[GT] US election - It's 2020, what could possibly go wrong?

[FlamesAddiction]

If the places that the Democrats lost in the House saw a Republican as the alternative, they very likely weren't going to vote for a left-leaning candidate.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm just far more jaded and less naive than you are I think. These people don't deserve the benefit of the doubt until they've proven they've actually changed their stripes.

All your posts are with the assumption that everyone wants the same thing as you, and anyone who doesn't agree with that is wrong. A lot of us were pretty happy with the way the country and government was run under Obama, and are pretty happy about going back to that.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, this is just straight up wrong. Even in lean-Republican or strong-Republican districts, every Democratic candidate that supported M4A won their seats.

Again, the idea that progressive policies aren't popular just isn't supported by data (e.g. polls, studies, election results, etc.). It's a nice talking point for centrists but there's a reason they can't offer anything except rhetoric and/or useless talking points (e.g. "Biden won the most votes of any candidate!").

I posted an article above about a Virginia house member who almost lost her seat, that she won rather easily in 2018. Everything she hear from her campaign was that she had to fight off being associated with defund the police and socialism, and she heard the same thing from other democratic colleagues who lost their seats.

What can you offer to support that other seats that flipped red, were flipped because the democrat wasn't running on a platform that was progressive enough?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by comrade

There's been no real economic choice at the polls in decades, especially at the top of the ticket.

Yes there has, every 4 years the GOP and Dems have a choice of left centerist and right in their respective parties and every four years they pick center to right wing, this is what the parties and the US want, it is confirmed at the polls a few months after the parties choose their candidates, the US is a right wing country, the lack of choice is the result of that not the cause.

Its why the likes of Bernie and AOC don't turn up outside the N East and Pacific, they are utterly unelectable, if Bern could go down to Texas and kick Ted Cruz out then maybe the left could make a case but they stay firmly in their safe seats carping on about the party

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

All your posts are with the assumption that everyone wants the same thing as you, and anyone who doesn't agree with that is wrong.

Do you actually want to engage with the substance of my post, or are you just going to deflect? Which M4A candidates underperformed in their races in the same manner that moderates did? Which "progressive" policies (outside of maybe "defund the police") are massively unpopular with the majority of the population? Why did Biden lose Florida but a $15/h minimum wage pass by a landlslide?

A lot of us were pretty happy with the way the country and government was run under Obama, and are pretty happy about going back to that.

Yes, white suburbanites who were generally already doing okay and are able to afford things such as health care and housing have the privilege of primarily focusing on relatively trivial issues around presidential decorum. Good for you.

There is clearly a massive segment of the population who were so fed up with the "politics as usual" of the Obama years (especially after being promised monumental changes in 2008), that they handed Trump and can of gasoline and a pack of matches.

You have a populist wave in the U.S. right now that probably accounts for 60% of voters (combining right and left populists) and who knows how many non-voters. This is a direct rejection of establishment politics but centrists keep sticking their heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I posted an article above about a Virginia house member who almost lost her seat, that she won rather easily in 2018. Everything she hear from her campaign was that she had to fight off being associated with defund the police and socialism, and she heard the same thing from other democratic colleagues who lost their seats.

Ah well, if a centrist congresswoman says anecdotally that's what cost her her seat, then it must be true.

Too bad that doesn't really match the reality of what Republicans were campaigning against her on, which was her own perceived corruption issues and corporate ties.

What can you offer to support that other seats that flipped red, were flipped because the democrat wasn't running on a platform that was progressive enough?

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/11/medic...-2020-election

With 2 percent of the votes yet to be counted, Smith is currently trailing her GOP opponent by 0.04 points, in a district described by the Cook Political Report as evenly split on partisan lines, and which had been carried by her predecessor and Medicare for All cosponsor Katie Hill by nearly 9 points in 2018.

After flipping the seat in 2018, Matt Cartwright won reelection this year by 3.4 points in Pennsylvania’s 8th district, which has been represented by a Republican for fourteen of the last twenty years, and has voted for Obama twice before voting for Trump in 2016. He did this despite not just cosponsoring Medicare for All, but going on Fox to make the case for it. Incidentally, the district is also the home of Scranton, the working-class town known as the former home of president-elect Joe Biden, who centered both his primary and general election candidacies on his opposition to the policy.

Likewise, after winning a 2018 special election for an open seat in Pennsylvania’s 7th district, Susan Wild has now won reelection to the seat for the second time, in a district whose Republican-tilting voting patterns are nearly identical to Pennsylvania’s 8th. Wild won in spite of being on the receiving end of exactly the kinds of GOP attacks that other Democratic supporters of Medicare for All have been subjected to.

Three of the bill’s cosponsors won reelection in Republican-leaning districts in California this year, too. Josh Harder (CA-10) won by nearly 11 points in a district that’s voted Republican six of the last ten years, Mike Levin (CA-49) won by 6 points in the seat that Republican Darrell Issa held from 2002 to 2018, and Katie Porter (CA-45) won reelection in an Orange County seat that she flipped in 2018 from unbroken Republican control since it was created thirty-seven years ago.

For all the claims that Democrats in swing districts were forced to fend off enraged constituents demanding their representatives deny them health care, there’s significant evidence that the opposite was in fact the case.

Abby Finkenauer (IA-01), who was unseated this year, resisted a grassroots pressure campaign pushing her to embrace Medicare for All. In New York’s 11th district, now-former Rep. Max Rose faced questioning from residents at a town hall over his refusal to back the policy, and even faced a primary challenge from a constituent who had worked to get him elected in 2018 and was now disappointed he refused to back progressive legislation.

I should note that the article's basic thesis isn't that more progressive policies would have guaranteed better results, but that applying a simplistic narrative such as "progressive policies" cost the Democrats seats isn't really borne out by the data.

[JohnnyB]

The US has some pretty fundamental issues to deal with in the wealth gap, money in politics, permanent QE and value of the dollar, slow responses to tech advancements, social division in the country, and the impact of climate change. The Biden admin will make steps on some of these, but they're not likely to address money in politics, the wealth gap is likely going to become much worse soon, and I'm not sure there is any vision beyond permanent QE yet. Can they even reverse the damage of the last 4 years? I'm skeptical. Is there a vision for an America beyond the broken systems? I'm skeptical of that too. Those who have tried to advance visions of change are kept on the fringes, so not much change should really be expected.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Do you actually want to engage with the substance of my post, or are you just going to deflect? Which M4A candidates underperformed in their races in the same manner that moderates did? Which "progressive" policies (outside of maybe "defund the police") are massively unpopular with the majority of the population? Why did Biden lose Florida but a $15/h minimum wage pass by a landlslide?

If you asked those people if they voted for the Republicans because they implemented a liberal policy, I am sure they would be in denial about it.

They voted for the party that gave them money. Just like trained seals.

It's not really a liberal policy for that matter, even if it is one that progressives more often pursue. When minimum wage worthy labour becomes more expensive, companies look at alternatives such as automation and hiring more skilled workers even if they are more expensive because they can contribute more for the amount they make.

Long term, I think the Republican agenda there is to create a market that relies less on migrants (and indirectly minorities) by making it financially less beneficial, or even prohibitive.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

The US has some pretty fundamental issues to deal with in the wealth gap, money in politics, permanent QE and value of the dollar, slow responses to tech advancements, social division in the country, and the impact of climate change. The Biden admin will make steps on some of these, but they're not likely to address money in politics, the wealth gap is likely going to become much worse soon, and I'm not sure there is any vision beyond permanent QE yet. Can they even reverse the damage of the last 4 years? I'm skeptical. Is there a vision for an America beyond the broken systems? I'm skeptical of that too. Those who have tried to advance visions of change are kept on the fringes, so not much change should really be expected.

This is what makes Qanon and "patriots in control" stuff so compelling, if there aren't secret forces working behind the scenes to correct the course of the country, it's pretty much completely hopeless.

[blender]

Originally Posted by New Era

This is the "American" politics thread. Anything left of Ted Cruz is a "socialist." Get with the program.

I get it, and trust me, I am with the program. I also get that you are being tongue in cheek here, but I was surprised that rubecube's comment, which was accurate and apt, if debatable, was met with such a jingoistic response.

Just cause we are talking about American politics doesn't mean we need to resort to the same low level of discourse.

Carry on.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Ah well, if a centrist congresswoman says anecdotally that's what cost her her seat, then it must be true.

Too bad that doesn't really match the reality of what Republicans were campaigning against her on, which was her own perceived corruption issues and corporate ties.



https://jacobinmag.com/2020/11/medic...-2020-election



I should note that the article's basic thesis isn't that more progressive policies would have guaranteed better results, but that applying a simplistic narrative such as "progressive policies" cost the Democrats seats isn't really borne out by the data.

Populism doesnt ever skew left, it always ends up with some right wing fascist ###### bag, when the population is angry and feels left behind they like to #### on those below them, preferably if they are a different colour, not try and help them.
I realize its not very sensible but human beings are dumb nasty and vindictive on the whole

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Populism doesnt ever skew left

This is complete nonsense and would be laughed out of any second-year political science course.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Matata

This is what makes Qanon and "patriots in control" stuff so compelling, if there aren't secret forces working behind the scenes to correct the course of the country, it's pretty much completely hopeless.

The roots of that weed have unfortunately been provided with a lot of fertilizer over the last 4 years.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

If the places that the Democrats lost in the House saw a Republican as the alternative, they very likely weren't going to vote for a left-leaning candidate.

This is true assuming that all the vote tallies are equal from 2016, which they were not. Lots of abstaining votes in those dem races.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

This is complete nonsense and would be laughed out of any second-year political science course.

Maybe but it has always been born out at the ballot box

[nik-]

Are you unaware of the existence of Bernie Sanders?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by nik-

Are you unaware of the existence of Bernie Sanders?

last time I looked he hadnt ever come close to forming a Government, where as Trump/Modi/Brexit/Berlusconi etc did

[PsYcNeT]

It could be argued that our Federal govt is propelled almost entirely by populism.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Nope.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...oting-in-2020/

Yeah if you actually read the article you can see my point.

In all but three states, the Democratic Senate candidate’s vote share was within 5 percentage points of Biden’s.

So I maybe should not have said “tons”, but the difference between Biden and the senate candidates in certain states exceeded the margin of defeat, which means that even if it’s true in absolute terms that only a small proportion of voters split their ticket, those voters were actually decisive in a number of key states where the difference between Biden and the Democratic candidate for Senate exceeded the vote difference between Biden and Trump.

We know this happened because it showed up in traditionally Republican areas like parts of suburban Atlanta. So yeah. Ticket splitting mattered a lot here, and I don’t think 538 is saying it didn’t.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It could be argued that our Federal govt is propelled almost entirely by populism.

You mean Justin and the Liberals? the Reform Party was the closest Canada has come to a Federal Populist movement since the Socreds