2020 US General Election Thread X: For Those About to Vote

[San Lumen]

And with rhetoric like that this is why they dont win statewide.

I'd rather be good than victorious.

Well you have said if a Democrat wins statewide and the opposite party has the legislature they should block every appointment and anything they want to get done. I bet if it was the opposite you'd be screaming bloody murder how unfair that is.

[Arlenton]

It worked fine from 2009 to 2016. Even got us a 6-3 Supreme Court.

So, after a historic defeat, it led to worsening political and social conditions for seven years, and now appears to be setting the stage either for another historic defeat or the emergence of an authoritarian regime?

Even if your time horizon is only seven years out and you don't care about anything after that, it doesn't seem like it's going so well. At best it could be characterized as a very Pyrrhic victory, I would probably think of it as a tactical victory but a strategic catastrophe (at least working from the assumption that you and other proponents of this strategy care about the long-term viability of the US and liberal democracy).

My view of how this country should work I assume is radically different than yours.

As for the strategy, it prevented many progressive policies from being ushered in under Obama's presidency and it gave conservatives the biggest edge in the federal courts in my lifetime. The NINTH CIRUIT even ruled against a California magazine limit law. I don't see how this isn't a victory. Four to eight years of neoliberal Biden trying to nicely ask Republicans and red state Democrats to please pass his half-assed progressive agenda is hardly a defeat, in my opinion.

[Shrillland]

I'd rather be good than victorious.

Well you have said if a Democrat wins statewide and the opposite party has the legislature they should block every appointment and anything they want to get done. I bet if it was the opposite you'd be screaming bloody murder how unfair that is.

Yes, he would. And? War is hypocrisy writ large.

[Senkaku]

Given that I've repeatedly said I'd rather be flayed living than vote for the Greens, the idea of trying to paint me as some myopic foot-stamping 2016-redux Bernie Bro archetype is pretty funny. I've already mailed in my ballot for Biden; unfortunately Black Forrest is going to have to get used to the idea that this doesn't mean I won't criticize him on anything.

Just be glad you are not actually voting green, ive seen green voters and supporters called entitled, privileged, that they are wasting their vote, that they (and this one is a spicy take) hate women and minorities by voting green.

Granted, most of that is on twitter and twitter is a fucking shithole of a website so cant be too surprised on there.

I think people have an idea that a lot of the people not voting or voting Green or DSA or whatever are a bunch of rich white liberals who are just pissed that Biden wouldn't comply with their mostly symbolic demands, when the reality is that a lot of them are marginalized people who've been discarded, ignored, or senselessly punished over the years by the Democratic Party and who feel so alienated that they can't give it their support. There are some rich white liberals who are just pissed that no one likes it when they quote Kapital at parties or whatever and they suck, but they're the exception when it comes to defections from the Democrats to the left, not the rule.

[Telconi]

I'd rather be good than victorious.

Well you have said if a Democrat wins statewide and the opposite party has the legislature they should block every appointment and anything they want to get done. I bet if it was the opposite you'd be screaming bloody murder how unfair that is.

Yes, because these things aren't equivalent.

[Telconi]

Well you have said if a Democrat wins statewide and the opposite party has the legislature they should block every appointment and anything they want to get done. I bet if it was the opposite you'd be screaming bloody murder how unfair that is.

Yes, he would. And? War is hypocrisy writ large.

It's hardly hypocrisy to treat bad as bad and good as good.

[Arlenton]

It worked fine from 2009 to 2016. Even got us a 6-3 Supreme Court.

And this is an objectively good thing how?

Objectively? I have no idea, nor do I care.

For me though, it's great.

[San Lumen]

Well you have said if a Democrat wins statewide and the opposite party has the legislature they should block every appointment and anything they want to get done. I bet if it was the opposite you'd be screaming bloody murder how unfair that is.

Yes, because these things aren't equivalent.

really? How aren't they equivalent?

[Valrifell]

Just be glad you are not actually voting green, ive seen green voters and supporters called entitled, privileged, that they are wasting their vote, that they (and this one is a spicy take) hate women and minorities by voting green.

Granted, most of that is on twitter and twitter is a fucking shithole of a website so cant be too surprised on there.

I think people have an idea that a lot of the people not voting or voting Green or DSA or whatever are a bunch of rich white liberals who are just pissed that Biden wouldn't comply with their mostly symbolic demands, when the reality is that a lot of them are marginalized people who've been discarded, ignored, or senselessly punished over the years by the Democratic Party and who feel so alienated that they can't give it their support. There are some rich white liberals who are just pissed that no one likes it when they quote Kapital at parties or whatever and they suck, but they're the exception when it comes to defections from the Democrats to the left, not the rule.

I don't think that you can take either case for granted, of course. The demographics of third party voters is difficult to accurately measure due to how insignificant that group is on the whole.

It feels wrong to group them under a cohesive narrative.

[Valrifell]

Yes, because these things aren't equivalent.

really? How aren't they equivalent?

For Telconi it's very simple.

Dems = bad
Republicans = better, good even!

[Telconi]

Yes, because these things aren't equivalent.

really? How aren't they equivalent?

Because political parties aren't equal. Their views are different.

[Arlenton]

I propose the Mitch McConnell strategy.

But I assume you mean for compromise. And I can't tell you, because I have no idea how it would work. How can I compromise my rights, and how can I compromise with others who feel I threaten theirs?

That';s not a sustainable way to run a state or country.

Lets say you were governor what would you do?

Governor of Illinois? I would probably be forced to veto everything coming out of the state legislature, then have it be overridden, then lose the next election in a landslide.

So basically, nothing.

[Shrillland]

Yes, because these things aren't equivalent.

really? How aren't they equivalent?

Tel just said it. We're evil, and so we must be destroyed by any and all means necessary.

[Senkaku]

So, after a historic defeat, it led to worsening political and social conditions for seven years, and now appears to be setting the stage either for another historic defeat or the emergence of an authoritarian regime?

Even if your time horizon is only seven years out and you don't care about anything after that, it doesn't seem like it's going so well. At best it could be characterized as a very Pyrrhic victory, I would probably think of it as a tactical victory but a strategic catastrophe (at least working from the assumption that you and other proponents of this strategy care about the long-term viability of the US and liberal democracy).

My view of how this country should work I assume is radically different than yours.

Okay... are you at least on board with the indivisibility of the union and continuing liberal democratic governance? I got the sense you were the last time I read any of your posts, has that changed? If you aren't, then sure, radically different operating assumptions, whatever. But if you are, you should be more concerned about the viability of this strategy you've outlined.

As for the strategy, it prevented many progressive policies from being ushered in under Obama's presidency and it gave conservatives the biggest edge in the federal courts in my lifetime. The NINTH CIRUIT even ruled against a California magazine limit law. I don't see how this isn't a victory. Four to eight years of neoliberal Biden trying to nicely ask Republicans and red state Democrats to please pass his half-assed progressive agenda is hardly a defeat, in my opinion.

What has actually been accomplished that is a positive good in its own right for the country, rather than simply a negative good by having not come to pass or been averted? What you're outlining here is the fatal weakening of the Democratic Party as an institution and a successful campaign to compromise the independence of the judiciary; this is distinct from the strengthening of the Republican Party or its base of support, and it is definitely not a good thing for the country. If you want to keep standing athwart history and yelling stop or whatever in the long-term, you should be wary of doing things that will grow left/progressive majorities and force them to seek alternatives to mainstream Democratic Party politics to achieve their aims.

[Telconi]

really? How aren't they equivalent?

Tel just said it. We're evil, and so we must be destroyed by any and all means necessary.

I wouldn't say destroyed necessarily, just prevented from executing your agenda on innocent people.

[Ngelmish]

so is skepticism that we get Biden who is a caricature of neoliberalism as a pejorative, rather than ideological, term, particularly from people who who, if they are consistent on their policy aims would have been deeply disappointed by the inevitable compromises of a Sanders presidency.

I don't think, given the news that he's considering all these Republican cabinet appointees, that there's a lot of reason to be skeptical of the idea that we are in for more of the neoliberal (pejorative) Biden than we are for the transformational Biden.

I'm sure I would've been disappointed by the compromises of a Sanders presidency too, but I at least don't think he would've even considered allowing his cabinet to be hijacked by a bunch of right-wing ideologues like Kasich.

Yes and no. I agree that it's a red flag, but I'd hold off on breaking the emergency glass unless and until Biden actually puts one of them in the cabinet. Particularly in terms of whether or not it's a significant post. Biden's been flirting with just about everyone, so it's hard to know what exactly to extrapolate. Particularly given that it's standard practice to float names that you're not going to choose as a bone.

I'm inclined to agree that pushing back on him actually doing it is a good use of activism, however. Democrats especially have to stop giving high profile Republicans national security positions, it does nothing but reinforce Republican propaganda on "strong on defense" garbage.

[Valrifell]

really? How aren't they equivalent?

Tel just said it. We're evil, and so we must be destroyed by any and all means necessary.

Jokes on him, I love playing the villain.

[San Lumen]

That';s not a sustainable way to run a state or country.

Lets say you were governor what would you do?

Governor of Illinois? I would probably be forced to veto everything coming out of the state legislature, then have it be overridden, then lose the next election in a landslide.

So basically, nothing.

I gather the same would be for your state. In other words you wouldn't compromise at all and spend your entire term vetoing everything.

Why hasn't any governor with the legislature of the opposite party ever done that? Because its no way to govern.

[Senkaku]

I don't think, given the news that he's considering all these Republican cabinet appointees, that there's a lot of reason to be skeptical of the idea that we are in for more of the neoliberal (pejorative) Biden than we are for the transformational Biden.

I'm sure I would've been disappointed by the compromises of a Sanders presidency too, but I at least don't think he would've even considered allowing his cabinet to be hijacked by a bunch of right-wing ideologues like Kasich.

Yes and no. I agree that it's a red flag, but I'd hold off on breaking the emergency glass unless and until Biden actually puts one of them in the cabinet. Particularly in terms of whether or not it's a significant post. Biden's been flirting with just about everyone, so it's hard to know what exactly to extrapolate. Particularly given that it's standard practice to float names that you're not going to choose as a bone.

I'm inclined to agree that pushing back on him actually doing it is a good use of activism, however. Democrats especially have to stop giving high profile Republicans national security positions, it does nothing but reinforce Republican propaganda on "strong on defense" garbage.

Even more than defense stuff, I'm worried he's going to decide that the people who are rediscovering their inner deficit hawks are right, and we'll end up with grinding austerity and an excruciating recovery orchestrated by a bunch of rightist hacks to sabotage the administration.

[Shrillland]

Tel just said it. We're evil, and so we must be destroyed by any and all means necessary.

I wouldn't say destroyed necessarily, just prevented from executing your agenda on innocent people.

That ultimately means destruction, for as long as there is dissent, there is the possibility that that dissent can grow. This is ultimately why Communism couldn't succeed without harsh dictatorship and why Libertarianism is doomed to fail since it rejects such harshness.

[San Lumen]

Tel just said it. We're evil, and so we must be destroyed by any and all means necessary.

I wouldn't say destroyed necessarily, just prevented from executing your agenda on innocent people.

In other words the people punished for daring to vote for someone you don't like or prevented from voting at all. Republicans have been doing that in Wisconsin and hopefully they lose at least the state senate this year as a result.

[Jerzylvania]

Tel just said it. We're evil, and so we must be destroyed by any and all means necessary.

I wouldn't say destroyed necessarily, just prevented from executing your agenda on innocent people.

Incapacitated is the word.

[Telconi]

I wouldn't say destroyed necessarily, just prevented from executing your agenda on innocent people.

That ultimately means destruction, for as long as there is dissent, there is the possibility that that dissent can grow. This is ultimately why Communism couldn't succeed without harsh dictatorship and why Libertarianism is doomed to fail since it rejects such harshness.

I don't think destruction is necessary, people can be rendered unable to execute certain beliefs without destroying them. You can simply curtail their ability to enact their views, and re-educate them to eliminate their views.

[Arlenton]

Governor of Illinois? I would probably be forced to veto everything coming out of the state legislature, then have it be overridden, then lose the next election in a landslide.

So basically, nothing.

I gather the same would be for your state. In other words you wouldn't compromise at all and spend your entire term vetoing everything.

Why hasn't any governor with the legislature of the opposite party ever done that? Because its no way to govern.

So I should just sign gun control bills, tax increases, and whatever nonsense the legislature passes for no reason other than it's doing something?

[Telconi]

I wouldn't say destroyed necessarily, just prevented from executing your agenda on innocent people.

In other words the people punished for daring to vote for someone you don't like or prevented from voting at all

Yes