2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[SezMe]

You dismiss polling as a method of gathering data as to how likely a given candidate is to defeat Trump in the general election?

This far out? Yes.

 

[Belz...]

By using conservative framing to make their ideas sound crazy, at the expense of shutting down discussion and prop up the "sane" candidates.

I don't understand. Is it not possible that moderates and conservatives simply agree on this particular point?

 

[ArchSas]

I don't understand. Is it not possible that moderates and conservatives simply agree on this particular point?

It's possible to disagree with an idea without completely framing your disagreeing in the terms of the opposition, or by making the position you disagree with sound crazy or awful in some other way. And it's also possible to agree with a position of the opposition party without completely ceding validity to their framing, or demonizing your side. For a slightly exaggerated example: say Frank is running for president (or hosting a talk show or whatever). Frank might be generally "liberal" in the stereotypical American sense, but doesn't want a single-payer healthcare system. It's entirely possible for Frank to express his position without saying something like "hey this other guy just wants to take away your health insurance and raise your taxes - that's nuts and we shouldn't be talking about it, because it makes us all look bad."

Again, it comes off to me as just a form of respectability politics, which I tend to not agree with as a tactic. I'd rather see people make their arguments/case without doing it at the expense of others "on their side", and while simultaneously supporting points of people that aren't. It might be good for some things short term, but also tends things back. Feel free to disagree.

 

[Belz...]

It's possible to disagree with an idea without completely framing your disagreeing in the terms of the opposition, or by making the position you disagree with sound crazy or awful in some other way.

But that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing Bill Maher pointing out some very marginal campaign 'promises' that can't possibly make the Democrats as a whole look saner to the undecided. That's not a right-wing talking point. Maher is definitely NOT right-wing to begin with, and he's got the chops to make his own points, even if I don't always agree with him.

 

[ArchSas]

But that's not what we're discussing.

Maybe you're not. What I saw in that clip was Mahar deliberately framed fairly minor discussion points (that again, are the kind of thing that usually get thrown around in primaries and get almost no media coverage) as crazy and offputting, as part of an effort to promote more moderate candidates/views that he'd rather see the party focusing on. If you don't think he was doing that, then it's fine; it's possible that we just disagree about what he was trying to do.

 

[Belz...]

Maybe you're not. What I saw in that clip was Mahar deliberately framed fairly minor discussion points (that again, are the kind of thing that usually get thrown around in primaries and get almost no media coverage) as crazy and offputting, as part of an effort to promote more moderate candidates/views that he'd rather see the party focusing on. If you don't think he was doing that, then it's fine; it's possible that we just disagree about what he was trying to do.

I disagree that he was repeating right-wing talking points. I thought I made that clear.

Pointing to crazy or silly things some people want to implement as an argument to vote for the more moderate candidates sounds rational to me.

 

[ArchSas]

I disagree that he was repeating right-wing talking points. I thought I made that clear.

Pointing to crazy or silly things some people want to implement as an argument to vote for the more moderate candidates sounds rational to me.

His methods used conservative framing, to my perception. Not exactly "right talking points" in the vein of my example above, but a general framing that shifts from the issues the candidates were actually talking about (things like health care and reforming certain institutions) into a caricature that makes them look ridiculous and like the kind of thing only a crazy person would propose. Again, I think it's possible (and preferable) to disagree with a position without doing that, even if you want to point out that a position is a little silly or probably unhelpful. To use Beto's gun control proposals as an example (mostly because I think they're actually the dumbest and most harmful to the party), instead of just dismissing them as crazy, reactionary stupidity that will anger most of the country, you could say something more along the lines of "Beto seems to be focusing on the wrong issues, and should probably learn more before taking such an extreme position, especially one that might not be helpful or effective." That's probably not the best way to do it (as can be expected from something I put about five seconds of thought into), but I hope it at least demonstrates the potential differences in framing I'm talking about.

Again, this is all purely my opinion on framing disagreement, and you clearly see things differently, which is fine. It's also possible you don't see the framing I'm talking about or agree that it's generally conservative.

 

[kellyb]

Pointing to crazy or silly things some people want to implement as an argument to vote for the more moderate candidates sounds rational to me.

I definitely don't see that as what the argument was.

The argument was mostly that the purpose of the democratic primary is to campaign to undecided on republican vs democrats moderates to vote for a democrat instead of Trump in the general.

I can see why centrists/"moderates" want that to be the case, but it's not.

 

[kellyb]

His methods used conservative framing, to my perception. Not exactly "right talking points" in the vein of my example above, but a general framing that shifts from the issues the candidates were actually talking about (things like health care and reforming certain institutions) into a caricature that makes them look ridiculous and like the kind of thing only a crazy person would propose.

Right. It's reinforcing the "loony liberal" narrative with hyperbole, cherry picking, and patching arguments together.

 

[Distracted1]

I definitely don't see that as what the argument was.

The argument was mostly that the purpose of the democratic primary is to campaign to undecided on republican vs democrats moderates to vote for a democrat instead of Trump in the general.

I can see why centrists/"moderates" want that to be the case, but it's not.

The argument was for Democrats to keep in mind that the candidate they select to represent them in the general election should be first and foremost one with a chance at actually winning that election.

 

[varwoche]

I disagree that he was repeating right-wing talking points. I thought I made that clear.

Pointing to crazy or silly things some people want to implement as an argument to vote for the more moderate candidates sounds rational to me.

Generically speaking, sometimes the other side's talking point is factual or partly factual <gasp>. When it's unacceptable to say anything similar to what the other side says, we're veering dangerously close to The Palin Doctrine, based entirely on 180 degree opposition to anything Obama says/does. (Taken to new levels by Trump of course.)

If Warren (or Sanders) is the Dem candidate, voters in several swing states who value the health insurance achieved through their unions will be asked to vote for a candidate who promises to eliminate that insurance, in favor of a plan that isn't fully formed. (Not even close to fully formed, because that's the result of a long process).

True as true can be. And a GOP talking point in the general, no doubt.

 

[kellyb]

The argument was for Democrats to keep in mind that the candidate they select to represent them in the general election should be first and foremost one with a chance at actually winning that election.

He said:

Democrats. You've already got the atheist gun hating transgender felon in prison vote. It's like you don't understand you're trying to win an election, not a popularity contest among people who are already on your side.

 

[kellyb]

Generically speaking, sometimes the other side's talking point is factual or partly factual <gasp>. When it's unacceptable to say anything similar to what the other side says, we're veering dangerously close to The Palin Doctrine, based entirely on 180 degree opposition to anything Obama says/does. (Taken to new levels by Trump of course.)

If Warren (or Sanders) is the Dem candidate, voters in several swing states who value the health insurance achieved through their unions will be asked to vote for a candidate who promises to eliminate that insurance, in favor of a plan that isn't fully formed. (Not even close to fully formed, because that's the result of a long process).

True as true can be. And a GOP talking point in the general, no doubt.

I don't think anyone has a problem with stuff like that being pointed out.

It's really framing and hyperbole of stuff like gun control and restoration of voting rights for felons ("You've already got the atheist gun hating transgender felon in prison vote") that's the...icky...sort of right wing babbling.

 

[angrysoba]

I disagree that he was repeating right-wing talking points. I thought I made that clear.

Pointing to crazy or silly things some people want to implement as an argument to vote for the more moderate candidates sounds rational to me.

The thing is, they are not really crazy or silly. Taxing churches is not crazy or silly, and Harris introducing herself at the LGBT townhall by saying her pronouns is not actually crazy or silly however unaccustomed to doing this most of us are. Saying felons should not be stripped of the right to vote is not really crazy or silly and saying that they should be eligible for medical care paid for by the taxpayer up to and including gender realignment is not really crazy or silly. And each of those things is less crazy or silly in the context in which they were said when the points often follow logically from other somewhat more mainstream views such as Medicare for all.

 

[SezMe]

That may well be true, angrysoba, but the GOP will mash these quotes together and play them out of context in such a way to make the Dem candidate look really bad. I think Maher is right that it's not good election politics to have these ideas hung around the Dem candidate like a millstone.

 

[jnelso99]

That may well be true, angrysoba, but the GOP will mash these quotes together and play them out of context in such a way to make the Dem candidate look really bad. I think Maher is right that it's not good election politics to have these ideas hung around the Dem candidate like a millstone.

The GOP will do that with literally ANY Democrat that gets the nomination. Should Democrats continue to let them control the narrative, or promote their ideas regardless of what the meanies of the GOP might say about them?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

From Mayor Pete in July:

But no matter what he and his fellow Democrats support, Buttigieg said, Republicans will continue to label them as "socialists."

On Wednesday, Senator John Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, proved the South Bend mayor's point.

"I'm not buying this storyline of 'progressives versus moderates.' I would remind you that the lesser of two socialists is still a socialist," the conservative said on Fox News. "What I heard last night, even from the so-called 'less liberal candidates,' and I'm not impugning their integrity, but... I heard a job-killing, soul-crushing socialist agenda."

"The only thing missing," Kennedy continued, "was the Cuban national anthem."

The remarks by the Republican is what Buttigieg warned his Democratic competitors of on the debate stage, interjecting a discussion on health care and where they stand on Medicare for All. He rejected the notion by Marianne Williamson, an American author and spiritual adviser, and moderates that supporting the government-run health care insurance system would only provide Republicans with ammunition to attack the Democratic Party as a bunch of socialists.

"It is time to stop worrying about what the Republicans will say. If we embrace a far-left agenda, they're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they're going to do? They're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists," Buttigieg said, earning applause from those in attendance.

"So," he continued, "let's just stand up for the right policy, go out there and defend it."

Linky.

 

[Delvo]

And why is it only the Democrats that are supposed to live cowering in fear and be constantly capitulating to the Republicans and Republicanism? Why is it only the Democrats to whom the word "pragmatic" gets applied to mean "giving the opposition whatever they want at all times"?

 

[varwoche]

And why is it only the Democrats that are supposed to live cowering in fear and be constantly capitulating...

It's not just the Dems. It's something both sides worry about.

Also, being strategic during the election doesn't have to mean capitulation. Get into office and bring it on!

 

[Brainster]

The thing is, they are not really crazy or silly. Taxing churches is not crazy or silly, and Harris introducing herself at the LGBT townhall by saying her pronouns is not actually crazy or silly however unaccustomed to doing this most of us are. Saying felons should not be stripped of the right to vote is not really crazy or silly and saying that they should be eligible for medical care paid for by the taxpayer up to and including gender realignment is not really crazy or silly. And each of those things is less crazy or silly in the context in which they were said when the points often follow logically from other somewhat more mainstream views such as Medicare for all.

Maher's argument is that these viewpoints are unlikely to win the candidates votes in the general, while guaranteeing that they lose some votes. It's relatively non-controversial among political scientists that he is right; what he's ignoring is that the candidates are staking out these (Republican framing: extreme) positions that may make them unelectable next November because they are becoming litmus tests in the primaries.

And the same tension usually exists within the GOP--the primaries pull the candidates to the right, to their detriment in the general as well. Except (for both parties) when their candidate is sitting in the Oval Office already.