The Biden Presidency

[Aridas]

This whole line of argument began when a couple of progs were complaining about other people who are being "considered"

I was under the impression that said picks were past the "considered stage" and had already been selected as the actual pick, pretty much just pending Senate confirmation, if such is required for the position. Compare that to what was in question right there, where you floated a generic considered. You may as well have talked about how Elizabeth Warren was considered, both for VP and for other positions. Sure looks like she wasn't picked, though, which makes her just as relevant as Tliab when it comes to currently announced picks.

Also, that whole "totally not a progressive if they got picked" nonsense? Those were fighting words, for future reference.

and claiming it was insulting to progs.

Putting it that way sure seems like it's missing the actual points being made entirely.

Why is it that consideration of X is worthy of complaints, but the same consideration of Y is berated as doing nothing? More of the same demands for extra special treatment because you got 75% of what you wanted instead of -100% and clearly that's basically the same?

By the look of it, the premises that you're starting from are rather questionable. As was poked at above, what you're calling X and Y are very different in nature. Considering is one thing. Actually selecting is another. As for demands for extra special treatment? Seriously? Here, simple example. Generally, progressives want the oil and gas industry reined in, for a variety of reasons that I don't think I need go into here. If Biden's pick for an important position related to that has quite substantial ties to the oil and gas industry, as is the case, that's a big red flag right there. Is the pick better than anything Trump would have actually picked? Fairly certainly. That's not actually what's in question, though. Much of that 75% that you speak of is, after all, a return to what should be basic competence and decency.

I'm not asserting one way or the other that these protests and unrest hurt or helped Democrats, but it seems reasonable to demand proof of these claims mostly coming from centrist pundits who have ample motivation to blame progressives for their woes.

To poke at this a little - the protests themselves fairly certainly helped the Democrats, albeit indirectly. The violence and damage that happened in relation to them (even when it wasn't caused by the BLM side or, in some cases, was completely made up) was used to motivate Republicans, though, and used to try to turn people against the Democrats and BLM. Also, as noted, I'm in agreement that "Defund the Police" was a very bad slogan, even though what it actually stood for was good.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

To poke at this a little - the protests themselves fairly certainly helped the Democrats, albeit indirectly. The violence and damage that happened in relation to them (even when it wasn't caused by the BLM side or, in some cases, was completely made up) was used to motivate Republicans, though, and used to try to turn people against the Democrats and BLM. Also, as noted, I'm in agreement that "Defund the Police" was a very bad slogan, even though what it actually stood for was good.

Indeed. The protests of the summer were never that popular among conservatives, and only became less so as the very competent right-wing media machine successfully painted it as a crime-wave of black thugs and white communists coming to rape and pillage the sleepy suburbs.

From the start, and only more so as time went on, the protests were very polarizing. They remain very popular among the Democratic base, many of whom are city dwellers who fully understand the extent of policing in these places, and extremely unpopular among Republicans who are very attuned to thinly veiled (or not) appeals to racism under the pretext of "law and order".

The question becomes what is the best response for the Democratic party? It's not in their power to stop these protests, as they are grassroots, largely leaderless efforts that is not beholden to the party machine. They can only react.

The tactic of centrists seems to have been to disavow these protests entirely. I'm not sure I see the wisdom of this. Republicans will never give them credit for doing so, and refusing to even address the real complaints raised by this movement (even if not adopting the most extreme rhetoric) just saps Democratic enthusiasm. It seems to be that this is a scenario where centrist fence-sitting is the one option that is likely to appeal to very few. Conservatives were never going to be happy with any liberal response to this situation, so the best play would be to appeal to the base and harness the popular energy. Sometimes you just have to accept that the reactionary right is going to be mad and stop trying to pander to them.

I would suggest that a savvy politician could easily have harnessed this popular energy through adopting slightly moderated policies of police reform, reallocation of social spending, racial justice, and so on, while still avoiding more extreme measures like abolition, and received a lot of popular support from those supporting the protests. Everyone familiar with city government knows that police departments are chock full of gold bricks padding their salaries with overtime. Everyone knows that cops routinely break laws, big and small, with impunity. Police reform is something that people, even non-radicalized people, can get behind, especially if you challenge the openly repugnant corruption that is flaunted by these departments. Call for police criminals to be prosecuted, slash exorbitant spending, basic government oversight. It's a slam dunk if you have the courage to do it.

But once again the Democratic party falls into the same trap they always do of fighting the battles as Republicans define them, constantly dancing to the "Burn, Loot, Murder" tune that conservative media cranks out.

 

[wareyin]

I was under the impression that said picks were past the "considered stage" and had already been selected as the actual pick, pretty much just pending Senate confirmation, if such is required for the position. Compare that to what was in question right there, where you floated a generic considered. You may as well have talked about how Elizabeth Warren was considered, both for VP and for other positions. Sure looks like she wasn't picked, though, which makes her just as relevant as Tliab when it comes to currently announced picks.

As the language used in the complaints was specifically "considered", I don't think they were any more settled than the talk of Tliab being considered which was reported within the last couple of days.

Also, that whole "totally not a progressive if they got picked" nonsense? Those were fighting words, for future reference.

Am I to consider that some sort of threat? Because from here, what policies and which positions are progressive sure gets swapped around a lot depending on who is promoting them and how much political power they actually have. As I've pointed out, some progs appear to prefer complaining about how much better they could do the job than actually getting the job.

Putting it that way sure seems like it's missing the actual points being made entirely.

We'll, I'm discussing with at least three different posters who are making different, even contradictory points. If you jump in the middle and ignore half the conversation, I'm sure it could seem that way.

By the look of it, the premises that you're starting from are rather questionable. As was poked at above, what you're calling X and Y are very different in nature. Considering is one thing. Actually selecting is another. As for demands for extra special treatment? Seriously? Here, simple example. Generally, progressives want the oil and gas industry reined in, for a variety of reasons that I don't think I need go into here. If Biden's pick for an important position related to that has quite substantial ties to the oil and gas industry, as is the case, that's a big red flag right there. Is the pick better than anything Trump would have actually picked? Fairly certainly. That's not actually what's in question, though. Much of that 75% that you speak of is, after all, a return to what should be basic competence and decency.

A return to basic competence and decency is pretty welcome right now, though. And I'm tired of the far lefties doing their level best to make sure we didn't get there, so I'm a little touchy with the complaints by those same lefties that the guy they did their best to cause a loss for hasn't done enough for them before he even takes office yet.

 

[acbytesla]

I see this repeated a lot, but is there actually evidence of this?

It's pretty clear that some of these movements don't enjoy majority support, but has the summer of protest and unrest actually hurt Democrats? Is there some metric, besides the moaning of losing candidates, that this actually hurt the 2020 election results for Democrats? The sustained, intense grassroots effort to focus on racial injustice remains popular among Democrats, especially black Democrats. Republicans, and especially white people, don't care for it. Big surprise there.

There is ample evidence that there was a massive spike in voter enrollment right around the start of the George Floyd protests across the nation. Increased voter participation generally favors Democrats.



https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/voter-registration-surged-during-blm-protests-study-finds-n1236331

I'm not asserting one way or the other that these protests and unrest hurt or helped Democrats, but it seems reasonable to demand proof of these claims mostly coming from centrist pundits who have ample motivation to blame progressives for their woes.

not enough work has been done to determine why this election went well for Biden but not for down-ticket Democrats. Perhaps we'll never really know. But I remain deeply skeptical of the pundits rushing to claim that progressives or BLM protests were the cause bad election results.

A related point, involving the same ambiguities. Is there any evidence that pandering to never-Trump Republicans and moderate conservatives actually paid off? Kasich's endorsement seems to have done nothing to stop Ohio from going to Trump, and the Lincoln Project seems to have only accomplished funneling money to their ghoulish founders. Does trying to woo squish conservatives actually work, and is it worth it if it means undercutting enthusiasm among the Democratic base? What was more important this election, converting conservatives to Biden or boosting turnout among the base?

I have no doubt that the BLM protests mobilized people of color to get out and vote. Combined with having a person of color on the ticket I'd guess it absolutely helped with turnout. I'm afraid it hurt with white people however. Even with people who might sympathize.

Now I also agree I very well may be wrong on what the total effect may have been.

As for why Trump did not fare as well as down ticket Republicans, I believe there is has an easy explanation. People hate Trump. It's as simple as that.

He may have his zealous supporters and those who support him because he's a Republican who gave them their judges and tax cuts, but there are a lot of people that are absolutely sick of him.

I think the Lincoln Project did a lot to help defeat Trump but they also gave Republicans a reason to vote for the rest of their party.

 

[Segnosaur]

Sanders is a pragmatist when the chips are down. I think his career has shown that. And he's never felt the urgency he does now. And I'm glad he thinks that way. He was very quick to back Biden.

Is he really such a pragmatist?

After all, while he was quick to support Biden in 2020, his support for Clinton in 2016 was much more... tepid. He continued fighting a primary when he was trailing Clinton (even though he wasn't numerically eliminated mid-way through the primaries, he didn't have a realistic shot at winning.)

 

[Venom]

Is he really such a pragmatist?

After all, while he was quick to support Biden in 2020, his support for Clinton in 2016 was much more... tepid. He continued fighting a primary when he was trailing Clinton (even though he wasn't numerically eliminated mid-way through the primaries, he didn't have a realistic shot at winning.)

...And then he followed her on a cross-country campaign in order to defeat a greater threat.

Sam Stein interviewed Sanders in 2014.

But those who work with him in Congress see Sanders differently. Miller called him a “realist” whose inability to play coy was refreshing.

“He is very open and honest as he goes through the process,” Miller said. “You know where Bernie is coming from.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who helped write the Senate version of the VA reform bill, praised Sanders for having the gumption to drop F-bombs one minute and counteroffers the next.

“Negotiating with Bernie was not a usual experience, because he is very passionate and he and I are both very strong-willed people and we spend a lot of time banging our fists on the table and having the occasional four-letter word,” McCain said. “But at the end of the day, Bernie was result-oriented.”

 

[Aridas]

As the language used in the complaints was specifically "considered", I don't think they were any more settled than the talk of Tliab being considered which was reported within the last couple of days.

You're saying "considered," repeatedly. So, I went back through the line of discussion until there was something that might qualify. Are you referring to this post, specifically?

Please be specific. Who is being proposed to a position of power with progressive policies relevant to that position? These roles have specific missions. Are these people being selected actually going to wield power in a way to advance popular, progressive issues? If so, who?

Democrats, as a group, may support these issues, but the Democrats being selected to staff these positions are often explicitly opposed to these issues.

Like Neera Tanden, union busting, social security slashing, anti-minimum wage neo-lib being proposed for OMB. Should progressives be pleased that this austerity hawk will be in this position?

Is the Sunrise Movement wrong for crying foul that Biden has appointed US Rep. Cedric Richmond, a man thoroughly bought and paid for by the petrochemical industry, as climate liaison?

Are BLM activists wrong for being upset that Rahm Emmanuel is being considered for a role, despite his attempt to cover up a police murder while mayor?

Of those, Rahm Emanual was noted as "considered." That's only one of the three names listed there, which isn't so much what you were saying, and the one seemingly least settled there. Tliab, I suppose, could be compared to him, specifically, on that front. The question actually asked is still quite valid in and of itself, though. To expand it a little, though, should *anyone* be considered to be in the wrong when they don't want a person who tried to cover up murder to be a leading figure in any Administration? One could also add that he seems to lack appropriate experience for the position that he's been floated for. Perhaps more to the point, though, is whether it's wrong to vocally oppose someone that one honestly thinks is a very bad choice on multiple fronts. I object to the attempt to twist that into just reason for progressives to be pointedly unhappy with that "consideration." If you can point to similar reason to be unhappy with Tliab, of course, go for it. As long as the criticisms are valid, they're worthy of further consideration.

To poke at your immediate response there -

You're kind of going back and forth, here. Are these people "being considered" or are they already in place as a slap down to progressives? It's hard to be specific when arguing against such nebulous tactics.

You seized on the one case of "considered" and conveniently ignored the rest. Also, to poke at the "slap down" comment, that seems to be a response with this in mind -

Care to be specific? What recent news from Biden's staffing decisions leads you to believe that the progressive wing of the party is receiving concessions for their support of the party candidate?

And SuburbanTurkey going just a little over the top with some of his complaints, which is hardly reason for the hostility that you've shown. Disagreement, sure, hostility, not so much. Either way, SuburbanTurkey's questions here are entirely fair questions.

The point that you are attempting to not understand is still clear, however. Progressives did their best to hurt Biden's chances before the general election, then grudgingly accepted that a Biden presidency would be far better for them (not to mention their goals and the country as a whole) than another 4 years of Trump.

To be clear, you still haven't provided meaningful evidence of the highlighted after the primaries. I'm entirely fine with agreeing that progressives grudgingly accepted that a Biden Presidency, rather than a whoever their actually preferred candidate was Presidency, would be far better than another 4 years of Trump. So then they fought for a Biden Presidency because Biden won in the primaries. That's pretty much how intra-party politics work and are supposed to work, is it not?

Now, having a President who will further some of their goals rather than one who actively opposes all of their goals, these same progressives are demanding a reward for having acted in their own self interest.

There's two main points to make in response to that, I think. One of them was already made, so I'll skip over it and poke at the other. The "reward" being demanded is good governance that people can trust, first and foremost. That's fundamentally what progressives are fighting for here, after all. Is that really something that you think should be treated as a "reward" just for progressives? Some extra special concession?

Am I to consider that some sort of threat?

No. Rather, a warning. The sole effect of that particular line was to discredit any point you might have otherwise had.

Because from here, what policies and which positions are progressive sure gets swapped around a lot depending on who is promoting them and how much political power they actually have. As I've pointed out, some progs appear to prefer complaining about how much better they could do the job than actually getting the job.

Feel free to elaborate.

We'll, I'm discussing with at least three different posters who are making different, even contradictory points. If you jump in the middle and ignore half the conversation, I'm sure it could seem that way.

Because I couldn't possibly have been posting and paying attention, eh?

A return to basic competence and decency is pretty welcome right now, though.

Unfortunately, as great as that is, a return to basic competence and decency really just isn't enough, provided that we want that situation not to repeat itself.

And I'm tired of the far lefties

As a general rule, "far lefties" as a description of the people that you're actually talking about is little different than the "radical left" description being bandied around very falsely by the right-wingers.

doing their level best to make sure we didn't get there,

And there you are again. You're claiming outright ill intent with that wording, which I'm fairly certain that you know is totally false.

so I'm a little touchy with the complaints by those same lefties that the guy they did their best to cause a loss for hasn't done enough for them before he even takes office yet.

Yes, we get it. You don't like that many progressives strongly preferred other candidates during a primary cycle where there was, relatively speaking, very little Democrat attacking Democrat action. Nearly all of us moved on to support Biden when he won. The question here really seems to be, though, can you move on and let your grudges go a bit now that Biden won both the primary and the general and take the concerns presented for what they actually are?

 

[dudalb]

Is he really such a pragmatist?

After all, while he was quick to support Biden in 2020, his support for Clinton in 2016 was much more... tepid. He continued fighting a primary when he was trailing Clinton (even though he wasn't numerically eliminated mid-way through the primaries, he didn't have a realistic shot at winning.)

Saint Bernie is above criticism. to his worshipers, I guess.
I don't like personality cults, period, regardless of the personality involved.

 

[ponderingturtle]

...And then he followed her on a cross-country campaign in order to defeat a greater threat.

Sam Stein interviewed Sanders in 2014.

Except he has pretty damn low rates of showing up to vote, and do a lot of the work needed to be an effective politician.

 

[Venom]

Yes defending someone from what I deem unfair criticism means they're above criticism.

 

[Venom]

Except he has pretty damn low rates of showing up to vote, and do a lot of the work needed to be an effective politician.

Most of his missed votes were during his two presidential campaigns.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Saint Bernie is above criticism. to his worshipers, I guess.
I don't like personality cults, period, regardless of the personality involved.

That's interesting, because I don't really hear many progressives really talking much about Bernie these days, other than a bit of nostalgia for the few days of the primary where it seemed there was a path to victory. Bernie's over, it's been over. We've moved on, try to keep up.

The people I hear still whinging about Bernie is the centrists who are desperately trying to paint the progressive wing of the party as some flare up of a cult of personality.

Despite all the gnashing of centrist teeth, Bernie is a pretty reliable team player for the party. I suspect he'll confirm whoever Biden advances to the Senate, despite the cries of protest from the supposed Berniebros.

 

[wareyin]

You're saying "considered," repeatedly. So, I went back through the line of discussion until there was something that might qualify. Are you referring to this post, specifically?



Of those, Rahm Emanual was noted as "considered." That's only one of the three names listed there, which isn't so much what you were saying, and the one seemingly least settled there. Tliab, I suppose, could be compared to him, specifically, on that front.

You seem primed to argue without paying attention, here. Giving one name that's being considered in response to one name that's being considered seems pretty reasonable to me. How many more do I have to provide to satisfy you?

The question actually asked is still quite valid in and of itself, though. To expand it a little, though, should *anyone* be considered to be in the wrong when they don't want a person who tried to cover up murder to be a leading figure in any Administration? One could also add that he seems to lack appropriate experience for the position that he's been floated for. Perhaps more to the point, though, is whether it's wrong to vocally oppose someone that one honestly thinks is a very bad choice on multiple fronts. I object to the attempt to twist that into just reason for progressives to be pointedly unhappy with that "consideration." If you can point to similar reason to be unhappy with Tliab, of course, go for it. As long as the criticisms are valid, they're worthy of further consideration.

To some, the criticism will always be considered valid, I suppose. Not to everyone, though.

To be clear, you still haven't provided meaningful evidence of the highlighted after the primaries. I'm entirely fine with agreeing that progressives grudgingly accepted that a Biden Presidency, rather than a whoever their actually preferred candidate was Presidency, would be far better than another 4 years of Trump. So then they fought for a Biden Presidency because Biden won in the primaries. That's pretty much how intra-party politics work and are supposed to work, is it not?

I have, but I guess you missed it. Social media campaigns to brand Biden as senile, demented, and/or having committed sexual assault.

There's two main points to make in response to that, I think. One of them was already made, so I'll skip over it and poke at the other. The "reward" being demanded is good governance that people can trust, first and foremost. That's fundamentally what progressives are fighting for here, after all. Is that really something that you think should be treated as a "reward" just for progressives? Some extra special concession?

When those progressives are attempting to dictate who everyone else can trust based on who passed their own purity tests, of course such demands are for an extra special concession.

No. Rather, a warning. The sole effect of that particular line was to discredit any point you might have otherwise had.

Consider me quaking in my boots over the warning. Or not. Tough guy talk on a forum from an anonymous poster is rather pitiful.

Feel free to elaborate.

Why, is the point difficult to comprehend, or something that has not been brought up in the US Politics section often?

Because I couldn't possibly have been posting and paying attention, eh?

Based on your confusion over people being considered or not, whether I was talking about the general or the primaries after I specified general, and your apparent ignorance over what progressives here and elsewhere have done during the general, then yeah, you couldn't possibly have been.

Unfortunately, as great as that is, a return to basic competence and decency really just isn't enough, provided that we want that situation not to repeat itself.

Not enough, huh. Color me surprised.

As a general rule, "far lefties" as a description of the people that you're actually talking about is little different than the "radical left" description being bandied around very falsely by the right-wingers.

This is an astoundingly ignorant comparison. In the American political spectrum, progressives are on the far left. The "radical left" description is used by right wingers for everything from centrist conservative all the way to progressives and beyond.

And there you are again. You're claiming outright ill intent with that wording, which I'm fairly certain that you know is totally false.

Delvo here was attempting to convince people that Trump was better to vote for than Biden. Suburban Turkey was trying to convince people that Biden had committed sexual assault. Were these actions intended to help Biden's campaign? Were they neutral towards Biden's campaign? Or were they intended to prevent a Biden win?

Yes, we get it. You don't like that many progressives strongly preferred other candidates during a primary cycle where there was, relatively speaking, very little Democrat attacking Democrat action. Nearly all of us moved on to support Biden when he won. The question here really seems to be, though, can you move on and let your grudges go a bit now that Biden won both the primary and the general and take the concerns presented for what they actually are?

No, I don't think you get it. You still think we're talking about the primaries for some reason, so some confusion on your part is obvious. I doubt explaining it for the 4th or 5th time will clear it up for you any better, though. Sorry.

 

[Aridas]

You seem primed to argue without paying attention, here. Giving one name that's being considered in response to one name that's being considered seems pretty reasonable to me. How many more do I have to provide to satisfy you?

When you say -

This whole line of argument began when a couple of progs were complaining about other people who are being "considered"

That rather indicates more than one, hence what you took issue with. Either way, your attempt at deflection is noted.

To some, the criticism will always be considered valid, I suppose. Not to everyone, though.

Sure. You're quite welcome to present your counter-argument to the actual criticisms. Vague "Progs are just making baseless complaints because they want to discredit ebil centrists" complaints serve extremely poorly in that role.

I have, but I guess you missed it. Social media campaigns to brand Biden as senile, demented, and/or having committed sexual assault.

So, to be clear, what you're talking about is -

That's odd. I remember your arguments here about Biden being senile and/or having dementia, and committing sexual assault. Have you forgotten them?

Because that's the only thing that you seem to have to back up your "I have, but I guessed you missed it" claim here. It's not hard to notice significant problems there when it comes to your argument.

Either way, sure, let's take a peek at said social media campaigns. On a quick look, Tara Reade pops up as having made some relevant claims to that - during the primaries. That it happened during the primaries rather suggests that it should be treated as a primary thing, rather than a general election thing, especially since it seems to have virtually vanished during the general, as far as I saw. To poke at Tara Reade, in general, personally, I was rather unhappy with her pretty much throughout, if I recall correctly, and I think that I'm not even close to the only one. The right-wing ran with that, like they did with other Tara Reade things, of course.

When those progressives are attempting to dictate who everyone else can trust based on who passed their own purity tests, of course such demands are for an extra special concession.

Dictate? Right, progressives are dictating that trying to cover up murder should be a matter of concern, according to you. I suppose I'll take that as an admission that you do not think that it's cause for any concern at all. I'll respect your opinion that you think that no one should care, even if I very firmly disagree with it, but I do take exception to the lie that's inherent in your use of "dictate."

Consider me quaking in my boots over the warning. Or not. Tough guy talk on a forum from an anonymous poster is rather pitiful.

And you continue to discredit yourself here with this response. All you're doing here is trying to pick a fight, rather than have a reasonable discussion.

Why, is the point difficult to comprehend, or something that has not been brought up in the US Politics section often?

I'll just take that as you having nothing, given your behavior.

Based on your confusion over people being considered or not, whether I was talking about the general or the primaries after I specified general, and your apparent ignorance over what progressives here and elsewhere have done during the general, then yeah, you couldn't possibly have been.

Revisionist history isn't particularly convincing, especially when one can just take a look at what's there and what's actually said.

Not enough, huh. Color me surprised.

*colors you surprised*

This is an astoundingly ignorant comparison. In the American political spectrum, progressives are on the far left. The "radical left" description is used by right wingers for everything from centrist conservative all the way to progressives and beyond.

And using "the American political spectrum," rather than looking at it more objectively, is little more than deceptive slight of hand, primarily employed by those distinctly on the right to justify themselves and discredit those who disagree with them. It's one of the most useful tools that the right-wing has had to move the Overton window so that now, extremist right-wingers are being treated as ever increasingly mainstream.

Delvo here was attempting to convince people that Trump was better to vote for than Biden. Suburban Turkey was trying to convince people that Biden had committed sexual assault. Were these actions intended to help Biden's campaign? Were they neutral towards Biden's campaign? Or were they intended to prevent a Biden win?

There's multiple things to say here, but... first and foremost - Dates. Was this during primary season? Since you keep insisting that your issues are about the general election, rather than the primaries, that's an important detail. Second, I certainly disagree with any claims made by Delvo that Trump would be better to vote for than Biden. Suburban Turkey likely repeating Tara Reade is problematic, as well. Neither of them, nor both of them, are especially representative of the actions of progressives as a whole. On a similar note, like acbytesla and many others who state themselves to be somewhat lefties, I strongly disapproved of Bernie Bros' attitude of "Bernie or Bust," even while also recognizing that the focus on them, and thus the animosity given human bias, was blown very far out of proportion. You seem to be doing much the same here. You're blowing what actual problematic behavior there is far out of proportion.

 

[Mumbles]

To poke at this a little - the protests themselves fairly certainly helped the Democrats, albeit indirectly. The violence and damage that happened in relation to them (even when it wasn't caused by the BLM side or, in some cases, was completely made up) was used to motivate Republicans, though, and used to try to turn people against the Democrats and BLM. Also, as noted, I'm in agreement that "Defund the Police" was a very bad slogan, even though what it actually stood for was good.

As a counter - a good number of candidates mistook the activists for their campaign staff, and tried to pressure them accordingly. They can't really point to evidence that the slogan helped or hurt overall, but it doesn't really matter when it comes to a group that is simply not concerned with their particular campaign to begin with. The activists are *always* the fierce critics of politicians, not their staffers. They almost all are either people from safe dem districts but are sick of being beaten by cops for no reason, or obnoxious pseudo-anarchists that show up to smash and steal.

It's very easy for representative A to say "Well, I know we love our police in East Deerflat, I don't know what that's about." and for Politician B to say "We've all seen how cops treat kids here in the Bronx, we all know it needs to change, let's do it." And in the end, they're both right, for their areas.

Maybe it's where I'm from, but I saw little about defunding police outside of the cities - it fell into Dolt 45's general "Biden is secretly Bernie Sanders combined with Louis Farrakhan, here's those two idiots to tearfully tell us how how pointing guns at protestors walking by stopped them from burning down every suburb in America like that black guy Corey 'baby bonds' Booker wants" claptrap, but unless you were firmly in the right wing bubble, you knew that was nonsense.

Also, to be clear, people are dead serious on the "Stop funding the violent unaccountable group that is of little to no use in actually solving or preventing crimes*and* drains the city budget to the point where nothing else gets done right" part of "Defund the Police". It's not perfectly clear in the way that, say, "What do we want" "Clean water!" "When do we want it?" "NOW!" is, but that's mostly because "defund" can mean many different things.

(As to why it's not "reform the police", frankly, that tends to slide right into the "get rid of the few bad apples" line of change, when, yet again, the problem is really the moldy rotting barrel that the apples are being put into. When the cops are literally being told, for decades, that their job is to harass and arrest black and brown people, as is the case in many cities, tossing out the one guy that leaned his knee into George Floyd's neck, or the one guy that hit the apartment next to Breonna Taylor's apartment, is nothing.)

 

[Aridas]

Also, to be clear, people are dead serious on the "Stop funding the violent unaccountable group that is of little to no use in actually solving or preventing crimes*and* drains the city budget to the point where nothing else gets done right" part of "Defund the Police". It's not perfectly clear in the way that, say, "What do we want" "Clean water!" "When do we want it?" "NOW!" is, but that's mostly because "defund" can mean many different things.

Just to poke a little at this - thanks for expanding on that more, much as that part of what you said wasn't really a counter to "Bad Slogan, Good Cause."

 

[Mumbles]

Just to poke a little at this - thanks for expanding on that more, much as that part of what you said wasn't really a counter to "Bad Slogan, Good Cause."

I think it's a fine slogan - in that it says pretty much what the policy the protestors want is. Much like the years long debate over how "Black Lives Matter" should be "Black Lives matter too", which is just whiney.

(Or Obama's recent suggestion of "Maybe Instead of Sending in an Armed Man to Take Care of the Homeless Guy we Send in a Counsellor to Connect Them With A Shelter and A Jobs Program" - what the hell kind of slogan is that!? That's a politician's message, not something that people will chant while marching down a street.)

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Do always keep in mind...

No words will ever be acceptable.

I dare say the more effective a slogan became, the more viscerally it would be denounced.

 

[Segnosaur]

Just to poke a little at this - thanks for expanding on that more, much as that part of what you said wasn't really a counter to "Bad Slogan, Good Cause."

I think it's a fine slogan - in that it says pretty much what the policy the protestors want is.

Actually I think the problem is that while it sort of says what the protestors want, it can be interpreted in a much broader way...

Hopefully a slogan can be one that helps get people on your side. But when someone hears "defund the police", it is not immediately clear that they don't mean "get rid of the police and let anarchy reign". Even if someone agrees with the idea of shifting some resources from law enforcement to social work, they won't want to go "all the way".

Personally, I would have gone with a slogan like 'demilitarize the police'. It not only involves things that the protesters would want, it would probably increase support (since the image of "police as soldiers" is one that people would want to avoid).

 

[acbytesla]

I think it's a fine slogan - in that it says pretty much what the policy the protestors want is. Much like the years long debate over how "Black Lives Matter" should be "Black Lives matter too", which is just whiney.

(Or Obama's recent suggestion of "Maybe Instead of Sending in an Armed Man to Take Care of the Homeless Guy we Send in a Counsellor to Connect Them With A Shelter and A Jobs Program" - what the hell kind of slogan is that!? That's a politician's message, not something that people will chant while marching down a street.)

Political messaging matters. I have no problem with the BLM slogan. But it does open up the door for a feeling of victimization felt by poor whites. "What? Don't I matter thinks the hicks from the sticks?" This is the problem with it.

I know full well what is going on their minds because I am one of them. I remember getting angry when I was younger when I wasn't accepted at the University of Washington despite doing very well on the SATs thinking my spot was taken by a minority candidate who didn't do as well.

No I know after having eventually being accepted at the UW and working in high tech where there were almost no one of color at the companies I worked for and the clients that I sold to that as hard as it was for me to break down that door, it was harder for people of color. The discrimination wasn't overt, but it had to be there at least subconsciously.