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

[Scott]

Electing Biden or Klobuchar gives us center-right outcomes?

 

Also, I don’t think the furthest left candidate necessarily beats Donald trump. I think a more moderate candidate could. And I’d much rather have center-left OR center-right than whatever dumpster fire abortion trump is. Better to beat trump with a moderate than lose elections while patting ourselves on the back for being ideologically “pure.”

[GeneticBlueprint]

2 minutes ago, Scott said:

Electing Biden or Klobuchar gives us center-right outcomes?

Yes. If you start negotiating your center position with the conservatives in the Senate you end up with right leaning outcomes.

[Jason]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

I think we should stop assuming that “better things” automatically means “farthest-left policies.

 

The problem is that by refusing to push to the left at al, Democrats just let the Republicans drag them further and further into their deranged fantasy land. You don't open a negotiation with the position you actually want to land on, especially not when you KNOW the opposing party is going to open the negotiation with something even more batshit than they're actually aiming for. 

[Scott]

I don’t disagree with you in principle, but it’s hard to negotiate anything if we lose to trump again. 
 

Is it better for President AOC to get no Republican senate support and accomplish almost nothing, or for President Klobuchar to pass some legislation that democrats like but don’t love? Is gridlock better than compromise? I’m sure opinions differ. 

[Jason]

13 minutes ago, Scott said:

Electing Biden or Klobuchar gives us center-right outcomes?

 

Source: the Clinton presidency. Especially after the GOP/Gingrich takeover of Congress. 

[Jason]

1 minute ago, Scott said:

I don’t disagree with you in principle, but it’s hard to negotiate anything if we lose to trump again. 

 

To put this in a 2016 frame:

 

Bernie voters were frustrated by Hillary. 

 

Hillary voters would have turned out for whomever the Democratic candidate was. 

 

Trump voters were never voting Democrat. 

 

To add a 2020 element:

 

2016 Trump voters staying home is probably equally as good as somehow pulling off a miracle and poaching them. 

[Jason]

The Democrats need voter enthusiasm. Look at how far the GOP has gotten whipping itself into a ridiculous frenzy by just ALWAYS doubling down on energizing their base—while the Democrats for some reason seem terrified of energizing theirs. 

[Scott]

I think one problem is that Democrats are so diverse. It’s hard to fan the fire of a voting base when everyone is so different. Personally, I’m a liberal because of environmental issues. Others are liberal because of gender and race equality issues. These two groups may struggle to hear the same rallying call. That’s why I like moderates. They are likely to appeal, at least mildly, to all groups of liberals, while turning away very few. If you nominate a person whose platform is “yay Antifa,” you’re not going to earn the votes of those hunters I mentioned earlier.

 

Also, the more radical the nominee, the easier it is for Sean Hannity to create a boogeyman that will draw out conservative voters.   

[Jason]

8 minutes ago, Scott said:

Also, the more radical the nominee, the easier it is for Sean Hannity to create a boogeyman that will draw out conservative voters.   

 

lol he'll do that no matter who the nominee is, even if it means making shit up 

[Uaarkson]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

Also, the more radical the nominee, the easier it is for Sean Hannity to create a boogeyman that will draw out conservative voters.   

 

Nope fuck that. This is exactly what people mean when they say the GOP controls the narrative. Democrats need to energize their base with a radical candidate because Trump is a radical candidate, and FUCK the conservative pundits.

[SaysWho?]

10 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.  

 

 

 

If we're going with the "mood" of the nation to excuse bad policy, then don't be surprised if the populist mood leads to policies you dislike. 

 

Democrats were scared. Senator Cleland voted for the Iraq War literally because he was in a tight reelection race and calls it the worst vote he ever made.

 

Obama did not try as hard as he could for a public option. It isn't revisionist history; this was literally the debate at the time.

 

POLITICO: W.H. backs away from public option (August 2009)

 

Quote

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Sunday that the public option was “not the essential element” of the overhaul. A day earlier, Obama downplayed the public option during a Colorado town hall meeting, saying it was “just one sliver” of the debate.

 

Business Insider: Obama Is Ready To Drop "The Public Option" (August 2009)

 

Quote

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. [He got no Republican votes]

 

The Hill: The Obama administration’s shifting position on the public option (September 2009)

 

Quote

May 6: Sebelius reaffirmed President Barack Obama's commitment to create a government-run insurance program to compete with private companies: "Competition helps to promote innovation. It helps promote best practices and also can help to lower costs.”

...

Sept. 5: David Axelrod, a White House senior adviser, says he “believes the public option is a good tool.” But Axelrod adds, “It shouldn’t define the whole healthcare debate.”

 

ABC: Obama Calls For Public Option, Which He Once Hedged Against (October 2016)

 

Quote

“The public option, whether we have it or we don’t have it, is not the entirety of health care reform,” Obama said in August 2009 during a town hall-style meeting in Colorado, according to The New York Times. “This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it.”

 

Now, the president is citing the public option as one of three essential solutions to perfecting the law, along with more states expanding Medicaid and an expansion of tax credits for middle-class Obamacare enrollees.

 

Why is the answer to all our problems something that was downplayed, a sliver, not the definition of the health care debate, supported but not the biggest deal in 2009? All the compromises netted him no Republican support, and a non-swing state Senator in Lieberman helped to torpedo it. Why not go big, then, if you're gonna gut much out of the law just to not get any of them to vote for it? Now it's the center of Biden's platform and he's lecturing progressives about how to pay for this and how to get that done when he couldn't get the public option done with majorities in both houses of Congress.

 

They didn't even try to change public opinion on that; they were limp about it. They didn't go all-in like Trump does or the Tea Party did to try to change people's opinions. Same with gay marriage. Or marijuana legalization (which Harris failed to fight for as attorney general but now has seen the light). Or the Iraq War.

 

I'm sorry, but the "far left" people prove time and again they were correct the first time but get lectured by the "normal" moderates later about how they don't know what they're talking about. What was seen as "far-left" at the time is now being adopted by the leading "moderate" candidate; let's grasp how nuts that is, not the 

[SaysWho?]

4 hours ago, Scott said:

Also, the more radical the nominee, the easier it is for Sean Hannity to create a boogeyman that will draw out conservative voters.   

 

I don't know why TheGreatGamble upvoted this considering he thought Bernie was a better candidate than Hillary and you're saying Bernie's radical.

[TheGreatGamble]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

I think one problem is that Democrats are so diverse. It’s hard to fan the fire of a voting base when everyone is so different. Personally, I’m a liberal because of environmental issues. Others are liberal because of gender and race equality issues. These two groups may struggle to hear the same rallying call. That’s why I like moderates. They are likely to appeal, at least mildly, to all groups of liberals, while turning away very few. If you nominate a person whose platform is “yay Antifa,” you’re not going to earn the votes of those hunters I mentioned earlier.

 

Also, the more radical the nominee, the easier it is for Sean Hannity to create a boogeyman that will draw out conservative voters.   

This is a major problem with both sides. If you support some liberal positions (or conservative), but not all of them, then you have parts of the party complaining you aren't a real liberal, or you're a RINO, or whatever. 

 

Some positions are not my fight. Some parts of both platforms I disagree with. Some parts of both platforms I do agree with. But the left is far worse for eating their own than the right is, and that ideology of perfect being the enemy of good has hurt the democrats./

[TheGreatGamble]

20 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I don't know why TheGreatGamble upvoted this considering he thought Bernie was a better candidate than Hillary and you're saying Bernie's radical.

Bernie being a better candidate than Hillary doesn't make him a good candidate. Hillary was a bad candidate because of her skeletons, not her policy,. 

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Bernie being a better candidate than Hillary doesn't make him a good candidate. 

 

So Bernie, who you have touted as someone who could have actually beaten Trump, is a radical who is easier to pin down as a radical by people on right-wing sites (unlike Obama who was unable to be attacked by Fox), yet is better than Hillary, the normal candidate.

 

Sounds legit.

 

8 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

But the left is far worse for eating their own than the right is

 

This has been proven wrong for the past 30 years.

[TheGreatGamble]

4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

So Bernie, who you have touted as someone who could have actually beaten Trump, is a radical who is easier to pin down as a radical by people on right-wing sites (unlike Obama who was unable to be attacked by Fox), yet is better than Hillary, the normal candidate.

 

Sounds legit.

Again, if you don't want to listen to what im saying, thats fine. Hillary was a liar, had a long history as a liar, and had too many scandals behind her. Even if those scandals were really nothing, they were easily used against her. And that's exactly what happened. Right dopwn to the final week before the election. I don't agree with all of Bernie's policy, but at least he isn't riddled by scandals and doesn't have a history of lies. 

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

Again, if you don't want to listen to what im saying, thats fine. Hillary was a liar, had a long history as a liar, and had too many scandals behind her. Even if those scandals were really nothing, they were easily used against her. And that's exactly what happened. Right dopwn to the final week before the election. 

 

You're starting to understand why the argument for the center-right moderate falls on its face as you're saying the "radical" could have bested Trump easily over the bad normal moderate candidate because policies didn't matter.

[TheGreatGamble]

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

You're starting to understand why the argument for the center-right moderate falls on its face.

Not every center-right candidate has the baggage of a clinton. 

[SaysWho?]

Just now, TheGreatGamble said:

Not every center-right candidate has the baggage of a clinton. 

 

Bill Clinton was considered the good moderate choice, had a lot of baggage, and coasted to two elections. Trump is a known liar but won. What you're arguing against Hillary is what people argued against Bill and Trump from the beginning. 

 

You're admitting a radical is a better option than moderates who have won. Ask yourself why.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

5 hours ago, Scott said:

Personally, I’m a liberal because of environmental issues. Others are liberal because of gender and race equality issues. These two groups may struggle to hear the same rallying call.

Environmental issues are inherently tied to race in this country, and to some extent gender. That said, the over arcing theme is those most affected by failures of environmental protection are the most vulnerable group, the poor, who happen to be disproportionately non white, but not exclusively so. This is what the left has been saying for years, but it is only really getting traction recently.

[thewhyteboar]

Goddamn I love Fright's truth bombs. 

[thewhyteboar]

A candidate's "baggage" doesn't matter. The right's propaganda machine will just invent bullshit anyways, regardless of who the candidate is.

[Joe]

7 hours ago, Scott said:

Electing Biden or Klobuchar gives us center-right outcomes?

 

Also, I don’t think the furthest left candidate necessarily beats Donald trump. I think a more moderate candidate could. And I’d much rather have center-left OR center-right than whatever dumpster fire abortion trump is. Better to beat trump with a moderate than lose elections while patting ourselves on the back for being ideologically “pure.”

 

This is the problem. You think this all amounts to me being able to pat myself on the back for being "ideologically pure"? That's insane.

[Jwheel86]

7 hours ago, Scott said:

for President Klobuchar to pass some legislation that democrats like but don’t love? Is gridlock better than compromise? I’m sure opinions differ. 

 

 

President Klobuchar will accomplish precisely nothing, then spent 4 years trying to figure out why the Republicans who were nice to her in the Senate are mean now. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Great system

 

[thewhyteboar]

 

[legend]

My personal feeling is that single payer M4A is the only stable option long term, due to the incentive mechanisms of allowing a private option leading to them doing everything in their power to degrade any public option. To have both with the public option not being attacked by the private sector basically requires the private sector to act in the interest of the country, rather than the interest of their shareholders.

 

However, I also don't think we can just switch to a good version of M4A in a short time frame. This kind of major change will take time to work out a good implementation and we'll need to try things to even figure out what that is. That's on top of the political realities.

 

So I think M4AWWI is the practical next step. However, I believe to make the right progress we need to start changing the discussion and getting people to think about the end game of M4A, why it's good, and we need to negotiate from the position that that is the right end target.

[Commodore D]

11 hours ago, Scott said:

I don’t disagree with you in principle, but it’s hard to negotiate anything if we lose to trump again. 
 

Is it better for President AOC to get no Republican senate support and accomplish almost nothing, or for President Klobuchar to pass some legislation that democrats like but don’t love? Is gridlock better than compromise? I’m sure opinions differ. 

Gridlock is by far the best solution. Though I prefer it to be the other way around politically (at the federal level).

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Gridlock is a terrible solution. Things need to happen legislatively and you can't do that in gridlock. It only emboldens the executive

[RedSoxFan9]

 

[Commodore D]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Gridlock is a terrible solution. Things need to happen legislatively and you can't do that in gridlock. It only emboldens the executive

I get that, but history hasn’t shown when the sides “come together” and put something out, it’s sucks for the majority of people, and the people end up in a worse place (financially) than they were before, not to mention the ramifications for the unborn generation (harder to pass on assets to the next generation). 

[RedSoxFan9]

Hillary and Kamala hire the best

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

4 minutes ago, Commodore D said:

I get that, but history hasn’t shown when the sides “come together” and put something out, it’s sucks for the majority of people, and the people end up in a worse place (financially) than they were before, not to mention the ramifications for the unborn generation (harder to pass on assets to the next generation). 

There has been very, very little "good" bipartisan legislation in the post realignment era

[Commodore D]

9 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

There has been very, very little "good" bipartisan legislation in the post realignment era

Agreed.

[Massdriver]

8 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

 

If we're going with the "mood" of the nation to excuse bad policy, then don't be surprised if the populist mood leads to policies you dislike. 

 

Democrats were scared. Senator Cleland voted for the Iraq War literally because he was in a tight reelection race and calls it the worst vote he ever made.

 

Obama did not try as hard as he could for a public option. It isn't revisionist history; this was literally the debate at the time.

 

POLITICO: W.H. backs away from public option (August 2009)

 

 

Business Insider: Obama Is Ready To Drop "The Public Option" (August 2009)

 

 

The Hill: The Obama administration’s shifting position on the public option (September 2009)

 

 

ABC: Obama Calls For Public Option, Which He Once Hedged Against (October 2016)

 

 

Why is the answer to all our problems something that was downplayed, a sliver, not the definition of the health care debate, supported but not the biggest deal in 2009? All the compromises netted him no Republican support, and a non-swing state Senator in Lieberman helped to torpedo it. Why not go big, then, if you're gonna gut much out of the law just to not get any of them to vote for it? Now it's the center of Biden's platform and he's lecturing progressives about how to pay for this and how to get that done when he couldn't get the public option done with majorities in both houses of Congress.

 

They didn't even try to change public opinion on that; they were limp about it. They didn't go all-in like Trump does or the Tea Party did to try to change people's opinions. Same with gay marriage. Or marijuana legalization (which Harris failed to fight for as attorney general but now has seen the light). Or the Iraq War.

 

I'm sorry, but the "far left" people prove time and again they were correct the first time but get lectured by the "normal" moderates later about how they don't know what they're talking about. What was seen as "far-left" at the time is now being adopted by the leading "moderate" candidate; let's grasp how nuts that is, not the 

The Hill's article on it shows that Obama wanted the public option for several months and pushed for it. Do you have transcripts of the private meetings that took place between Obama's admin and various lawmakers? My guess is he dropped it after he realized the support wasn't there. Yeah, he could have fought harder for it, but he wanted to get something done. Which leads me to....

 

It just seems like this is all a giant counterfactual fallacy. Some are saying that X would have happened if all Democrats would have said or done Y, but since we can't go back in time and test this, there is no way of knowing. It could have been that Obama could have pushed harder for the public option and the ACA wouldn't have passed at all, just as cap and trade failed. No one here can tell me what would have happened if Obama would have done something different since it is impossible for you to know.

 

If you want to test your theory, then by all means go for Warren and Sanders, but stop pretending it is a well known fact that if Democrats would have just done or said certain things, history would have unfolded in a different way when there are so many  variables.