Democrats need to pull themselves together and remember: Biden is still better than Trump
Democrats need to pull themselves together and remember: Biden is still better than Trump
Democratic strategists, liberal pundits are making a living off doubting President Joe Biden's viability in the 2024 presidential election. Why?
While rebutting another post here on Lemmy, I ran into this. This says exactly what I want to say.
I am not a friend of Biden's Administration. I think they drug their feet over a variety of things ranging from holding Trump and his goons accountable for January 6th through rulemaking on issues like OTC Birth Control and abortion rights, and yes, I think he's too quick to please big business. But then I remember what the alternative is, and ... well, disappointed in Biden or not, I'm voting for him. Because my wife is a Black bisexual goth woman, four strikes under Team Pepe's tent. And I have my own strikes for marrying her as a White dude, and respecting her right to not have kids since she doesn't want them is another strike against me. And I care about my Non-Christian, Gay, Transgender, and Minority friends, and will never willingly subject them to Team Pepe.
You're viewing a single thread.
And the Democratic Party needs to pull its head out of its ass and embrace its base, rather than smugly scheme in ways that are ruining lives.
I have no problem with Biden’s job as president. In fact, I got into a big argument with someone a few weeks ago because they keep parroting anti-Biden propaganda from astroturfed pro-Palestine social media groups.
Biden has been doing a great job for the most part, on a number of fronts.But I’m sort of bittersweet on that, because the harder I look, the more I see the illusion of choice, and an intentional effort to barely keep up with the will of the people.
2016, Bernie vs Clinton. He had the votes, but the party pulled some superdelegate shenanigans to give it to Clinton. And with the same confidence of someone who had just been handed a layup in the primary, she managed to smugly fumble the presidency by a tiny margin.
Post 2020 - Democrats had a majority, and instead of doing things the populous wanted, they wrung their hands about two candidates the Democratic Party had helped elect - Sinema and Manchin - and whether or not they were going to block bills.
The other day I did a deep dive into Elissa Slotkin - a candidate so unlikeable she had to move to a much more certain democratic district when districts were redrawn. When the senate seat came up, the Democratic Party cut deals with more liberal candidates who are vastly more likable, to get them to not run in the primary. So now Michigan is going to wind up with an unwanted centrist that used to be an ‘analyst’ for the CIA during the Iraq war. She’s going to pretend to be a democrat while being the same sort of heel the Sinema or Manchin was.That’s just the people. In their post 2020-majority they could have done so much legislatively that they didn’t even bother considering - like campaign finance reform or expanding the courts, or even changing the rules around judicial nominees to prevent future shenanigans, but that would impact their bottom line or their ability to inspire panic at election-time. They could have strengthened the ACA, but that hurts some of the corporations that donate to them. Or do things to help people so that their rights wouldn’t be at risk - like codifying Roe, instead of allowing it to continue to be a wedge issue that destroys lives, but gets people to vote.
The Democratic (and Republican) Party is playing us all.
I’m not disaffected with Biden. I’m disaffected with a political party that nakedly fucks around to preserve the status quo, rather than embracing their base and winning with an encouraged and engaged populous. They lack the mandate to lead because they only desire to govern. (In contrast to the Republicans which lack the mandate to lead, are unable to govern, and only desire power and to abuse the government for personal gain.)So go ahead, give me the downvotes.
This wouldn’t be an issue if we had ranked choice and a coalition government instead of this ‘winner take all’ nonsense that just incentivizes entrenchment rather than inspiration. But, you know, that doesn’t help the businesses that are political parties, so they ain’t gonna vote on it.You make valid points and we ultimately agree that we should change our voting system. But that happens from the ground up, voting for a third party in the presidential election does nothing.
What are they going to do? "Oh no, people are unhappy with the two parties...well we better dilute our power and give them ranked voting."
Never going to happen. But you can work locally to get the changes and encourage that elsewhere. Voting third party is worse than slacktavism, as it's both pointless and counter productive.
Don't try to play the game you want to be playing, play the one you're currently playing.
Voting third party is worse than slacktavism, as it's both pointless and counter productive.
Can you elaborate? Do you think it’s pointless if more red voters go for third party?
The only good argument I’ve seen against voting third party comes down to: dem voters are more likely to vote third party so more voting third party means more red votes.
Like wouldn’t it be a good thing in your eyes if existing red voters voted third party?
You are demonstrating my point why it's counter productive: you're less likely to get something resembling what you want, and more likely to get something almost exactly the opposite of what you want.
To elaborate, the issue is our FPTP voting system. With rational actors, it's going to tend towards a two party system. The simple example is that if you have a progressive candidate and a liberal candidate, who both pull 30% of the vote, and some far right wing candidate that pulls the remaining 40%. . . every time the right wing candidate is going to win, and the liberals/progressives, who would be mostly happy with the other candidate left wing candidate, are going to end up with the exact opposite of what they want. So these two groups act rationally and coalesce around a single candidate, so now they get 60% of the vote and win every time, while not getting everything they may want.
So even if a third party does win at some point, which has happened in the past, it will quickly return right back to a two party system . . .usually because the third party won and the people whose vote was split realize that it was a terrible strategy.
So sure, if it was right wingers splitting the vote, I would be more likely to get what I want and that would be fantastic. But despite being dumbasses that will vote for Trump, they are still rational enough to realize that not coalescing around a single candidate would be a disaster for them, so they also have a single candidate.
And now that the parties are entrenched, there is no way that the people who have worked up through this system are going to relinquish the control they have. It has to come from the bottom up, or via some (likely violent) revolution. The latter would be more miserable for everyone, so if people really care about not having a two party system, they should be getting involved in local politics and getting it to switch the voting system first, and having that filter up. It's not easy or fast, but it's way better than the alternative.
Circling back - I initially did not respond because I thought that my response would be caustic and catty.
It seemed that the first two paragraphs you wrote were in response to me, but the rest were just the same canned responses that get shared with everyone who throws out a ‘voting is pointless’ message. And that’s not really my stance, or my comment. It kind of upset me, so I felt that I couldn’t have responded politely at the time.
It is a reasonable conclusion to draw from my statements, but I don’t believe people should refrain from voting. I just believe political parties should deliver on their promises, and if they don’t deliver, then they should stop making those promises, or make way for parties that do.What are they going to do? "Oh no, people are unhappy with the two parties...well we better dilute our power and give them ranked voting."
Yes.
It’s not ‘the norm’ as far as beliefs go, but I do kind of think that should be exactly what they do. They are here to lead and govern. That is what public service is. It is service to the public.
If they behave in protectionist ways for the sake of their party’s over the public interest, then they lack the mandate to represent the public.
Leadership is sometimes sacrificing the power of your party for the good of the people. But that’s also irrelevant as an argument. If democrats represent the ideals they claim to represent, then next time they have a trifecta, they should move towards expanding democracy at a federal level, rather than leaving it to states. Leaving it at the state level guarantees the sort of gridlock that holds back local organizing - only certain kinds of ballot initiatives are even seriously considered at a state level because it’ll harm that state’s power on the national stage. In terms of ideology, more U.S. citizens align with democrats than republicans (but huge numbers of left leaning folks don’t vote due to lack of representation). Their political aims would see more progress with a better represented (and presumably more engaged) populous in a coalition government where their ideas can enjoy broader support.
But they don’t run on ideas or by providing better governance. They’re a business that relies on laws and marketing campaigns to succeed in a given ‘business cycle.’Yes.
You missed the point: It is a rhetorical question. Of course they aren't going to do that. It's not how it works. These people got into power that way, and there is no way in a representative democracy that you are going to get enough of the reps who gained the power a certain way to give up that way. You are arguing what they should do, and I agree with you. But the problem is that focusing on that is just blind idealism. I'm pointing out the dirty reality of how politics works.
And this assault on "well washington democrats aren't idealistic do-gooders!" is just a counter productive position (unless you want Reps to win instead). They are humans who have human faults, and primarily made up of people who have sought out the power, so a lot of those faults are going to be amplified.
But that's the game we have right now. Ranked choice is great, but it ain't going to come from people wringing their hands over "Well, washington democrats with their slim majority weren't able to force through sweeping changes that some of their members don't even agree with!" It's going to come from getting your hands dirty locally.
It's super easy to be like "I don't like either party." Good for you. I've known plenty of edgy 14 year olds who have been able to "reason" themselves to this same conclusion. But nothing you propose is realistic or will solve it.
In their post 2020-majority they could have done so much legislatively that they didn’t even bother considering - like campaign finance reform or expanding the courts, or even changing the rules around judicial nominees to prevent future shenanigans, but that would impact their bottom line or their ability to inspire panic at election-time.
This conspiracy theory is so weird.
How exactly are legislative Democrats supposed to accomplish these things when their bare-bones Senate majority depends on Manchin and Sinema? I mean really, specifically, how are they supposed to get things done?
Y'all are always like "they should do more" but you won't give them the numbers to do it. In a 60/40 Senate we can make wonderful things happen, but you just won't give it to us.
When the Democratic Party did have a 60-40 in 2009 they did not act. Where they did they self imposed compromises with the GOP or simply didn't pass legislation they ran on. For example: codifying Roe v Wade with Freedom of Choice Act went from Obama's alleged first sct in office to "not a top priority." Then they got annihilated in 2010.
We know from precedent that when Democrats are elected there is no indication they will even promote what they or the party ran on.
Recent example: John Fetterman. Ran as a progressive, immediately said he wasn't progressive once in office and now pushing for right wing immigration laws.
Republicans get what they vote for. Democrats do not. Which is why these threads are so ignorant and frustrsting to read.
They had a 60-40 majority for only a few months, and they passed a massive expansion of healthcare that has saved thousands of lives and lifted countless people out of poverty. And that's after Republicans gutted it by killing the individual mandate.
these threads are so ignorant and frustrsting to read.
At least we agree on one thing. But you're the one spreading the ignorance.
The ACA is the self compromising I was referencing. I thought that was clear, so I apologize for your feeling so provoked by my lack of explicitly referencing it.
I mean, doesn't change much. You're still saying that one of the greatest pieces of legislation in our lifetimes is worthless, so you're still spreading ignorance.
I called it self-compromise within the party, not worthless, at any rate.
The greatest piece of legislation in our lifetime being a repackaging of the Republican Mitt Romney system is rather on-brand for this topic.