What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

It could've made them underperform the expectations badly, though, and left them with Manchin as the kingmaker.  What we had in 2020 was Trump on the ballot.  The fact that there were plenty of people voting for Biden but not other Democrats should've given them pause, during a year when they should've swept the elections and maybe even packed the court.

That is certainly possible, but still the 2020 outcome was far superior to what Dems can likely expect in 2022.  Some of that difference can be chalked up to the normal midterm effect but the rest has other causes.  And the obvious culprits are inflation, the recent weakening growth data, and concerns about effective leadership from Biden.  I don't think it's that complicated.  And there is not much the Congressional Dems can do other than minimize the own goals, mobilize their own base best they can, and hope for better news.

[Berkut]

It could've made them underperform the expectations badly, though, and left them with Manchin as the kingmaker.  What we had in 2020 was Trump on the ballot.  The fact that there were plenty of people voting for Biden but not other Democrats should've given them pause, during a year when they should've swept the elections and maybe even packed the court.

That is certainly possible, but still the 2020 outcome was far superior to what Dems can likely expect in 2022.  Some of that difference can be chalked up to the normal midterm effect but the rest has other causes.  And the obvious culprits are inflation, the recent weakening growth data, and concerns about effective leadership from Biden.  I don't think it's that complicated.  And there is not much the Congressional Dems can do other than minimize the own goals, mobilize their own base best they can, and hope for better news.

I think there is a LOT more the Dems could do, actually.

Get some professional, focused messaging. Try to get some kind of pressure placed on the party to stay focused on the things that voters actually care about, and that there is broad consensus among Dems and Independents to actually DO. 

And then just hammer those things, over and over and over again.

There is broad consensus on a lot of items. Climate change, gun control, healthcare, income inequality, childcare. Pick a couple things from that list, and then start hammering them. Talk talk talk talk talk about those things and what the Dems are going to do to make people lives better, and don't stop talking about them.

Hell, there is a fucking war going on right now, and that should normally be a huge boost to the sitting President. How is that not being talked about 24/7? Russia is getting their ass kicked, how is Biden not taking credit for that?

Where is the Democratic propaganda machine? Who controls it?

[alfred russel]

All true but defund the police was the big slogan in the 2020 election cycle and it did not prevent the Dems from capturing the Presidency and the Senate.

What is going on now must have different causes than that specific issue.

It could've made them underperform the expectations badly, though, and left them with Manchin as the kingmaker.  What we had in 2020 was Trump on the ballot.  The fact that there were plenty of people voting for Biden but not other Democrats should've given them pause, during a year when they should've swept the elections and maybe even packed the court.

Maybe in the House. The double victory in Georgia was a miracle.

Was there any other race in the Senate the Democrats had a chance to win?

North Carolina, Iowa, Maine, for reasons that aren't abundantly clear the democrats spent a fortune thinking they could knock off McConnell and Lindsay Graham.

[alfred russel]

Hell, there is a fucking war going on right now, and that should normally be a huge boost to the sitting President. How is that not being talked about 24/7? Russia is getting their ass kicked, how is Biden not taking credit for that?

A war going on somewhere in the world doesn't generally give a boost to a sitting president.

[Berkut]

Hell, there is a fucking war going on right now, and that should normally be a huge boost to the sitting President. How is that not being talked about 24/7? Russia is getting their ass kicked, how is Biden not taking credit for that?

A war going on somewhere in the world doesn't generally give a boost to a sitting president.

The largest war in like 80 years between a "great power" and a NATO proxy where the US is funding the war in large part including massive quantities of weapons is not a "war going on somewhere in the world".

Of course, you knew that. But hey, score some points I guess.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Defund the Police is bad evidence in support of the Berkut hypothesis, which scattered around a half dozen threads now I take as "anyone I say is woke should be put to death" or something, I'm not sure. Because in the real world I lived in, Joe Biden, the Democratic party nominee for President, the leader of the party, came out against defund the police essentially the first time he was asked about it. He then emphatically encouraged more funding for police at many, many campaign stops and speeches. He then actually secured increased funding for local police in his first bailout bill.

I.e. he argued against it, then legislated against it. But in Berkut-land, the Democrats "did nothing" about the slogan. I guess because Biden didn't have AOC shot in the back of the head by the SA? I don't know exactly, in a free society, what more a political party can do. We don't control the far left of the party as chattel, they have a right to speak and there is nothing we can (or should) want to do about that.

Some of this goes back to trying to put more on the Democrats than is maybe logical. The big reason Biden's messaging on Defund the Police didn't get that much attention is because the Republicans have an incredibly sophisticated propaganda machine that massively amplifies all news they want amplified, and "floods the zone" with trash so news they do not want amplified, is not. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the Democrats need some sort of way to fight this, and pretending you just have to copy and paste policies from a Sam Harris podcast or an episode of Bill Maher's show, and all the centrist white bros you guys hang out with will start embracing Nancy Pelosi, simply is not reality.

[Berkut]

Oh look, more racism from OvB. Pass.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Oh look, more racism from OvB. Pass.

Berkut makes bad argument, cries when called on it. Seems to be a disturbing pattern of late.

[alfred russel]

Hell, there is a fucking war going on right now, and that should normally be a huge boost to the sitting President. How is that not being talked about 24/7? Russia is getting their ass kicked, how is Biden not taking credit for that?

A war going on somewhere in the world doesn't generally give a boost to a sitting president.

The largest war in like 80 years between a "great power" and a NATO proxy where the US is funding the war in large part including massive quantities of weapons is not a "war going on somewhere in the world".

Of course, you knew that. But hey, score some points I guess.

The US isn't actually at war. The rally round the flag sentiment that historically boosts presidential approval just isn't going to happen. Thinking otherwise is really stupid.

Russia/Ukraine just isn't registering as that important for most Americans. You can see in the March Gallup tracking poll of the most important issues:

#1 The government/Poor leadership 22%
#2 Inflation 17%
#3 The economy in general 11%
#4 Situation with Russia and Ukraine 9%

https://news.gallup.com/poll/391220/inflation-dominates-americans-economic-concerns-march.aspx

It isn't being talked about 24/7 because it isn't the issue people are most concerned with.

[viper37]

1. "Democrats are out of touch with hardworking people like me", is a question Dems have done very badly on for quite a long while. I think to some degree the culture wars on tied up in this, but I also think this is part of the broader "messaging deficit." The Republicans don't have a good economic message for working class folk, but they do have a cultural message for them. Democrats don't seem to have any consistent message for them at all, which represents a fairly big messaging gap. The closest messaging Democrats seem to have for this is specific backing for wonky social welfare programs that are poorly understood and poorly explained, and America's working class have never been that easily bribed by straight hand outs.

I think this is insightful of the potential damage the Democrats can do by renouncing things their base cares about to chase other voters. By dumping the Unions and trying to move right on economics the Democrats ultimately alienated most of the workers. Sure it helped Clinton win a few elections but really cost the Democrats in the long term. I don't know if it is possible to reverse this at this point, but it should be a warning against any similar schemes.

It's more like the unions dump them because they were free trade while the Republicans moved to protectionism.

[The Minsky Moment]

The largest war in like 80 years between a "great power" and a NATO proxy

Korea (reversed), Vietnam (same), Afghanistan

[Sheilbh]

There is broad consensus on a lot of items. Climate change, gun control, healthcare, income inequality, childcare. Pick a couple things from that list, and then start hammering them. Talk talk talk talk talk about those things and what the Dems are going to do to make people lives better, and don't stop talking about them.

I think there's two things with this.

One is messaging and policy don't matter if you haven't got an analysis of where we, why we're there and a strategy of where you want to go. I do not think the Democrats have that on any of those issues. On each one there have been proposals and there are splits on pretty basic issues around it. That's why, in my view looking at messaging is not the solution because it's not tied to or coming out of a strategy that Democrats can broadly cohere around - and voters can tell because it's not tied together. It's the grab-bag of popular policies that do not talk to each other approach, which I think fails.

Second thing is I don't think you can easily convince voters to care about the things you care about/want to fight the election on. I think you have to go where voters are and have an answer to their issues. I said it in the Brexit thread, but I think any political party that is not overwhelmingly focusing on inflation and the economy is doing it wrong. There will also always be a couple of other issues which will vary - in the US I think it's leadership/concerns about Biden and I don't know how you answer that. It isn't enough to talk about climate change or income inequality. Democrats need to have an answer on inflation and the economy - nothing I have seen so far inspires confidence on that.

The other point from this, which, I think hurts the Democrats' ability to raise the alarm about the GOP is that I think - and it was clear during the election - Biden's analysis is basically that Trump is a rupture with the GOP. Biden's project is restorationist - he is a deep believer in the institutions, particularly the Senate. His basic view is that returning to norms pre-Trump is the answer and that the GOP will be tempted back into that framework. I disagree with that. I think Trump is a product of the direction the GOP has been going for a while. I wouldn't full go for it, but I think there's something to Matt Continetti's take that Trump is arguably just the return of pre-New Deal GOP politics: very anti-immigration and racist, suspicious of the mob/majorities, socially conservative, isolationist, pro-capital. Because my view is that Trump isn't rupture but a symptom of the GOP, I'm not convinced Biden's approach is one that will work  - but as he's President, Democrats are a little bit tied to the mast with it.

[Jacob]

Good points, Sheilbh.

Looking at the top three points from Dorsey's post, they are: leadership, inflation, the economy. The inflation and the economy are if not the same thing, closely related. And if you can show convincing plan on strong leadership on the economy & inflation, then you're covering what 50% of voters are saying they care about. That's not nothing.

So what are the Democrats' options here?

[DGuller]

I feel like we're having the same debate split over two threads.  Do we need a woke megathread?

[Berkut]

The other point from this, which, I think hurts the Democrats' ability to raise the alarm about the GOP is that I think - and it was clear during the election - Biden's analysis is basically that Trump is a rupture with the GOP. Biden's project is restorationist - he is a deep believer in the institutions, particularly the Senate. His basic view is that returning to norms pre-Trump is the answer and that the GOP will be tempted back into that framework. I disagree with that. I think Trump is a product of the direction the GOP has been going for a while. I wouldn't full go for it, but I think there's something to Matt Continetti's take that Trump is arguably just the return of pre-New Deal GOP politics: very anti-immigration and racist, suspicious of the mob/majorities, socially conservative, isolationist, pro-capital. Because my view is that Trump isn't rupture but a symptom of the GOP, I'm not convinced Biden's approach is one that will work  - but as he's President, Democrats are a little bit tied to the mast with it.

Yeah, I share that concern very much.

Trump is not an aberration, Trump is what you get when you spend 3 decades letting Rush Limbaugh define the party.