Recent searches
Search options
Does this guy really think shouting at people and calling them names is how you convince them to change their mind about political strategy? His rudeness is matched only by his total inability to defend his position with logic or evidence.
This is why the Democrats keep losing. Anyone who questions their obviously failed centrist bullshit is a Russian troll, or whatever other story they can tell themselves to justify sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting ya ya ya.
(1/?)
I mean, look at the trend in Democrat politics over the last half a century;
1977-81: Ford and Carter. For all their failings, these guys were social democrats, not unlike Sanders or Warren
1981-93: Reagan and Bush Snr drag the US into Milton Friedman's neoliberal nightmare
1993-2001: Instead of rolling back GoP neoliberalism, Clinton treats it as the new normal
2001-2009: Dubya brings the neocons to the centre of US politics
2009-2017: Obama leaves them there.
2017-2021: Drumpf
(2/?)
2021-25: Biden broke the pattern, but only because 2016 made it very clear that the US left was not going to vote for a neocon lite administration again.
Biden himself was the least worst candidate from the neocon wing of the Dems. See his policy on genocide in Gaza as an example. But his policy platform and administration drew significantly on the left of the party. Which is why he was able to win.
(3/3)
2020: The Harris campaign was a repeat of the failings of the 2016 Clinton campaign. They tried to tack back to a perceived "centre" circa Obama, as if the preceding two elections had never happened.
This isn't even where the centre is anymore, to the degree that formulation still makes sense. It's certainly wasn't acceptable to a left that had finally got *something* out of electoral politics for the first time in decades.
But died-in-the-wool Dems seem perpetually unable to see this.
@strypey So the Left voted Republican because they prefer Trump to someone less far Right?
I'm unpersuaded.
@midgephoto
> So the Left voted Republican because they prefer Trump to someone less far Right?
I'm unpersuaded
Well that strawman is stone dead. Well done. If you look at the election results, the GoP votes were pretty much the same as 2020, while the Dem numbers dropped off a cliff. What happened, as in 2016, is that the Dems tacked right, and most of their supporters voted no confidence by not turning out.
Learn the lesson, or see it repeated. Your call.
@strypey
Not "most", I think.
FWIW I would have been greatly amused if Biden, who was objectively a pretty good President, had resigned a short while before the election, giving Harris a) first black female President; and b) whatever advantage a sitting President has.
But it wasn't up to I think either of us.
( and c) A poke in the eye for the red tatt with 47 in it ;) )
@midgephoto
> Biden ... had resigned a short while before the election
I'm guessing you mean after the election? Because otherwise this is what happened, but clearly didn't produce the results you describe.
> who was objectively a pretty good President
Good for what? His administration was a big improvement, because much of its policy was taken from the left of the party. The Dems won in 2020 despite him. A better choice of candidate in that election might have carried through to 2024 
@strypey
Odd guess.
Biden was President until Trump was President.
If Biden had resigned before the election, Harris would have been President.
And sitting President at the election.
After the election, well yes, that would have been the poke in the eye for anything numbered, and there would have been a first female president, but no electoral advantage. Unless, 4 years later ...
@midgephoto
> Biden was President until Trump was President
Oh right, you mean resigned as President, as opposed to stepping down as candidate. Sorry. Incumbent advantage didn't seem to help Drumpf in 2020. I doubt it would have moved the needle.
> After the election, well yes, that would have been the poke in the eye
Assuming he won. Which seems unlikely. So probably would have made no difference at all. Now if he'd stepped down as candidate early enough for the Dems to run a primary ...
@strypey
Even there.
I gather a lot of tatt had been ordered with 47 on it.
Making him 48 would sting a little.
@strypey
Try an alternate reading:
The vote is generally about 50/50 but after Trump 1 there was a big surge, which was a transient for cause(s).
@midgephoto
> The vote is generally about 50/50 but after Trump 1 there was a big surge
Yes. I think because the Dem policy platform tacked significantly to the left for the first time in decades. Back towards the centre from the neolib/ neocon centre-right positioning of the Clintons and Obama.
> which was a transient for cause(s)
Not sure what you mean by this.
@strypey I thought because Trump.
@midgephoto
> I thought because Trump
I think you're right that this was a factor. Whatever appeal Orange Stalin has, it appears to be stronger at a distance. When he's not in power he can play the champion of the underdog card, which doesn't work for a sitting President who's spent 4 years kicking the underdog.
But while I think that would explain a drop in Drumpf's polling, I don't think it can explain a massive jump in the Dems' vote in 2020, nor it dropping off a cliff in 2024.