Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[Dodger]

Good thing I&W gave him the kiss of death months ago. 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

look at these toxic b*rnie bros

[Massdriver]

Any moderate candidate is going to be a dogshit candidate to most of the people on this board, but a lot of democrats aren't left wing populists.

[Joe]

24 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Any moderate candidate is going to be a dogshit candidate to most of the people on this board, but a lot of democrats aren't left wing populists.

 

You can be moderate without being a smarmy, know-it-all dbag.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

45 minutes ago, Jose said:

 

You can be moderate without being a smarmy, know-it-all dbag.

To be fair to the moderates, it's hard to argue to the people of the left of you (or the right of you!) that their policies are untenable without sounding, to them, like a 'know-it-all' whose 'talking down' to them.  Kind of how it's hard for left- or right-wing populists to argue with moderates without sounding, to the latter, like naive, impractical provocateurs.  Even conservatives accused Obama of 'concern trolling' them when he'd speak of 'bridging divides' and 'trying to see it their way, too'. I think those in disagreement just tend to get on each other's nerves.

 

Buttigieg's "we're not going to beat Trump with pocket change" comment about Warren not using 'big donors' did have a touch of legitimate douchiness to it, though.  Definitely a tin-eared moment on his part.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 hours ago, Massdriver said:

Any moderate candidate is going to be a dogshit candidate to most of the people on this board, but a lot of democrats aren't left wing populists.

Biden would be a far better candidate than Mayo, if his brain wasn't mush. He's at least somewhat consistent in his politics even if just for just this campaign. Klouberchar is pretty good too, but shit policies.

 

Mayo seems passionately driven for getting himself elected, nothing more. He started with "Medicare for all is the compromise" and "they're gonna call us socialists anyway so we might as well do the right thing" and then pivoted to insurance industry talking points about M4A.

[PaladinSolo]

 

[Anathema-]

2 hours ago, Massdriver said:

Any moderate candidate is going to be a dogshit candidate to most of the people on this board, but a lot of democrats aren't left wing populists.

 

The vast majority of the non-left wing voters in the Democratic party are minorities (typically black Americans). Failing to see that and just repeating Republican attacks isn't going to be what gets the "centrist" vote in the Democratic party.

 

Also there's a difference between "centrist" and attacking from the right. Nobody's out here getting on Klobuchar's back for stupid pandering to a demographic that doesn't really exist*.  

 

 

*-the Democratic party "centrist" whose votes are won with Republican talking points.  The only people who ostensibly vote dem but are appealed to with this nonsense is the donor class. It's like the ghost of Starbucks guy's campaign started haunting mayo Pete.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

For being so smart he sure changed his mind pretty fast just this year. What facts on the ground changed since his tweet in Feb?

[Massdriver]

The bottom line for me is I'm ready to get back regular Democrats and Republicans. I'm tired of the "drain the swamp" populist nonsense that Trump supporters talk about everyday and I see the left-wing equivalent in Bernie Sanders and to a lesser extent Warren. The idealistic nonsense being peddled is not realistic regardless of the Overton window being the to-go-to justification around here.  It doesn't have to be Buttigieg, but he is the candidate closest to my views with money that isn't too old. I'll take Klobuchar. I just want a regular politician. 

[Jason]

Better Things Aren't Possible 2020

[Massdriver]

Just now, Jason said:

Better Things Aren't Possible 2020

The policies that Sanders wants wouldn't be better though. Neither would Warren's. 

[Anathema-]

6 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

The bottom line for me is I'm ready to get back regular Democrats and Republicans. I'm tired of the "drain the swamp" populist nonsense that Trump supporters talk about everyday and I see the left-wing equivalent in Bernie Sanders and to a lesser extent Warren. The idealistic nonsense being peddling is not realistic regardless of the Overton window being the to-go-to justification around here.  It doesn't have to be Buttigieg, but he is the candidate closest to my views with money that isn't too old. I'll take Klobuchar. I just want a regular politician. 

 

We're in too much upheaval right now. Most of the party voters who were paying attention during the Obama years are fed up with negotiating with ourselves before coming to the table. Tired of letting conservatives set the terms of debate. Politics abhors a vacuum and really the only way to start getting back to normal is breaking the gop's stranglehold on political rhetoric. That will never happen without real contrast, not just a Democrat with Republican talking points.

[Massdriver]

9 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

 

We're in too much upheaval right now. Most of the party voters who were paying attention during the Obama years are fed up with negotiating with ourselves before coming to the table. Tired of letting conservatives set the terms of debate. Politics abhors a vacuum and really the only way to start getting back to normal is breaking the gop's stranglehold on political rhetoric. That will never happen without real contrast, not just a Democrat with Republican talking points.

I would prefer the extremist views on both sides to stop. I don't think you get back to normal by shouting populist leftist slogans all day. I would prefer cooler heads getting power.

[Massdriver]

Out of the front runners, I think Warren is a better bet to beat Trump than Biden. Biden is the worst of the top 5 with ease to me. He babbles regularly about nothing, he isn't raising much money for his front runner status, he inspires no one, and his son has created an email-like issue in the right wing media that will hurt him. He is simply too old. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

There's no such thing as normal! We actually, literally, seriously were not just at the cusp of the end of history, just a few small tweaks away from perfection! Hell, there never really was this mythical time of comity, except in a fictional history perpetuated in American mythology. 

 

There are too many things we've brushed aside for too long that are coming to a head now. Buckle up

[Jwheel86]

1 minute ago, Massdriver said:

I would prefer the extremist views on both sides to stop. I don't think you get back to normal by shouting populist leftist slogans all day. I would prefer cooler heads getting power.

 

You can't just wish that into existence, if you want moderation you need to create space in the middle by having crazy libs vs crazy right wingers. It doesn't work when one side is the moderates since then they are the left and the middle is Mitt fucking Romney and McCain. 

[Massdriver]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

There's no such thing as normal! We actually, literally, seriously were not just at the cusp of the end of history, just a few small tweaks away from perfection! Hell, there never really was this mythical time of comity, except in a fictional history perpetuated in American mythology. 

 

There are too many things we've brushed aside for too long that are coming to a head now. Buckle up

Normal was Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Trump is not normal. Sanders is not normal. Warren is not normal. The rhetoric is populist. It is about the "deep state" and the "top 1%". It's about the elites ruining everyone's lives. 

 

Edit: removed unnecessary quotes

[Massdriver]

1 minute ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

You can't just wish that into existence, if you want moderation you need to create space in the middle by having crazy libs vs crazy right wingers. It doesn't work when one side is the moderates since then they are the left and the middle is Mitt fucking Romney and McCain. 

I'm all for having crazy libs and crazy right wing in Congress, not running the executive.

[Jwheel86]

1 minute ago, Massdriver said:

Normal was Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Trump is no normal. Sanders is not normal. Warren is not normal. The rhetoric is "populist". It is about the "deep state" and the "top 1%". It's about the elites ruining everyone's lives. 

 

Normal was only possible because of the world built by that crazy President FDR.

[SaysWho?]

30 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

The bottom line for me is I'm ready to get back regular Democrats and Republicans. I'm tired of the "drain the swamp" populist nonsense that Trump supporters talk about everyday and I see the left-wing equivalent in Bernie Sanders and to a lesser extent Warren. The idealistic nonsense being peddled is not realistic regardless of the Overton window being the to-go-to justification around here.  It doesn't have to be Buttigieg, but he is the candidate closest to my views with money that isn't too old. I'll take Klobuchar. I just want a regular politician. 

 

The problem is many would reject this premise entirely:  

 

1. We haven't had "abnormal" Democrats in charge. There's this tendency for Republicans to be straight up crazy for decades, but once populist Democrats show up, it's now time for normalcy on both sides. 

2. I don't think democrats were normal? What I mean is, they were running away from their own shadow starting in the 1990s, you had conservative ones like Richard Shelby in Alabama who turned Republican, you had ones without a lot of backbone of the early 2000s who voted for the Iraq War, you had Obama's press secretary his first year in office complain about the professional left, and now the supposed sane one talks vigorously about a public option when he should have been doing that when the Affordable Care Act was first being debated. It's been a lot harder to find what a Democrat is because they're scared to support their own policies, and I don't see how that's what we should strive to return to.

3. Not shifting the Overton window is why the Patriot Act passed, the Iraq War was voted for, a more ambitious Health Care Program was not chased, and Democrats were limp on their gay marriage support for years and couldn't come up with a good argument as to why it shouldn't be legal.

[SaysWho?]

I mean, Giuliani was considered the center. That's not what I want a return to.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, SaysWho? said:

I mean, Giuliani was considered the center.

 

[Jason]

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

50+ years of American policy under "normal" presidents in the mid east and Central/south America, and the entire history of American foreign policy towards Eastern Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union, plus some good old fashioned home-grown racism lead to the formation of the current international alt right movement. All that policy is coming home to roost now, and the seeds were planted under 'normal' presidents.

 

The seeds of domestic leftism (particularly among the younger generations) is a direct result of the healthcare, housing, labor, banking, fiscal, environmental, and higher education policies of the last 40 years, all under "normal" presidents, who all worked in various ways to undo the progress made under FDR and LBJ. The time for minor course corrections were decades ago, but entrenched interests have ensured that working with them for minor corrections over the past decades is a fools errand, so they must be confronted directly. And I can't really stress enough the looming environmental catastrophe that is climate change is affecting our generation.

[Jason]

14 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

And I can't really stress enough the looming environmental catastrophe that is climate change is affecting our generation.

 

But angry lbrulz gonna shake the boat too hard too fast.

[MarSolo]

Tulsi Gabbard is trash. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

But angry lbrulz gonna shake the boat too hard too fast.

Don't forget it's gonna be e-z-p-z to fight climate change, we just have to give an itsy-bitsy tax on carbon dioxide, the tiny byproduct of every single combustion reaction that powers the modern economy

[mclumber1]

4 minutes ago, MarSolo said:

Tulsi Gabbard is trash. 

 

She's pretty though

[Massdriver]

3 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

The problem is many would reject this premise entirely:  

 

1. We haven't had "abnormal" Democrats in charge. There's this tendency for Republicans to be straight up crazy for decades, but once populist Democrats show up, it's now time for normalcy on both sides. 

2. I don't think democrats were normal? What I mean is, they were running away from their own shadow starting in the 1990s, you had conservative ones like Richard Shelby in Alabama who turned Republican, you had ones without a lot of backbone of the early 2000s who voted for the Iraq War, you had Obama's press secretary his first year in office complain about the professional left, and now the supposed sane one talks vigorously about a public option when he should have been doing that when the Affordable Care Act was first being debated. It's been a lot harder to find what a Democrat is because they're scared to support their own policies, and I don't see how that's what we should strive to return to.

3. Not shifting the Overton window is why the Patriot Act passed, the Iraq War was voted for, a more ambitious Health Care Program was not chased, and Democrats were limp on their gay marriage support for years and couldn't come up with a good argument as to why it shouldn't be legal.

1. I never wanted Trump. I strongly disagree with him and quite frankly hate him, so this misrepresents me by making it seem like it's populist Democrats that triggered me when I feel it even more strongly towards the right wing, which has turned the GOP into a nationalist/protectionist party. It's not that I suddenly want normalcy on both sides just because Sanders showed up. I have felt this way for a while now. I don't want any populists in charge. I want leaders that listen to experts and bring people together. 

 

2.  The Iraq War was fairly popular right before and as we invaded. These Democrats probably voted for the invasion because they thought it was the right thing to do and Iraq had WMDs,  not because they were scared. I don't think the votes were there to pass the public option regardless of what a political leader said. There were a number of senators that weren't ready even as Obama and Pelosi were.I think there is a middle ground between going all out Bernie and going to some swing state senator that killed the public option during the ACA debate. Obama is an example of a politician that I would refer to as normal, and he was for the public option then.

 

3. The Patriot Act passed because 9/11. Americans felt insecure. Saying this was a policy that was passed because Democrats didn't move the window seems like it ignores the mood of the nation at the time. America was in a war-like state after we were attacked. Not a politician on the left or right could stop the momentum. There isn't always a way for leaders or politicians to control what policies seem appropriate at all times. Sometimes outside factors such as 9/11 have such a drastic effect on the public that no one can alter for a time until people settle down.  Pelosi and Obama did chase the public option. Pelosi got the ACA passed with a public option in the house. Obama pressed as hard as he could. It's nonsense and revisionist history to suggest that they didn't do their best to try to get it done. They eventually calculated that certain senators were a no no matter what, so they had to change gears and get as much done as possible. I agree with you about gay marriage. It was shameful how Democrats didn't push harder for it and I think a lot of people would have gotten on board sooner if they had.

 

Anyway, I have no problem shifting the window in directions that are towards good public policy. A public option was always a good thing to fight for. A Federal jobs guarantee isn't. Rent control isn't. There are many others I could point to that populists favor that are just shitty policies.  

 

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

50+ years of American policy under "normal" presidents in the mid east and Central/south America, and the entire history of American foreign policy towards Eastern Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union, plus some good old fashioned home-grown racism lead to the formation of the current international alt right movement. All that policy is coming home to roost now, and the seeds were planted under 'normal' presidents.

 

The seeds of domestic leftism (particularly among the younger generations) is a direct result of the healthcare, housing, labor, banking, fiscal, environmental, and higher education policies of the last 40 years, all under "normal" presidents, who all worked in various ways to undo the progress made under FDR and LBJ. The time for minor course corrections were decades ago, but entrenched interests have ensured that working with them for minor corrections over the past decades is a fools errand, so they must be confronted directly. And I can't really stress enough the looming environmental catastrophe that is climate change is affecting our generation.

The alt right movement was likely caused by numerous other factors along with American policy. 

 

This is probably overly simplistic too, but I agree that costs of certain items rising faster than middle class items is the main reason that support is going up for populist policies, many of which wouldn't solve anything. I'm for course corrections that will help people. Just because something is drastic and would cost trillions of dollars doesn't mean it is the best policy and that it would help the most people. 

 

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Don't forget it's gonna be e-z-p-z to fight climate change, we just have to give an itsy-bitsy tax on carbon dioxide, the tiny byproduct of every single combustion reaction that powers the modern economy

 

If this is directed at me, it's petty and misrepresents my position on climate change.

 

Edited several statement to better express my thoughts

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

2 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

50+ years of American policy under "normal" presidents in the mid east and Central/south America, and the entire history of American foreign policy towards Eastern Europe since the fall of the Soviet Union, plus some good old fashioned home-grown racism lead to the formation of the current international alt right movement. All that policy is coming home to roost now, and the seeds were planted under 'normal' presidents.

 

The seeds of domestic leftism (particularly among the younger generations) is a direct result of the healthcare, housing, labor, banking, fiscal, environmental, and higher education policies of the last 40 years, all under "normal" presidents, who all worked in various ways to undo the progress made under FDR and LBJ. The time for minor course corrections were decades ago, but entrenched interests have ensured that working with them for minor corrections over the past decades is a fools errand, so they must be confronted directly. And I can't really stress enough the looming environmental catastrophe that is climate change is affecting our generation.

I would say the alt-right is first and foremost the product of a backlash against the socioeconomic changes, dislocations and crises produced by globalization.

 

It would be comforting if the issues and conflicts stirred up by globalization and its problems and contradictions were merely the byproduct of bad policy, but I think that gets the order of causation wrong.  Globalization is, instead, driven by secular technological and ecological factors that produce political paradigms, forces and counterforces.  The alt-right was created by these dialectical forces.

 

We have seen it happen before, when the first great wave of globalization produced the nationalist and populist ideologies that laid the seeds of the World Wars.  And while it's true bad policies and bad politicians have always been a factor and ought to be called out as such, it would still be a mistake to overlook the reality that what we're dealing with in the case of the alt-right is something that was produced by superpolitical forces, rather than just a demon spawned by nefarious and/or feckless leaders. Overcoming the designs of the entrenched interests that do, indeed, imperil our future, requires that we deal with the forces that produced them, rather than just whatever concrete form they happen to be taking in the current historical moment.

[Scott]

6 hours ago, Jason said:

Better Things Aren't Possible 2020

I think we should stop assuming that “better things” automatically means “farthest-left policies.” I believe Klobuchar was making this point last night. I’d prefer Bernie to trump, by a million miles, but Bernie doesn’t exactly reflect my own views and beliefs as a voter. I’d rather support someone who assumes a center-left position. I can’t imagine how hollow you’d have to be to lean left, dislike trump, and not vote for someone like Klobuchar simply because they aren’t in lockstep with every one of your personal populist viewpoints. I think there’s a real risk that someone perceived as scandalized (Biden, now, I think) or wildly leftist (Bernie, AOC, etc) will keep people home on Election Day. 
 

I know this board doesn’t believe that moderates are the answer, and we need to fight extreme with extreme, but I strongly disagree. Here’s a good example. Hunters, fishermen, and outdoorsmen of all stripes should overwhelmingly vote democrat, as this is the party most committed to protecting public land access, wildlife habitat, conservation, etc. But so many in this group are repelled by “hell yeah we’re coming for your guns” Beto, as well as “here are my pronouns” Kamala. A large voting bloc is lost because we have to see how far left we can push ourselves. Take a moderate approach and suddenly all those rural, blue collar hunters see a lot of sensible reasons for considering a candidate like Klobuchar instead of trump. 
 

Tom Nichols summed up my feelings very nicely in his recent article about the LGBTQ town hall. 
 

edit: here’s that article

 

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3947332002

[Joe]

3 minutes ago, Scott said:

I think we should stop assuming that “better things” automatically means “farthest-left policies.” I believe Klobuchar was making this point last night. I’d prefer Bernie to trump, by a million miles, but Bernie doesn’t exactly reflect my own views and beliefs as a voter. I’d rather support someone who assumes a center-left position. I can’t imagine how hollow you’d have to be to lean left, dislike trump, and not vote for someone like Klobuchar simply because they aren’t in lockstep with every one of your personal populist viewpoints. I think there’s a real risk that someone perceived as scandalized (Biden, now, I think) or wildly leftist (Bernie, AOC, etc) will keep people home on Election Day. 
 

I know this board doesn’t believe that moderates are the answer, and we need to fight extreme with extreme, but I strongly disagree. Here’s a good example. Hunters, fishermen, and outdoorsmen of all stripes should overwhelmingly vote democrat, as this is the party most committed to protecting public land access, wildlife habitat, conservation, etc. But so many in this group are repelled by “hell yeah we’re coming for your guns” Beto, as well as “here are my pronouns” Kamala. A large voting bloc is lost because we have to see how far left we can push ourselves. Take a moderate approach and suddenly all those rural, blue collar hunters see a lot of sensible reasons for considering a candidate like Klobuchar instead of trump. 
 

Tom Nichols summed up my feelings very nicely in his recent article about the LGBTQ town hall. 
 

edit: here’s that article

 

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3947332002

 

When you say vote for Klobuchar, do you mean in the primary or the general? Because I think we only have one left-leaning poster here who would refuse to vote for her should she be the nominee. Not that it matters because she has zero shot.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

2 hours ago, Massdriver said:

1. I never wanted Trump. I strongly disagree with him and quite frankly hate him, so this misrepresents me by making it seem like it's populist Democrats that triggered me when I feel it even more strongly towards the right wing, which has turned the GOP into a nationalist/protectionist party. It's not that I suddenly want normalcy on both sides just because Sanders showed up. I have felt this way for a while now. I don't want any populists in charge. I want leaders that listen to experts and bring people together. 

 

2.  The Iraq War was fairly popular right before and as we invaded. These Democrats probably voted for the invasion because they thought it was the right thing to do and Iraq had WMDs,  not because they were scared. I don't think the votes were there to pass the public option regardless of what a political leader said. There were a number of senators that weren't ready even as Obama and Pelosi were.I think there is a middle ground between going all out Bernie and going to some swing state senator that killed the public option during the ACA debate. Obama is an example of a politician that I would refer to as normal, and he was for the public option then.

 

3. The Patriot Act passed because 9/11. Americans felt insecure. Saying this was a policy that was passed because Democrats didn't move the window seems like it ignores the mood of the nation at the time. America was in a war-like state after we were attacked. Not a politician on the left or right could stop the momentum. There isn't always a way for leaders or politicians to control what policies seem appropriate at all times. Sometimes outside factors such as 9/11 have such a drastic effect on the public that no one can alter for a time until people settle down.  Pelosi and Obama did chase the public option. Pelosi got the ACA passed with a public option in the house. Obama pressed as hard as he could. It's nonsense and revisionist history to suggest that they didn't do their best to try to get it done. They eventually calculated that certain senators were a no no matter what, so they had to change gears and get as much done as possible. I agree with you about gay marriage. It was shameful how Democrats didn't push harder for it and I think a lot of people would have gotten on board sooner if they had.

 

Anyway, I have no problem shifting the window in directions that are towards good public policy. A public option was always a good thing to fight for. A Federal jobs guarantee isn't. Rent control isn't. There are many others I could point to that populists favor that are just shitty policies.  

 

The alt right movement was likely caused by numerous other factors along with American policy. 

 

This is probably overly simplistic too, but I agree that costs of certain items rising faster than middle class items is the main reason that support is going up for populist policies, many of which wouldn't solve anything. I'm for course corrections that will help people. Just because something is drastic and would cost trillions of dollars doesn't mean it is the best policy and that it would help the most people. 

 

 

If this is directed at me, it's petty and misrepresents my position on climate change.

 

Edited several statement to better express my thoughts

On the bold, that was Joe Lieberman, not a swing state senator, that killed the public option in addition to Scott Browns election/Ted Kennedy kicking the bucket.

 

On the alt right, it doesn't come to it's strength without the long running migrant crisis, made worse by deliberate American policy in the middle East (hello Iraq war), central and south America (hola CIA contra funding and the drug war), and policy in post-Soviet Eastern Europe (privatization leading to mass corruption and powerful, wealthy oligarchs in Russia who got hit by sanctions as a result of the invasion of Crimea). Throw in tech allowing formerly niche racist/nativist ideas being amplified by social media and far right political parties, and all backed in part by the aforementioned oligarchs (and our own native oligarchs, lest they be forgotten). And I agree that other factors are at play, but I'm looking exclusively at the realm of items that were deliberately done by our government. 

 

On the right and left I did keep that post fairly superficial, but only to be glib. Regarding the rise of the left, there are a few items where they're wrong (rent control bring the most egregious) but the problem I have is your framing of the problem. I'm rephrasing here, but your ideal policy seems to be the one that helps the "most" people, not "all" people. The problem with this, in the frame of health insurance is you deliberately leave people behind, and people still go bankrupt because of medical bills, and every single person who needs care is on the hook for an unknown amount of money, which increases at an insane rate year over year. That's not even mentioning the absolutely Byzantine bureaucracy of navigating paying for care once you receive it. And insurance companies are already fighting against a public option, calling it the same thing as M4A (based on an ad from an insurance lobby I heard a week or so again). Not too get too much farther into the healthcare woods, but M4A is the best policy. Basically, profits need to take a hit, and costs that can only be controlled by the government should be done so because healthcare takes up so much of our GDP to no benefit for us.

 

As for the carbon tax, again, being glib, but I think a carbon tax even with a refund is wholly inadequate to take on the task of stopping emissions worldwide, let alone taking measures to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

[GeneticBlueprint]

If you want American center-left principles to be the outcome then you need to vote for the furthest left candidate possible. Otherwise at best you're stuck with center-right outcomes in a best case scenario.