed anti-american and the other one is celebrated, it's difficult to not read it as a rejection of who you are, rather than what you say. And if you can't understand how being told "be a little less black, a little less Mexican, a little less gay" is received poorly, I don't know what to tell you.

I understand you really are committed to the narrative of moderation is the greatest thing ever for a political regime. I sympathize with that, but I think this is the product of the political 90s, when such a stance was possible, because a lot of people more or less agreed on some version of neoliberal order. Or so we thought. But this is no longer the type of climate we are in; and the sort of gentleman's agreement about neoliberalism was shown to have been an agreement of elites. We no longer live in the type of political climate where moderation does the sort of work that you think it does.

I did read his post. I am not, however, committed to moderation as "the greatest thing ever for a political regime".

What I am committed to, is avoiding disaster. I see Trumpism as the road to disaster for us all. The pandemic has demonstrated that Trumpites have no answers to dealing with problems, other than retreating into fantasy. Should other serious problems arise - and they will - Trumpites will have no answers for them, either. So avoiding that "trumps" (to excuse the expression) following policies I may prefer.

The question is this: can Democrats best win through moderation, or through adopting progressive policies that we know large swaths of the US public have been programmed to hate? If I was convinced the latter was true, I'd agree with you.

Great, so Trumpists win either way.  either they win power outright, or they get non Trumpist politicians to govern in a way that won't upset people who might vote for a Trumpist candidate. 

What a perfectly horrible society that would create.

[The Brain]

Democracy isn't for everyone.

[Malthus]

The question is this: can Democrats best win through moderation, or through adopting progressive policies that we know large swaths of the US public have been programmed to hate? If I was convinced the latter was true, I'd agree with you.

I feel I am repeating myself: It's not about policies. Progressive policies have support from much larger swaths of the American public than what was previously thought. To the amazement of people like Krugman. It's about *who* carries those policies. Obamacare, bad. Comprehensive medicare that is essentially obamacare, good.

Thus, if it's about who carries policies, rather than the content of policies - which, as experience has shown, isn't actually how voters form their mind - what does moderation look like? How do you moderate who you are?

If both you and BB were essentially saying the exact same thing, and I just always agreed with him, and never with you (with insults thrown in from time to time for good measure), how would you compromise with me, exactly?

If it is all about identity, and nothing else, then the US would indeed be doomed, as the majority would always win, and Trumpites have a lock on the majority's identity politics.

However, it would appear that this thesis is simply not true - yes, for many on the right as on the left, identity politics trump everything - but not for all. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain how Trump lost.

What progressives must grapple with is that if their own theory is correct - that identity is all - they will always lose. Because the US remains a nation where the majority identifies as Christian, White, and heterosexual.

[crazy canuck]

Democracy isn't for everyone.

Only if one accept Malthus' premise.   However, if it is for everyone then political leaders should act that way.

[Malthus]

Great, so Trumpists win either way.  either they win power outright, or they get non Trumpist politicians to govern in a way that won't upset people who might vote for a Trumpist candidate. 

What a perfectly horrible society that would create.

Point is to find a compromise that garners enough votes to win elections. Please note that this does not mean doing everything Trumpites want. No doubt there are many Trumpites who will refuse to accept anything other that everything they want. You will never reason with them, but you also don't need 100% of votes to win elections. You just need a majority.

One again we see how, for progressives, the perfect is insisted upon (and so becomes the enemy of the good).

[The Brain]

Democracy isn't for everyone.

Only if one accept Malthus' premise.   However, if it is for everyone then political leaders should act that way.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[fromtia]

I'll agree with OVB here and I think his recent posts on the subject have been on point. I don't think leftish economic policies are hated by the US electorate, they are hated by the Republican donors and pundits. I think they are fairly popular with Americans around the country and some of the ballot propositions that have been voted for overwhelmingly seem to attest to that. A minimum wage in crazy red state Florida? What?

I do think Wokism is hated though, I mean I'm pretty left wing and I absolutely hate the "Woke" left and all of the bizarre posturing and maoist cultural revolution LARPing. But talking about "the left"* as if it is solely represented by the Wokesters isn't accurate, I don't think.

Reaching out to working people around the country with determined campaigning, grassroots organizing, and a soft left economic policy platform and focus on peoples material concerns in poor and rural areas would be a good place to start I think. I understand that the conventional wisdom is anything other than kneeling in Kente cloth or a policy that has something to do with vouchers and a website where you can learn to code is the preferred method, some telegenic faux blue collar identity (Scrappy Scranton Joe!) and so on, but I think a change of tack is urgently needed.

The Republican party has the ear of working people , it speaks to them. We understand that it doesn't actually help them , far from it, but Republicans wouldn't need to modulate on policy much to completely thrash the Dems - I think some hints of that with Latino votes in Texas for example.


* I well understand the Languish tradition of defining "the left" as everything you hate , or just whatever you say it is in general.

[Tamas]

I think if the left can find a way to bribe the lower classes into putting up with their cultural policies, like they did in decades previous, they will be fine.

It's totally messed up that the healthcare system is a red line (haha) for a lot of people over there, as that'd be the most obvious start in building a non-terrible society for the disenfranchised. But perhaps silly subsidies for industries and such could work. On the plus side some of the GOP-leaning rich folk could be convinced to join in on looting most of the budget spent on this via getting grants to build and maintain unproductive factories etc.

[crazy canuck]

Great, so Trumpists win either way.  either they win power outright, or they get non Trumpist politicians to govern in a way that won't upset people who might vote for a Trumpist candidate. 

What a perfectly horrible society that would create.

Point is to find a compromise that garners enough votes to win elections. Please note that this does not mean doing everything Trumpites want. No doubt there are many Trumpites who will refuse to accept anything other that everything they want. You will never reason with them, but you also don't need 100% of votes to win elections. You just need a majority.

One again we see how, for progressives, the perfect is insisted upon (and so becomes the enemy of the good).

We are always hearing about Democrats having to compromise.  What about Republicans.  What if the narrative became one of the Democrats turning out more people who normally don't vote because they have policies that are not restricted by worrying about pissing off the people who might vote Republican. 

What if the Republicans realized they had to start building a bigger tent.

[Malthus]

Great, so Trumpists win either way.  either they win power outright, or they get non Trumpist politicians to govern in a way that won't upset people who might vote for a Trumpist candidate. 

What a perfectly horrible society that would create.

Point is to find a compromise that garners enough votes to win elections. Please note that this does not mean doing everything Trumpites want. No doubt there are many Trumpites who will refuse to accept anything other that everything they want. You will never reason with them, but you also don't need 100% of votes to win elections. You just need a majority.

One again we see how, for progressives, the perfect is insisted upon (and so becomes the enemy of the good).

We are always hearing about Democrats having to compromise.  What about Republicans.  What if the narrative became one of the Democrats turning out more people who normally don't vote because they have policies that are not restricted by worrying about pissing off the people who might vote Republican. 

What if the Republicans realized they had to start building a bigger tent.

The Republicans have found a strategy they think wins elections - just lie about everything, spread fear, use white, Christian and hetero identity politics. Unfortunately the left can't win using the same strategy only on reverse - as I've noted, in a straight contest between White and non-White, Christian and non-Christian, hetero and non-hetero, the former wins every time because they are in the majority in the US and likely to remain that way.

If the Republicans embraced compromise, building a bigger tent, ditched the divisive  identity politics, stopped the lying and fearmongering, in short became a boring ordinary right-leaning political party ... that would be awesome. In a perfect world, that's what I'd want to see happening.

Unfortunately it seems unlikely, as the Republicans are in a cancerous state. 

[Zoupa]

Nate Silver predicts that this noncharismatic 80 year old Biden will reach 80 million votes. While barely campaigning, during a pandemic, with all the attempts from the GOP at voter suppression.

The answer is not to try and reach the Trumpers. They are impervious to facts and policy. The answer is to turn out your voters and start building an organization that can win local races at every level.

The Obama-Trump voter exists, but if they haven't gone back to Biden after 4 years of Trump, there's no reaching those. Either they're too low-information to reach or they've drank the kool-aid and are now Q-anon retards.