Biden's presidency

[pfife]

14 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

It don't know if the current populism has appeal substantivelty, but it may appeal to the revolutionary sentiments.  Leave the moderates in power and nothing will happen.  Put a populist nut job like Trump in power and there is an outside shot you can get him interested.  

I think you can make a more concrete argument, Tater does all the time.    Trumpism does have a lure for progressives based on things like NAFTA.   

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

IDK... I just think cultural issues have a lot more salience now than economic ones. And unfortunately, that disadvantages the Dems in a lot of the country.

 

3 minutes ago, pfife said:

That seems to suggest then that Machin's electoral fate is not tied to his vote on an economic bill.

yes - politics as a matter of signalling group membership.

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, pfife said:

I think you can make a more concrete argument, Tater does all the time.    Trumpism does have a lure for progressives based on things like NAFTA.   

Yes - disregard of American wage earners is a sin the Dems are going to have a hard time atoning for. And to be honest, other than Biden (and I suppose Bernie if you want to consider him "in" the party)  I'm not sure much of the rest of the party still gets it.

[mtutiger]

6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Yes- and that perception is a big problem. And I take it back to persuasion. The problem for progs is that they are always too much the 'Brave new Worlders.' Intellectually they are in love with solutions that upend everything, so when they talk about things like climate change they tend to project a vision of the future that is all hair-shirts and birkenstocks instead of how we get to clean energy with the *least* dislocation to our present order of living. 

This is 100% accurate. 

It's not good enough to have great solutions, you have to market it in a way that the broader population will be attentive to. And that means marketing to people who aren't necessarily high in terms of educational attainment and may live in areas that are less hospitable toward liberal politics. Also marketing to people who have day to day concerns (like putting food on the table) that make things like climate change seem abstract in contrast.

And the communication between Democratic politicians on these big issues (all of them - moderate and progressive) is generally pretty poor. You have to make the case why this stuff matters, not just to your friend group, but to people who may be hostile to your own world view.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

14 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Climate change is a hard issue because it's invisible and requires people to believe experts and as we see with COVID, as a culture our system for validating publicly accepted truth is totally dysfunctional. But I do think climate is the one thing that could galvanize a new political coalition --  if severe weather continues to intensify everywhere. That is something tangible enough for people to see for themselves so it might be the one thing that finally makes the issue too obvious to ignore.....maybe

What's invisible about places in Florida (like Miami) and along the gulf losing inches of coastline every few years or hurricaines getting worse and more frequent or California set ablaze with wildfires. Those don't seem indivisible. Those seem like drastic threats that Republicans don't believe in and moderates like Manchin could care less about solving.

[pfife]

6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Yes - disregard of American wage earners is a sin the Dems are going to have a hard time atoning for. And to be honest, other than Biden (and I suppose Bernie if you want to consider him "in" the party)  I'm not sure much of the rest of the party still gets it.

they don't.   They think progs owe them their votes b/c they're "not as bad as the fascist Republicans".  It will only get worse if the GOP keeps going to the left of them on some of these key economic issues (at least rhetorically).   

I think this board is full of people that have socioeconomic status that enables us to vote based on things like "stopping fascism".   And that's totally fine.   But I also think there are a lot of ppl out there that are voting based on things like "my job" and, right or wrong it doesn't matter, "stopping fascism" isn't on their radar.    The Democrats need to either get "stopping fascism" on people's radar (and do so in a way that isn't terrible and "you don't know what's best for you-ish"), or adapt in some other way to get the "my job" votes.

"My job" is just one example.  

[mtutiger]

17 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Climate change is a hard issue because it's invisible and requires people to believe experts and as we see with COVID, as a culture our system for validating publicly accepted truth is totally dysfunctional. But I do think climate is the one thing that could galvanize a new political coalition --  if severe weather continues to intensify everywhere. That is something tangible enough for people to see for themselves so it might be the one thing that finally makes the issue too obvious to ignore.....maybe

I feel like I've read some stories over the past year about GOP politicians in Florida showing signs of being more concerned about climate change than in the past. Of course, it's not being reflected at all at the federal level (particularly from Rick Scott)

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

What's invisible about places in Florida (like Miami) and along the gulf losing inches of coastline every few years or hurricaines getting worse and more frequent or California set ablaze with wildfires. Those don't seem indivisible. Those seem like drastic threats that Republicans don't believe in and moderates like Manchin could care less about solving.

well that is my point, it is *becoming* visible, but how much more visible will  it need to be before it creates real political pressure? The case in point would be FL. If climate change is still not a big political issue across the political spectrum there based on observable evidence, then it's hard to expect it to be other places.

[mtutiger]

11 minutes ago, pfife said:

I think this board is full of people that have socioeconomic status that enables us to vote based on things like "stopping fascism".   And that's totally fine.   But I also think there are a lot of ppl out there that are voting based on things like "my job" and, right or wrong it doesn't matter, "stopping fascism" isn't on their radar.   

Couldn't the same thing be said about climate change funding in the BBB? Isn't that pretty abstract to the average person as well?

[Mr.TaterSalad]

36 minutes ago, pfife said:

I think you can make a more concrete argument, Tater does all the time.    Trumpism does have a lure for progressives based on things like NAFTA.   

Bernie and Trump share voters because they share, sort of, a populist identity. The difference is far and wide in that populist identity as Bernie is authentic, smart, caring, compassionate, tolerant, not racist or xenophobic. Trump's populism is rooted in ignorance, racism, xenophobia, sexism, and the like, Bernie's is not.

I think there are a percentage of voters like to have a villain to go after and are easily swayed to vote one way or another based on that. Here on this board Trump is the villain that others like to go after and most posters will continue to vote Democrat to eliminate the threat of Trump. Other villains include Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, the Christian right, left wing activists, black lives matter activists, teachers, school board members, critical race theory, cancel culture, and on.

I think Democrats can win with populism if they focus their message on the right villain and simultaneously commit to putting forward policies that will substantially improve hope, opportunity, and prosperity in the lives of everyday people. They need to do this without talking about abolishing ice, defunding the police, and regulating every word that comes out of someone's mouth. That villain would be rich people and greedy corporations, and the messaging around how the filthy rich are indulging themselves at your expense and how corporate profits are at record highs. It's the FDR model updated with Bernie or Sherrod Brown style populism. Now I know, Biden won and Bernie didn't, so that somehow invalidates everything about Bernie, his approach, and his messaging. And I also know that FDR comes from a different era without the internet, social media, and rightwing media outlets like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. But there is still something to be said that the most progressive and populist Presidents in American history (FDR and Teddy) were also two of the most beloved at the time and still are regarded today.

If culture is really king and all people care about is culture-based issue or some non-existent threat to whiteness and being a white person, well then I'll concede that economic populism won't work. I'm not ready to concede though that a Democrats can't win with a populist, progressive, economic message. Populism on the economy doesn't mean you have to also be talking about abolishing ICE, defunding the police, using academic speak like Latin X and other wedges that hurt Democrats. It also doesn't mean you abandon the fight for civil rights, voting rights, and social equity.

There are two candidates I am following closely this election cycle and that is Tim Ryan for Senate in Ohio and John Fretterman for Senate in Pennsylvania. Conventional wisdom states that Ryan will lose by a pretty wide margin and Fretterman has a chance in Pennsylvania. But thus far, Ryan's basically emulating the Sherrod Brown populism in his campaign with his whole "cut workers in on the deal" messaging. Fretterman is doing the same in Penn. Most predict Ryanto fail, I don't feel as certain about that just yet. We will see how this ends up going. Somehow, someway, a lefty like Sherrod Brown keeps winning in Ohio. Same for Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin. We'll see if populists like Fretterman and Ryan can replicate that success.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Couldn't the same thing be said about climate change funding in the BBB? Isn't that pretty abstract to the average person as well?

It is somewhat abstract, but I think progressives are convinced that climate change is real and dangerous.  I think right wing fascism is viewed as hyperbole.      

[Mr.TaterSalad]

5 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

It is somewhat abstract, but I think progressives are convinced that climate change is real and dangerous.  I think right wing fascism is viewed as hyperbole.      

I don't think it is viewed as hyperbole by progressives. After Trump won, who was organizing and attending all of the woman's marches, tax day marches, climate marches, social justice marches. It sure as heck wasn't moderate suburban voters or former Republicans' from the Lincoln Project. While there may well have been a fair number of moderates who attended these events, it was from my experience largely progressives that were doing the leg work to organize those events, knock on doors, and drive a voter mobilization efforts ahead of 2018 and 2020.

Edited December 20, 2021 by Mr.TaterSalad

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Bernie and Trump share voters because they share, sort of, a populist identity. The difference is far and wide in that populist identity as Bernie is authentic, smart, caring, compassionate, tolerant, not racist or xenophobic. Trump's populism is rooted in ignorance, racism, xenophobia, sexism, and the like, Bernie's is not.

 

I think Sanders has some level of real interest in the populism he promotes.  At least, he has been consistent throughout his career.  Trump doesn't care. He probably could have been king of the Bernie Bros if he thought it would have helped him win admiration and wealth.    

[Tiger337]

1 minute ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I don't think it is viewed as hyperbole by progressives. After Trump won, who was organizing and attending all of the woman's marches, tax day marches, climate marches, social justice marches.

That doesn't mean they thought it was fascism.  It just means they disagreed with him and thought he was a pig.  

[mtutiger]

8 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

It is somewhat abstract, but I think progressives are convinced that climate change is real and dangerous.  I think right wing fascism is viewed as hyperbole.      

Obviously it's not abstract for progressives.... how about for people who are not progressive? That average person that fife speaks of who doesn't sit around and think about this stuff like we all do?

I see what fife is saying with fears of fascism not being sufficient a platform to run on.... obviously he's correct. But I'd also argue that Democrats (progressives included) are generally pretty bad at marketing their platforms to the average person., and climate change may be one of the better examples of their ineffectiveness.

Edited December 20, 2021 by mtutiger

[pfife]

1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Obviously it's not abstract for progressives.... how about for people who are not progressive? That average person that fife speaks of who doesn't sit around and think about this stuff like we all do?

I see what fife is saying with fears of fascism not being sufficient a platform to run on.... obviously he's correct. But I'd also argue that Democrats (progressives included) are generally pretty bad at marketing their platforms to the average person., and climate change may be one of the better examples of their ineffectiveness.

but isn't it the Democrats trying to get the progressives to vote for them, not vice versa?

[mtutiger]

1 minute ago, pfife said:

but isn't it the Democrats trying to get the progressives to vote for them, not vice versa?

The Democrats only need progressive votes to win elections?

[romad1]

My Dad voted for Biden after a lifetime of voting for GOP.  He stated, that he is glad Manchin is out there to protect the interests of those who hated Trump but don't want Bernie style populism. 

Its a perspective that I think is out there.   

[pfife]

14 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

The Democrats only need progressive votes to win elections?

no, the discussion since yesterday morning has been critical of progressives not voting for democrats - there hasn't been any discussion of Democrats voting for progressives.    

[mtutiger]

4 minutes ago, pfife said:

no, the discussion since yesterday morning has been critical of progressives not voting for democrats - there hasn't been any discussion of Democrats voting for progressives.    

You made a post about how fears of fascism isn't enough to break through to the jobs voter - I respond back that climate may suffer from the same issue.

I interpreted your comment about "jobs voters" as covering a wide spectrum, not just limited to progressive voters. So yeah, maybe climate appeals to progressive "jobs voters".... but does it persuade other "jobs voters"?

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

That doesn't mean they thought it was fascism.  It just means they disagreed with him and thought he was a pig.  

the average American is too steeped in American myth to believe the government could so south here. To entertain the idea violates too much of their identity system. What they do respond to is stuff like Charlottesville or Jan 6 - because "That kind of thing shouldn't happen here". Politically the value is the same - it does drive people away from the right, but it's more reflexive, emotional and abstract than a concern about fascism. And you get the same effect from city riots in the other direction. It's less a particular politics as social embarrassment to be associated with bad stuff.

[Tiger337]

I've always thought the real myth was that the government is the ultimate power in this country.  I always imagine big business as pulling the strings.  Does big business want fascism? They got their judges and their tax cuts.  Big business is so wealthy and powerful as is.  Wouldn't a fascist government just get in their way?    

[Edman85]

I agree with Nate. Full disclosure, I usually do.

 

[Motown Bombers]

9 minutes ago, Edman85 said:

I agree with Nate. Full disclosure, I usually do.

 

This reminds me of when the late shows go out and ask random people if they like the Affordable Care Act and they all love it. They ask the same people if they like Obamacare and they all hate it. I do believe West Virginians like what is in BBB but do not like that it is a Democratic plan. I mean, Donald Trump ran on spending billions in infrastructure. Republicans have won the culture war in West Virginia and that matters more. 

[pfife]

Seems like Nate is saying "don't believe that empiricism here's my opinion instead".   Nate's org rated Data for Progress as a B.  So should I believe Nate's opinion or Nate's org's ratings?  They seem contradictory.

Edited December 20, 2021 by pfife