What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Zoupa]

Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????

Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.

Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.

If he is on message, and the rest f the party is on message, then it can most certainly flip plenty of states that are not Wyoming.

I don't understand how this isn't just obvious.

Not only is tis not obvious, it's also not true.

[crazy canuck]

I am not trying to step into the Tlaib/Centrist quagmire that ya'll have set up here. 

I am more tired of the "ZOMG THA POTUS DIDNT EVEN WIN THE POPULAR VOTE!!11" arguments, and the subsequent smugness about the superiorness of their political systems, when those same systems have what could easily be argued is even more removed from directly electing their executive than the one we have.

There are a couple of reasons why the popular vote is a more meaningful data point in the US system than the comparator you selected - Canada.

First, Americans cast a ballot for who they want to be president.  As a result it is a head to head competition for people to vote for who they wish to be President.  One of the things that results from this is that Americans can split their vote between the local person they want to represent them, who may belong to a different party, and the person they want to be their President.  The other consequence is we know exactly how many people voted for each Presidential candidate and so there is no need to think about it in terms of a proxy vote.  In Canada, and other Parliamentary Democracies, the only people who vote for person who will become PM are the people in the PMs riding.  The leaders of the other parties do not run in the same riding and so there is no head to head competition.  There is also no possibility to split ones vote between a strong local candidate who might belong to a different party and the PM.  We only vote for a local candidate.  One of the results is that local politics matter a lot and people might might vote for a local candidate they like why not liking the leader of the party very much.  We never talk about the leader of a party winning the popular vote because that would be a nonsense.  We talk about the party winning x percentage of the vote.

Second, the US is a two party state.  Yes there are other fringe candidates but only members of the two parties win elections.  As a result it is striking when there is a head to head competition for President and the person who loses the popular vote can, because of your Electoral College system, end up winning the office.  In Canada there are five parties who have elected members sitting in Parliament.  One of those parties is a dominant political force in our second most populated province and it will never form government.  As a result it is not that remarkable that the party who forms government did not win the popular vote.  That would actually be a fairly remarkable outcome in a first past the post system with multiple parties.

[Sheilbh]

More importantly, once you start talking about how political systems work, you immediately go into how to make them work in order to win elections (at least nominally democratic ones).


...which then we end up right back with exasperated centrists asking the left to think a bit about actually winning elections instead of arguments when prominent left wing politicians (and yes, she is prominent enough that people notice what she says) start spouting off stupid shit like abolishing the police. Hell, even SHE knows it was a dumb thing to say, since she walked it back the next day.

Is that true though? It feels to me that becaus the US has a strong counter-majoritarian element in its constitution that actually one wing of American politics has decided not to try and win elections. The last Republican leader I can think of who was talking about building a Republican majority was W.

I suppose to flip this to the other side - the UK, Germany, Japan etc show that there's nothing to stop conservatives/the right consistently winning elections and forming governments (from a European perspective it's the centre left that is in crisis and locked out of power in most countries). Given what you think about the loony left - isn't the striking thing not that the left struggle to win elections, which is the case across developed democracies with a few exceptions, but that the right stopped trying? Instead of making a single compromise with the electorate (like the Tories, the CDU, the LDP etc) they've chosen to really lean into the minoritarian bits of the US constitution: the Senate, the Supreme Court and occasionally winning the electoral college (plus now trying to further restrict voters).

I also feel like in times when there is a prominent "loony left" however close they are to power that normally results in a period of conservative/right-wing rule. I just keep thinking what if Trump had actually delivered on infrastructure week

[Barrister]

Is that true though? It feels to me that becaus the US has a strong counter-majoritarian element in its constitution that actually one wing of American politics has decided not to try and win elections. The last Republican leader I can think of who was talking about building a Republican majority was W.

I remember reading a W staffer (was probably David Frum, but not sure) who commented that they were very aware in 2001 that they did not win a majority of the votes and were really trying to reach across the aisle and be more bipartisan to make up for that lack of legitimacy.  No Child Left Behind was the big example of that.

Then of course 9/11 hit and everything changed.  But it was quite a comparison with Trump who really didn't care (except to lie and say he really did win the popular vote).

[Sheilbh]

I remember reading a W staffer (was probably David Frum, but not sure) who commented that they were very aware in 2001 that they did not win a majority of the votes and were really trying to reach across the aisle and be more bipartisan to make up for that lack of legitimacy.  No Child Left Behind was the big example of that.

Then of course 9/11 hit and everything changed.  But it was quite a comparison with Trump who really didn't care (except to lie and say he really did win the popular vote).

Yeah it was W's entire pitch before 9/11 - compassionate conservatism, NCLB, immigration reform, the "soft bias of low expectations", even the humble foreign policy etc. They had a theory.

As you say 9/11 changed everything (though 2004 is the only Presidential election since 1988 when the GOP did win the popular vote), but also I think Social Security reform was a killer.

Edit: And a contrast to Trump - perhaps. But as I say if Trump followed through on his promises by caring about actually doing things (which was impossible) and two wars end, plus spending on infrastructure to let the economy - that could be another majority I think. It's the rest of the GOP that held back on that because I think their focus is ultimately only what they delivered: tax cuts and judges.

[Berkut]

Hey....how did we end up with 6 Supreme Court justices from the Tea Party when we won that damn argument so convincingly! How is it that the Senate is half fucking Trump troglodytes when we keep winning our argument so thoroughly????

Because of the structural issues within your system? I mean you have a President that lost the popular vote, nominating SC judges by having Wyoming senators overrule California senators.

Tlaib can be on message all she wants, it's not going to flip Wyoming.

If he is on message, and the rest f the party is on message, then it can most certainly flip plenty of states that are not Wyoming.

I don't understand how this isn't just obvious.

Not only is tis not obvious, it's also not true.

So your position is that there is no point in trying to win elections? It's hopeless...we should just have a revolution or something instead?

What is your point, now that you retreated from your rabid defense of "abolish the police!"

[Berkut]

More importantly, once you start talking about how political systems work, you immediately go into how to make them work in order to win elections (at least nominally democratic ones).


...which then we end up right back with exasperated centrists asking the left to think a bit about actually winning elections instead of arguments when prominent left wing politicians (and yes, she is prominent enough that people notice what she says) start spouting off stupid shit like abolishing the police. Hell, even SHE knows it was a dumb thing to say, since she walked it back the next day.

Is that true though? It feels to me that becaus the US has a strong counter-majoritarian element in its constitution that actually one wing of American politics has decided not to try and win elections. The last Republican leader I can think of who was talking about building a Republican majority was W.

I suppose to flip this to the other side - the UK, Germany, Japan etc show that there's nothing to stop conservatives/the right consistently winning elections and forming governments (from a European perspective it's the centre left that is in crisis and locked out of power in most countries). Given what you think about the loony left - isn't the striking thing not that the left struggle to win elections, which is the case across developed democracies with a few exceptions, but that the right stopped trying? Instead of making a single compromise with the electorate (like the Tories, the CDU, the LDP etc) they've chosen to really lean into the minoritarian bits of the US constitution: the Senate, the Supreme Court and occasionally winning the electoral college (plus now trying to further restrict voters).

I also feel like in times when there is a prominent "loony left" however close they are to power that normally results in a period of conservative/right-wing rule. I just keep thinking what if Trump had actually delivered on infrastructure week

Im not really sure what you are saying here.

I don't think the left by and large is loony at all - I think there are elements that I take issue with on both philosophical levels and more importantly, practical levels in that I tink the shit they do makes it harder to win elections. I've argued both in different contexts before, my argument right now however is completely practical.

And I don't even know what I am arguing against. It is starting to feel like there is a demand that we not try to win elections at all, because apparently it doesn't matter anyway? I'm not entirely sure at this point.

[The Brain]

Berkut, do you think democracy is important? Even when it doesn't go your way?

[crazy canuck]

More importantly, once you start talking about how political systems work, you immediately go into how to make them work in order to win elections (at least nominally democratic ones).


...which then we end up right back with exasperated centrists asking the left to think a bit about actually winning elections instead of arguments when prominent left wing politicians (and yes, she is prominent enough that people notice what she says) start spouting off stupid shit like abolishing the police. Hell, even SHE knows it was a dumb thing to say, since she walked it back the next day.

Is that true though? It feels to me that becaus the US has a strong counter-majoritarian element in its constitution that actually one wing of American politics has decided not to try and win elections. The last Republican leader I can think of who was talking about building a Republican majority was W.

I suppose to flip this to the other side - the UK, Germany, Japan etc show that there's nothing to stop conservatives/the right consistently winning elections and forming governments (from a European perspective it's the centre left that is in crisis and locked out of power in most countries). Given what you think about the loony left - isn't the striking thing not that the left struggle to win elections, which is the case across developed democracies with a few exceptions, but that the right stopped trying? Instead of making a single compromise with the electorate (like the Tories, the CDU, the LDP etc) they've chosen to really lean into the minoritarian bits of the US constitution: the Senate, the Supreme Court and occasionally winning the electoral college (plus now trying to further restrict voters).

I also feel like in times when there is a prominent "loony left" however close they are to power that normally results in a period of conservative/right-wing rule. I just keep thinking what if Trump had actually delivered on infrastructure week

Im not really sure what you are saying here.

I don't think the left by and large is loony at all - I think there are elements that I take issue with on both philosophical levels and more importantly, practical levels in that I tink the shit they do makes it harder to win elections. I've argued both in different contexts before, my argument right now however is completely practical.

And I don't even know what I am arguing against. It is starting to feel like there is a demand that we not try to win elections at all, because apparently it doesn't matter anyway? I'm not entirely sure at this point.

If the only goal of a party is to win, then what?

[Berkut]

Berkut, do you think democracy is important? Even when it doesn't go your way?

Of course.

I mean...the last couple decades have shaken my faith in the good sense of my fellow man, but its not like I see a better alternative to it. Why?

[Berkut]

If the only goal of a party is to win, then what?

Wouldn't that be a better question for someone who believes that the only goal of a party is to win?

[Sheilbh]

If the only goal of a party is to win, then what?

I'd probably go alont with the only goal of a party is to win - I think that might be the secret to the success of the "natural parties of government" around the world (Tories, Liberals, CDU, LDP, historically Fianna Fail). They may have sort of guiding principles but they never allow the theological debate around that to distract them for winning - or at least not for too long.

I think that kind of has to be the only goal in big-tent, two-party coalition politics like the US because otherwise what's the point of the big tent? The only reason is because it's a two-party system and the purpose is to win.

Even in a FPTP parliamentary system like the UK or Canada I think generally governments lose elections, rather than oppositions winning them - but the least the opposition has to do is be ready to present a credible alternative come election day.

And I don't even know what I am arguing against. It is starting to feel like there is a demand that we not try to win elections at all, because apparently it doesn't matter anyway? I'm not entirely sure at this point.

Maybe because I wasn't really arguing with you?

[The Brain]

Berkut, do you think democracy is important? Even when it doesn't go your way?

Of course.

I mean...the last couple decades have shaken my faith in the good sense of my fellow man, but its not like I see a better alternative to it. Why?

That makes you part of a fairly small minority these days. My experience is that being in this minority can be a very frustrating experience.

[alfred russel]

The democrats could really reduce the lines of attack against themselves if they expelled people like AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and the other 3 squad members. They could also do without Bernie Sanders in the Senate--he is in a lot of attack ads.

Of course they would then lose their majority in both houses, and republicans would still run attack ads anyway.

[alfred russel]

Berkut, don't the democrats control the house senate and white house? Didn't they just win?