|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On November 09 2020 01:10 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
Some say that after the Four Seasons Total Landscaping muckup, republican campaign staffers decided it's time to get their head back in the game, get a headstart on the GA senate seat campaign and booked flights to Tbilisi, Georgia immediately.
Haha, amazing
|
On November 09 2020 01:36 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 01:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On November 09 2020 00:36 PhoenixVoid wrote:I recall people gave Danglars some grief for suggesting that Cal Cunningham's sexts dented his odds at winning the NC Senate seat, and while there were polls that showed Cunningham wasn't too afflicted, I now wonder if it may have cost him. Maybe it peeled off just enough votes from the moral purists to give Tillis the win. So far, Tillis is ahead by 95,721 votes at 97% of the votes in, while Trump is ahead 75,407 votes with 98% of the votes in. It's probably more likely that the general outperformance by Republicans over Trump due to various factors is the better answer, but there's that lingering feeling in the back of my head. The majority of votes to be counted in NC are from blue counties so maybe the last batch of mail-ins are like 80% Cunningham and he squeezes by, but judging from how the Democrats have written off NC, I think he's probably doomed. On an aside, it's probably already been mentioned here before, but Democrats got denied on their attempt to reclaim some state legislatures in key swing states and potential pick-ups and will be stewing in some very hard maps for them when redistricting comes by soon. Another decade with the GOP in an advantageous position statewide. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/04/statehouse-elections-2020-434108 The outstanding votes in NC are ballots that were mailed, but not returned. There is no reason to believe that either election will flip to the democrat. This isn't a Pennsylvania situation where they counted mostly the Trump votes first and then all the early votes for Biden. Thanks for the clarification. I figured Cunningham was toast anyways. There's also Alaska's Senate race that remains undecided as of now, but that's basically guaranteed a win for the Republican unless there's a miracle.
I had some hope in that Cunningham was still polling ok enough for a toss-up or even a lean-Dem election, but the Trump-induced polling error bodied that hope there and in other state elections.
|
Norway28911 Posts
On November 09 2020 01:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
What you're saying is that if enough progressives existed, Biden would suddenly shift political winds to that position except you can't admit that.
I mean, I'm not Zambrah, but sure, I do believe that. The thing is though, there's a conflict between different 'types' of politicians. Should they be reactive (weathervane-type), or reformers?
Myself, I believe that virtually all the 'great' politicians are reformers. They don't simply react to public opinion, they also shape it. It's not a virtue by default - while I think all great politicians are reformers, I believe it also holds true for the most abhorrent ones. Trump has not only responded to the ugly side of his electorate, he has also shaped public opinion (but from my perspective largely in a negative manner, some of it very dangerous/damaging. The entire handling of COVID is one such example, where I am confident that if Trump had backed expert opinion rather than contradicted it, it would have been more closely adhered to by the public).
The weathervane politician is the 'career' politician, ones that never opine anything that does not poll well. They are the kind that opposes gay marriage publicly even if they are privately positive towards it / don't give a damn on a personal level. More likely to be technocrats, sure, and often they will provide us with some incremental improvement backed by experts. But this group is unlikely to provide society with truly meaningful change. Which type you prefer, will largely be determined by how content you are with the current direction of society.
Sanders is a reformer. Yang seems like one, too - even if I agree more with Sanders than with Yang, I will give Yang credit for being the type of politician who tries to come up with solutions to problems society faces and then tries to convince people that this is the right solution, rather than checking the polls to see what his opinion should be. Clinton was absolutely an example of a weathervane politician. Biden is largely one, too, although I don't see him as being equally cynical about it. Obama, I actually think wanted to be a reformer, but he was largely neutered.
(I do believe Biden is a genuinely caring human being. And I think the US needs some degree of bland , inoffensive leadership for the problem of 'increased societal division' to possibly be addressed. However, I also believe you need radical change to deal with many of the political issues you struggle with. Biden is probably as good of a unifying candidate as the US could find right now - so he checks that box, but I don't see him provide the actual change required, because I think you need changes that don't necessarily have majority support at the moment. )
|
AOC was mentioned earlier, but her tweets weren't given.
Here's the chart she's using, I think (well, I really have no idea. Some of these aren't swing districts).
+ Show Spoiler +
|
If only we could have more viable parties. Coalition of real progressive + Democrat parties sharing power would set the country on the right course.
|
On November 09 2020 02:19 Starlightsun wrote:
If only we could have more viable parties. Coalition of real progressive + Democrat parties sharing power would set the country on the right course.
You could vote for who you want, then the major party would just exclude the party you voted for from the coalition. Not far from the pre-built coalition that the two-party system gives you under current circumstances.
|
CNN is reporting Melania is trying to get Donald to concede, and ABC is reporting that the rest of his family is also convinced he's lost.
Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham is telling him he shouldn't concede, on Fox News.
|
You'll find they end up merging into the bigger parties eventually, but it'd be good to have more options, definitely.
Edit for clarity:
On November 09 2020 02:19 Starlightsun wrote:
If only we could have more viable parties. Coalition of real progressive + Democrat parties sharing power would set the country on the right course.
|
Graham really angling for that endorsement in 2024.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
Can someone who knows more about this than me tell me whether this is actually a 100% correlation or whether its just cherry picked?
|
|
|
On November 09 2020 02:30 dUTtrOACh wrote:You'll find they end up merging into the bigger parties eventually, but it'd be good to have more options, definitely. Edit for clarity: Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 02:19 Starlightsun wrote:
If only we could have more viable parties. Coalition of real progressive + Democrat parties sharing power would set the country on the right course.
I have never heard of anything but fringe parties actually merging. The other option is one of the parties disappearing from the map, with the voters fleeing elsewhere, which is something else.
|
Those districts were all borderline and unlikely that m4a made a difference
|
On November 09 2020 02:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 01:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
What you're saying is that if enough progressives existed, Biden would suddenly shift political winds to that position except you can't admit that. I mean, I'm not Zambrah, but sure, I do believe that. The thing is though, there's a conflict between different 'types' of politicians. Should they be reactive (weathervane-type), or reformers? Myself, I believe that virtually all the 'great' politicians are reformers. They don't simply react to public opinion, they also shape it. It's not a virtue by default - while I think all great politicians are reformers, I believe it also holds true for the most abhorrent ones. Trump has not only responded to the ugly side of his electorate, he has also shaped public opinion (but from my perspective largely in a negative manner, some of it very dangerous/damaging. The entire handling of COVID is one such example, where I am confident that if Trump had backed expert opinion rather than contradicted it, it would have been more closely adhered to by the public). The weathervane politician is the 'career' politician, ones that never opine anything that does not poll well. They are the kind that opposes gay marriage publicly even if they are privately positive towards it / don't give a damn on a personal level. More likely to be technocrats, sure, and often they will provide us with some incremental improvement backed by experts. But this group is unlikely to provide society with truly meaningful change. Which type you prefer, will largely be determined by how content you are with the current direction of society. Sanders is a reformer. Yang seems like one, too - even if I agree more with Sanders than with Yang, I will give Yang credit for being the type of politician who tries to come up with solutions to problems society faces and then tries to convince people that this is the right solution, rather than checking the polls to see what his opinion should be. Clinton was absolutely an example of a weathervane politician. Biden is largely one, too, although I don't see him as being equally cynical about it. Obama, I actually think wanted to be a reformer, but he was largely neutered. (I do believe Biden is a genuinely caring human being. And I think the US needs some degree of bland , inoffensive leadership for the problem of 'increased societal division' to possibly be addressed. However, I also believe you need radical change to deal with many of the political issues you struggle with. Biden is probably as good of a unifying candidate as the US could find right now - so he checks that box, but I don't see him provide the actual change required, because I think you need changes that don't necessarily have majority support at the moment. )
The problem is that your reformers never have power. You point out that Obama wanted to be a reformer. His first reform of healthcare cost him the house and his entire presidential agenda. Your previous post pointed out that Bernie isn't a "mainstream politician" despite being in the US congress for thirty years and he was a politician in Vermont before that. I don't put any value in people having ideas. You have to get them implemented for them to have any meaning. What has Sanders reformed besides getting more pork for Vermont?
The most interesting thing about the election to me was Florida voting for a $15 minimum wage and Republican. That would be a reform I could point out that Sanders champions. The logical thing to happen is that your reformer's ideas become main stream enough to get them elected. Not this, they don't have majority support but we're going to force them through anyway that you're posting.
|
On November 09 2020 02:30 dUTtrOACh wrote:You'll find they end up merging into the bigger parties eventually, but it'd be good to have more options, definitely. Edit for clarity: Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 02:19 Starlightsun wrote:
If only we could have more viable parties. Coalition of real progressive + Democrat parties sharing power would set the country on the right course.
In a system where being third in an election gives seats you would have more than 2 parties. Even if the three parties merged into two a new one would soon form again.
|
On November 09 2020 02:39 Jockmcplop wrote:Can someone who knows more about this than me tell me whether this is actually a 100% correlation or whether its just cherry picked?
This one seems better:
|
|
|
On November 09 2020 02:46 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 02:30 dUTtrOACh wrote:You'll find they end up merging into the bigger parties eventually, but it'd be good to have more options, definitely. Edit for clarity: On November 09 2020 02:19 Starlightsun wrote:
If only we could have more viable parties. Coalition of real progressive + Democrat parties sharing power would set the country on the right course. I have never heard of anything but fringe parties actually merging. The other option is one of the parties disappearing from the map, with the voters fleeing elsewhere, which is something else.
One merger example would be the German Leftist party Die Linke. (Though it was preceeded by a split up)
The SPD (social democrats) had a rather significant split off forming the WASG. This WASG, which was left of the SPD and had decent success in western Germany then united a bit later wirh the PDS, successor to the former state party of the GDR, who were doing reasonably well in Eastern Germany but had no chance in Western Germany.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Left_(Germany)
|
Norway28911 Posts
On November 09 2020 03:11 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2020 02:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 09 2020 01:23 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
What you're saying is that if enough progressives existed, Biden would suddenly shift political winds to that position except you can't admit that. I mean, I'm not Zambrah, but sure, I do believe that. The thing is though, there's a conflict between different 'types' of politicians. Should they be reactive (weathervane-type), or reformers? Myself, I believe that virtually all the 'great' politicians are reformers. They don't simply react to public opinion, they also shape it. It's not a virtue by default - while I think all great politicians are reformers, I believe it also holds true for the most abhorrent ones. Trump has not only responded to the ugly side of his electorate, he has also shaped public opinion (but from my perspective largely in a negative manner, some of it very dangerous/damaging. The entire handling of COVID is one such example, where I am confident that if Trump had backed expert opinion rather than contradicted it, it would have been more closely adhered to by the public). The weathervane politician is the 'career' politician, ones that never opine anything that does not poll well. They are the kind that opposes gay marriage publicly even if they are privately positive towards it / don't give a damn on a personal level. More likely to be technocrats, sure, and often they will provide us with some incremental improvement backed by experts. But this group is unlikely to provide society with truly meaningful change. Which type you prefer, will largely be determined by how content you are with the current direction of society. Sanders is a reformer. Yang seems like one, too - even if I agree more with Sanders than with Yang, I will give Yang credit for being the type of politician who tries to come up with solutions to problems society faces and then tries to convince people that this is the right solution, rather than checking the polls to see what his opinion should be. Clinton was absolutely an example of a weathervane politician. Biden is largely one, too, although I don't see him as being equally cynical about it. Obama, I actually think wanted to be a reformer, but he was largely neutered. (I do believe Biden is a genuinely caring human being. And I think the US needs some degree of bland , inoffensive leadership for the problem of 'increased societal division' to possibly be addressed. However, I also believe you need radical change to deal with many of the political issues you struggle with. Biden is probably as good of a unifying candidate as the US could find right now - so he checks that box, but I don't see him provide the actual change required, because I think you need changes that don't necessarily have majority support at the moment. ) The problem is that your reformers never have power. You point out that Obama wanted to be a reformer. His first reform of healthcare cost him the house and his entire presidential agenda. Your previous post pointed out that Bernie isn't a "mainstream politician" despite being in the US congress for thirty years and he was a politician in Vermont before that. I don't put any value in people having ideas. You have to get them implemented for them to have any meaning. What has Sanders reformed besides getting more pork for Vermont? The most interesting thing about the election to me was Florida voting for a $15 minimum wage and Republican. That would be a reform I could point out that Sanders champions. The logical thing to happen is that your reformer's ideas become main stream enough to get them elected. Not this, they don't have majority support but we're going to force them through anyway that you're posting.
Sanders has succeeded in garnering a whole lot of youth support for many policies he advocates for. Many of those youth will be future supporters. And Sanders, today, has more credibility than any other American politician I can think of precisely because of his long term unwavering tenacity and honesty. Short term power and influence is exactly what motivates the weathervane politicians, so there's no surprise that they 'win out' in that regard.
|
There has to be a place for reformers in a political system. Without them, you'll end up nowhere. The funny thing is that "reform" often is used synonymously with "left wing idea", which is wrong. There have been reforms during Republican presidencies as well.
For me as a German, it's hard to understand why the US is still struggling with simple ideas like tax financed healthcare and free access to college. But I ofc get where the problems are coming from. Imho, the twisted narrative of "freedom = absence of state" loses its power when you think about the long term consequences of unhinged capitalism. Capitalism has led to more wealth overall, but it's circling around short / mid term profitability. The welfare state model in Europe has its flaws as well, as it is very expensive and it also heavily relies on solid economical growth to be sustained. There have been severe cuts to some budgets in the past decades, mostly due to an ideological shift towards more liberal (EU understanding) ideas, like privately run hospitals. The fallout is visible right now during the pandemic, e.g. there's a shortage of workforce in the health department in Germany.
But I digress. From my european perspective, the Biden / Harris presidency will bring back some normalcy to transatlantic relations. But Biden really has to look at America first. I don't know if his approach is suitable to tackle the fundamental problems of US politics, especially if the Senate ends up being dominated by the Republicans again. Even if the Democrats win the majority, Biden most definitely is not a reformer. He's going to be a transitional president. 2024 will decide if the US (and BOTH parties) are willing to move past all those petty conflicts and remember what made their nation once stand out internationally. Otherwise, we'll have Trump 2.0 vs. some spineless Democratic hack.
Governing a state like the US is a nightmare, though. You'll never reach "unity", as there is constant pushing and pulling going on. Reforming a behemoth like the US is almost impossible, especially with how power is distributed. For "big" reforms there has to be a crisis large enough to form an alliance over the whole political spectrum. Think FDR territory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
