What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[grumbler]

And by the way, somewhere, somehow, someone "got to Obama" in 2012 and his people learned this exact fucking thing. Because how did they beat Romney?  By ignoring all the shit Romney tried to throw at him--which was frequently at least some of the same bullshit Jim Jordan and other asshats manufactured against Obama, just packaged in a nicer way, and continually running attacks not to brush back bullshit claims, but to just fuck Romney up head on. Romney is an out of touch rich guy. He calls 47% of the country parasites. Romney said something that was a little out of context, and Obama's team just fucked him up the ass with it for months, and it absolutely beat him. It's identical to how the GOP used the "close a lot of coal mines" comment from Hillary. Why would you mess around in the mud of an argument that's toxic and stupid for you when you could just hit them from another angle that is far worse for them?

Problem with this strategy is that it risks ending up with both sides being more or less the same - and both unpleasant.

I prefer Biden's apparent strategy, which seems to have worked, at least so far.

Otto is describing a strategy that works, though is unsavory.  Biden, I agree, has a more tolerable strategy, which may work.  AOC has the Trump mirror-image strategy of promising the moon without actually proposing anything.  That also works, but is also unsavory.

I, like you, prefer Biden's strategy, and I think that maybe it is the last hope for avoiding a decent into all shit, all the time.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I agree that Biden's strategy worked for Biden and it worked against Trump. I am not sure it works for everyone against everyone. I think Biden in some ways was the perfect foil for Trump, most of the people that Trump turned off hated his constant lies, bombast, egotism, his embrace of base stupidity. Some of them that were "centrists" or even lapsed Republicans, were looking for a Democrat they could "get to yes on", and I think Biden made that really easy for them. But I also think this is an ephemeral group to court, and I am not sure just having a non-scary white guy will always work in all situations. I think like Carville adeptly said, you don't have to win a broader base of the population, you just need to lose some groups less--like for the Dems to win 50% of rural voters they would have to really abandon core principles, but could they do better than 20%? I think so. If we just didn't get our asses kicked so crazy hard in rural areas, it actually eviscerates the GOP, it makes it hard for gerrymandering to work, it puts their Senate majority in permanent peril, their ability to control the House in permanent peril, in ways that few other things do. Carville specifically mentions our voters won't put up with the exact same shit as Republican voters, Democrats shouldn't run as Republicans or even Republicans-lite to win a few percent more rural voters. But I do think there is space in the culture war for riling up blue collar people about a party that pervasively services only the ultra wealthy, I think if you even do that a bit better, you hurt the GOP everywhere that it is currently competitive, and in a way that leaves them much less pivot room. And I think arguments like that can't be delivered by Joe Biden, you need someone like a Sherrod Brown who decides to get real nasty, someone in that mold.

I think AOC is actually a good model too for a certain segment of the spectrum, I am not sure she can attain say Presidential level success, but I'm not sure she needs to to effect some of the changes she wants. AOC will never appeal to some of the people I'm talking about, but I do think she's making an important, working class oriented argument.

[Sheilbh]

I really like James Carville because he's frankly much smarter than any of us about how politics really works. He actually prescribed some very specific advice, all of you left of center folk then spent over a week and several hundred posts whinging about use of the word woke. I'm still a conservative--but I haven't been a Republican since 2013 or so, and I don't view the Republican party as a conservative party. Maybe because I'm from that side of the aisle I get it. I think the Lincoln Project guys get it too, so maybe conservatives are just better at fighting, I don't know.

<snip>

I agree with more or less all of this.

But I think part of the challenge is what you've identified. Republicans consume Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge, TheGatewayPundit, Breitbart, Daily Caller etc. So it's easy to be shameless because your base is reading and sharing a media that is equally shameless and partisan. Democrat voters read the NYT, Washington Post, CNN. I think those bits of the media have been pretty weak in actually covering Biden so far, but they are far more even-handed and have an idea of objectiveness. That's a challenge for the Dems because basically the rules only apply to them, because who votes for them.

[crazy canuck]

You describe a reprehensible politics.

You might consider learning from AOC

I'm going to circle back to go ahead and tell you to fuck off. Your attitude is pretty consistently bad and stupid. You are a morally sanctimonious bitch and people like you represent a lot of why my country is going to hell in a hand basket. We've had a generation of imbeciles like you lined up to fight Rush, Jim Jordan, Sean Hannity, O'Reilly et. al. and I've watched them let my country slip into the fucking toilet. You are not needed or wanted in this battle. Luckily you're in Canada so you're irrelevant and pointless, but the virus in your mind that makes you weak affects far too much of the American left too.

Why did you bother responding? 

My post was mainly for others to note that the politics you are suggesting are destructive.

[Habbaku]

Pretty sure he responded to tell you to fuck off. It's in the first sentence.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I really like James Carville because he's frankly much smarter than any of us about how politics really works. He actually prescribed some very specific advice, all of you left of center folk then spent over a week and several hundred posts whinging about use of the word woke. I'm still a conservative--but I haven't been a Republican since 2013 or so, and I don't view the Republican party as a conservative party. Maybe because I'm from that side of the aisle I get it. I think the Lincoln Project guys get it too, so maybe conservatives are just better at fighting, I don't know.

<snip>

I agree with more or less all of this.

But I think part of the challenge is what you've identified. Republicans consume Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge, TheGatewayPundit, Breitbart, Daily Caller etc. So it's easy to be shameless because your base is reading and sharing a media that is equally shameless and partisan. Democrat voters read the NYT, Washington Post, CNN. I think those bits of the media have been pretty weak in actually covering Biden so far, but they are far more even-handed and have an idea of objectiveness. That's a challenge for the Dems because basically the rules only apply to them, because who votes for them.

I think to some degree those mainstream media sources are no longer particularly useful for the politics of today. The last time America had a period of intense hyperpartisanship, in the final decades of the 19th century, pretty much every major newspaper of record was extremely partisan for one side or the other. I know it may feel like we lose something by giving it up, but I think to a degree the fact that the "genteel Harvard journalism grads" who dominate those "major national outlets" want to fight by the Marquess of Queensberry rules genuinely hurts Democrats ability to message against Republicans. Democrats need fighters. I actually think they specifically need people like the Lincoln Project guys (if not those guys personally, since I think some level of skepticism should be cast on them), meaning they need fighters who aren't Rashida Tlaib and AOC. The Democrats have had far lefty fighters for ages, but I think despite what the far left wants, the party isn't there, and neither is the country. That's part of why a lot of the really rancorous anti-Bush types were so ineffective, mainstream Dems tuned out shit like Daily Kos because it was just too far left. You need someone who is a mainstream liberal or even a centrist who is willing to just aggressively shit all over the Republicans. To some degree someone in the vein of Bill Maher could serve that role, but Maher's specific podium and his specific personal picadilloes mean he isn't the person to carry that sword. Maher is only vaguely aligned with the party, and his show gets too much of its viewership from poking fun at woke liberalism for him to fully become an anti-Republican warrior. Rush Limbaugh didn't emerge out of establishment conservative media, to some degree he made his own lane. I do think outlets like MSNBC could also get more down in the mud, their viewership is already deeply liberal, they might as well focus on becoming more of a platform for liberal fire brands than wasting a lot of air time with more shit you can find on CNN or ABC News.

[Berkut]

And by the way, somewhere, somehow, someone "got to Obama" in 2012 and his people learned this exact fucking thing. Because how did they beat Romney?  By ignoring all the shit Romney tried to throw at him--which was frequently at least some of the same bullshit Jim Jordan and other asshats manufactured against Obama, just packaged in a nicer way, and continually running attacks not to brush back bullshit claims, but to just fuck Romney up head on. Romney is an out of touch rich guy. He calls 47% of the country parasites. Romney said something that was a little out of context, and Obama's team just fucked him up the ass with it for months, and it absolutely beat him. It's identical to how the GOP used the "close a lot of coal mines" comment from Hillary. Why would you mess around in the mud of an argument that's toxic and stupid for you when you could just hit them from another angle that is far worse for them?

Yep. And note that none of this is lying. It isn't making something up. It is nasty politics, but it isn't dishonest politics.

[Berkut]

I really like James Carville because he's frankly much smarter than any of us about how politics really works. He actually prescribed some very specific advice, all of you left of center folk then spent over a week and several hundred posts whinging about use of the word woke. I'm still a conservative--but I haven't been a Republican since 2013 or so, and I don't view the Republican party as a conservative party. Maybe because I'm from that side of the aisle I get it. I think the Lincoln Project guys get it too, so maybe conservatives are just better at fighting, I don't know.

<snip>

I agree with more or less all of this.

But I think part of the challenge is what you've identified. Republicans consume Limbaugh, Fox News, Drudge, TheGatewayPundit, Breitbart, Daily Caller etc. So it's easy to be shameless because your base is reading and sharing a media that is equally shameless and partisan. Democrat voters read the NYT, Washington Post, CNN. I think those bits of the media have been pretty weak in actually covering Biden so far, but they are far more even-handed and have an idea of objectiveness. That's a challenge for the Dems because basically the rules only apply to them, because who votes for them.

I think to some degree those mainstream media sources are no longer particularly useful for the politics of today. The last time America had a period of intense hyperpartisanship, in the final decades of the 19th century, pretty much every major newspaper of record was extremely partisan for one side or the other. I know it may feel like we lose something by giving it up, but I think to a degree the fact that the "genteel Harvard journalism grads" who dominate those "major national outlets" want to fight by the Marquess of Queensberry rules genuinely hurts Democrats ability to message against Republicans. Democrats need fighters. I actually think they specifically need people like the Lincoln Project guys (if not those guys personally, since I think some level of skepticism should be cast on them), meaning they need fighters who aren't Rashida Tlaib and AOC. The Democrats have had far lefty fighters for ages, but I think despite what the far left wants, the party isn't there, and neither is the country. That's part of why a lot of the really rancorous anti-Bush types were so ineffective, mainstream Dems tuned out shit like Daily Kos because it was just too far left. You need someone who is a mainstream liberal or even a centrist who is willing to just aggressively shit all over the Republicans. To some degree someone in the vein of Bill Maher could serve that role, but Maher's specific podium and his specific personal picadilloes mean he isn't the person to carry that sword. Maher is only vaguely aligned with the party, and his show gets too much of its viewership from poking fun at woke liberalism for him to fully become an anti-Republican warrior. Rush Limbaugh didn't emerge out of establishment conservative media, to some degree he made his own lane. I do think outlets like MSNBC could also get more down in the mud, their viewership is already deeply liberal, they might as well focus on becoming more of a platform for liberal fire brands than wasting a lot of air time with more shit you can find on CNN or ABC News.

You are saying I need some kind of media outlet. Hmmmm......

[FunkMonk]

So basically the Dems need more CountdeMoneys?

I can buy that argument.

[Jacob]

No I describe fighting in a modern day cold civil war, in which if you aren't firing bullets you might as well give up.

I agree with your take on this.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think dishing more dirt on Republicans would do much frankly.  Gaetz has been getting 24 hour coverage on his weirdo love slave thing, but I'm willing to bet his district either reelects him or elects another Trumpist wacko.

The only time it might make a difference is during a general election, like Roy Moore and revelations about his evangelical child bride boner.

[Jacob]

I don't think dishing more dirt on Republicans would do much frankly.  Gaetz has been getting 24 hour coverage on his weirdo love slave thing, but I'm willing to bet his district either reelects him or elects another Trumpist wacko.

The only time it might make a difference is during a general election, like Roy Moore and revelations about his evangelical child bride boner.

I don't think it's just about "dishing more dirt". It's about putting the work into figuring out what the most effective attack vectors are and going for them. If that's more dirt, do it. If it's rousing populist socialist rhetoric, do it. If it's intricate 5-year policy plans, do them. If it's Vanity Fair cover stories, do them. If it's putting the time in shaking hands, do it. If it's funding shady meme campaigns, do it. If And if it's micro-targeted social media campaigns to provide specific groups with whatever works for them specifically, do it.

More importantly, I think, it's getting ahead of the GOP on the definition game - both defining the Dems and defining the GOP. Dirt can work there, but it doesn't have to be dirty. But if it does, do it (in the appropriately removed way to prevent splash back, of course).

[Admiral Yi]

I was responding to Biscuit.  Sorry not clear.

[Jacob]

I was responding to Biscuit.  Sorry not clear.

No it was clear

I just chose to interpret the word of Biscuit and argue my interpretation

[garbon]

I was responding to Biscuit.  Sorry not clear.

No it was clear

I just chose to interpret the word of Biscuit and argue my interpretation

So they go low, we go lower?