Cont: The Biden Presidency (3)

[Bob001]

There is of course what the kids call post hoc ergo propter hoc. Also the issue of expectations. This suggest success is measured by doing more good than harm in the extreme short term, which is both unmeasurable due to noise and lame besides.
....

Do you really think we're no better off than we would be if Trump had been managing the covid response, the economy and relations with Europe, for starters, for the last two years?

 

[Suddenly]

Could you spell out exactly how having the Presidency and half of Congress would allow Democrats to unstack the SC? Taking into account that even in the beginning of Biden's term, Dems only had 50 out of 100 Senators which isn't enough to get past filibusters, of course.

Which is where we get into the "what do you expect them to do" stuff. As if having the Presidency and Congress prevents them from relentlessly pushing the issue. There is so much shady stuff going on with the Court that this wouldn't be that hard.

It's the inability to see political power in ways that are not mechanical that are troubling. Stacking the SC isn't ever the first move. The political will must exist. The way to build that is to make an issue over corruption within the Court and how the ultra-right have used dark money to capture the institution. Embrace the inevitable constitutional crisis in order to dictate the narrative.

If nothing else it would build political support for the Biden administration to defy a particularly odious decision. Which in the short term is uber-important because that would in tern deter odious decisions from being made. Maybe that forces some of those "moderate" Republicans to the table.

I mean, how is this hard to grasp?

 

[wareyin]

Blaming Trump voters is obviously reasonable. Some of them were people for whom Trump was always the second choice behind Bernie and they voted accordingly.

The rest is tired and unremarkable. As these things go Bernie was above average for defeated primary opponents. It's hard to take seriously when Clinton's numbers and attitudes towards Obama weren't exactly stellar.

Yes, that famous alternate history in which Clinton held on long past any hope of winning, just to keep Obama focused on fighting her rather than McCain. And McCain obviously was just as bad as Trump, in this fictional universe you wish to discuss.

Which is how Clinton defeated Trump, of course. How Reagan was slammed by Carter and then Mondale. Bush getting clipped by Gore is another example.

When 2 of your 3 examples included candidates who actually did appeal to more voters but lost due to the EC, you might consider that your point is flawed.

Well, we know Clinton didn't attract enough of these groups to win. That actually happened.

Again, due to the EC. But hey, keep on telling yourself that an extremist candidate could or would have drawn more voters from the other side and/or wouldn't have drawn more people voting against the extremism rather than for the other party.

It's in short the point that if we are claiming that the Trump voters that would have voted for Bernie were the candidate are significant then that number would have also been significant had Bernie been the candidate. I mean, assuming the Democrats voting for Clinton would have voted for Sanders. Which lol no and Sanders would have lost by a margin that would shock Walter Mondale.

You're actually getting even farther into the weeds in your alternate versions of history with the assumptions, here.

Professional class liberals are always going to chose fascism over socialism and given in 2016 Trump's nature was not as clear as it is now they would have been falling over themselves rationalizing Trump.

Yeah...no. This is just complete historical revisionism. With a side of sour grapes, to boot.

This is why blaming Sanders for Clinton's loss is highly hypocritical. Some Trump voters didn't flip because he wasn't the candidate. Even more Clinton voters would flip were Sanders the candidate seeing a lot of them flipped GOP when Obama was the candidate. Yawn.

Yawn, indeed. Your analysis fails on the simple Trump=/=McCain fact, though.

 

[Suddenly]

Do you really think we're no better off than we would be if Trump had been managing the covid response, the economy and relations with Europe, for starters, for the last two years?

Being better than Trump is a really sorry standard for Presidential success.

 

[wareyin]

It's the inability to see political power in ways that are not mechanical that are troubling. Stacking the SC isn't ever the first move. The political will must exist. The way to build that is to make an issue over corruption within the Court and how the ultra-right have used dark money to capture the institution. Embrace the inevitable constitutional crisis in order to dictate the narrative.

If nothing else it would build political support for the Biden administration to defy a particularly odious decision. Which in the short term is uber-important because that would in tern deter odious decisions from being made. Maybe that forces some of those "moderate" Republicans to the table.

I mean, how is this hard to grasp?

Huh, I personally find the whole 'You Dems should just wave a magic wand and fix everything' more troubling than a request for exactly how to fix things in the current situation. Especially when those demanding a fix for the SC are simultaneously doing their best to tear down political support for a Biden administration to do anything politically contentious.

But yeah, stacking the court wasn't the first move. The current stacked court was preceded by an absolute **** ton of "both sides are the same", "the DNC/professional class libs always choose fascism", "Dems are actually Republicans" style propaganda which helped Republicans win the Presidency and actually stack the court.

 

[Suddenly]

Yes, that famous alternate history in which Clinton held on long past any hope of winning, just to keep Obama focused on fighting her rather than McCain. And McCain obviously was just as bad as Trump, in this fictional universe you wish to discuss.

So is this about the idea of betrayal or not?

Clinton did hold on too long. Due to pro-establishment quirks in the nomination process back then (superdeligates, etc.) that she could possibly still won the nomination without winning a majority of elected delegates and she stuck around well past when the will of the voters was clear.

We know Clinton lost by a razor thin margin in the EC. If it is because Sanders was more popular with Trump voters than was Clinton, well, two choices. Either more Clinton voters would defect or Sanders would have won.

I pick the first. Feel free to pick the second.

(as to demographics, part of that Bernie-Trump group were labor populists. While hard to nail down I'll suggest it is reasonable conjecture that labor populists are concentrated in the rust belt states that made the difference)

 

[wareyin]

So is this about the idea of betrayal or not?

Clinton did hold on too long. Due to pro-establishment quirks in the nomination process back then (superdeligates, etc.) that she could possibly still won the nomination without winning a majority of elected delegates and she stuck around well past when the will of the voters was clear.

Wait, Clinton dropped out when she could no longer win, but your claim is that she held on too long? While you're giving cover for Sanders' holding on long past the point where he couldn't win?

Double standard for the win!

We know Clinton lost by a razor thin margin in the EC. If it is because Sanders was more popular with Trump voters than was Clinton, well, two choices. Either more Clinton voters would defect or Sanders would have won.

I pick the first. Feel free to pick the second.

(as to demographics, part of that Bernie-Trump group were labor populists. While hard to nail down I'll suggest it is reasonable conjecture that labor populists are concentrated in the rust belt states that made the difference)

We know that Sanders twice threw his hat into the ring in the primaries, but couldn't make it to the general either time. Fanciful claims that he could have won it all just keep slamming against the real world in which he just wasn't good enough to even get there in the first place. You're doing the equivalent of claiming the Titans would win this year's Super Bowl when they didn't even make the playoffs and lost to both teams actually in the SB in the regular season.

 

[johnny karate]

I honestly have no idea how low expectations would have to be to claim his success transcends opinion into objective fact.

He ran on a certain legislative agenda. He’s had great success in making that agenda a reality. Achieving one’s stated goals is an objective measure of success.

 

[Segnosaur]

Huh, I don't see it that way. Sanders is definitely to blame for staying in the contest long after he knew he couldn't win, attacking Clinton and not letting her pivot to the general until far later than she could have.

Wait, your argument is that Clinton wasn't boring and status quo enough? What would your ideal candidate look like, a bowl of cold oatmeal with a tiny American flag stuck in it?

It may seem rather surprising in hindsight (given Trump's habit of calling neo-nazis fine people), but back in 2016, he was actually considered the more 'moderate' candidate (i.e. the one closer to the political center when compared to Clinton.)

From: CBS News
...just 34 percent of voters overall (and only 36 percent of Republicans) think (Trump) is a conservative. About half of Republican voters see Trump as a moderate. Among all voters, Clinton is viewed as liberal...

How did that happen? Well remember back then, when many republicans were talking about cutting social security, etc. he didn't touch the issue. He claimed he had a health plan. He held up a rainbow flag at a republican rally (at a time when many republicans were pushing homophobic policies.) He claimed he was against the Iraq war. Granted, there was a lot of lying involved in all that, but it fooled enough people to think "This guy isn't as far right as other republicans".

 

[Bob001]

Being better than Trump is a really sorry standard for Presidential success.

Again, with only 50 votes in the Senate at most (often minus Manchin and Sinema), and a handful of votes in the House, what do you think Biden could have done differently? He supported and promoted legislation, including for voting rights and police reform, that Congress wouldn't pass. In a lot of ways the country went off the rails when Reagan was elected. Not much anybody can do about that now.

 

[Suddenly]

Especially when those demanding a fix for the SC are simultaneously doing their best to tear down political support for a Biden administration to do anything politically contentious.

But yeah, stacking the court wasn't the first move. The current stacked court was preceded by an absolute **** ton of "both sides are the same", "the DNC/professional class libs always choose fascism", "Dems are actually Republicans" style propaganda which helped Republicans win the Presidency and actually stack the court.

Confronting the Court is either the right thing to do or it isn't. Bringing in these tired excuses for past Democratic political and electoral failures valid or not is at best irrelevant.

(Biden cracking down on a union literally in order to make sure the railroads run on time is a hard thing to shrug off w/r/t the liberals when the chips are down favoring fascism over socialism.)

 

[dudalb]

Confronting the Court is either the right thing to do or it isn't. Bringing in these tired excuses for past Democratic political and electoral failures valid or not is at best irrelevant.

(Biden cracking down on a union literally in order to make sure the railroads run on time is a hard thing to shrug off w/r/t the liberals when the chips are down favoring fascism over socialism.)

FOr people to turn on Biden for not being far enough to the left in the face of what the GOP has become is, franky, idiotic and a good example of mindless ideology at work.
Reminde me of the far left in Germany in 1933 refusing to work with Social Democrats to stop Hitler because the SD's were not far enought ot the left. That ended well.

 

[wareyin]

Confronting the Court is either the right thing to do or it isn't. Bringing in these tired excuses for past Democratic political and electoral failures valid or not is at best irrelevant.

(Biden cracking down on a union literally in order to make sure the railroads run on time is a hard thing to shrug off w/r/t the liberals when the chips are down favoring fascism over socialism.)

1) We weren't talking about confronting the Court.
2) "Tired" though the facts may be, they remain the facts at hand. Without an overwhelming majority that they have not had, Dems can't do anything about the Court.
3) The time to worry about the SC make-up is when you vote for the President. That is literally the only way you have any hope of affecting the SC. And, spoiler alert, enough progressives thought Clinton was too boring or moderate to elect, so they let Trump pack the Court instead. And now we're stuck with that for a generation.

 

[Bob001]

Confronting the Court is either the right thing to do or it isn't. Bringing in these tired excuses for past Democratic political and electoral failures valid or not is at best irrelevant.
.....

What does confronting the court mean? Expanding it? Investigating the right-wing justices? Rejecting the power of the Court itself? Nothing in the Constitution gives the SC the power it adopted for itself in Marbury. Suppose Biden announced :"I do not accept the authority of this Supreme Court." That would go over well.

 

[Bob001]

....
(Biden cracking down on a union literally in order to make sure the railroads run on time is a hard thing to shrug off w/r/t the liberals when the chips are down favoring fascism over socialism.)

Biden could have handled that better, maybe by pfessuring management to improve their offer or appointing an arbitration board. But keeping an already well-paid union from wrecking the national economy is a legitimate use of Presidential power.

 

[Suddenly]

FOr people to turn on Biden for not being far enough to the left in the face of what the GOP has become is, franky, idiotic and a good example of mindless ideology at work.
Reminde me of the far left in Germany in 1933 refusing to work with Social Democrats to stop Hitler because the SD's were not far enought ot the left. That ended well.

If you want to get into the 30s, maybe consider how things might have gone had FDR not used a court packing threat to end the Lochner era.

No new deal and a worse recovery from the depression during a time of growing fascist movements might have been a problem.

Also if you want to get into that era there are a lot of Biden Democrats = Chamberlain analogies that we can bang around I guess. It's a silly game.

 

[Random]

What does confronting the court mean? Expanding it? Investigating the right-wing justices? Rejecting the power of the Court itself? Nothing in the Constitution gives the SC the power it adopted for itself in Marbury. Suppose Biden announced :"I do not accept the authority of this Supreme Court." That would go over well.

Hey, if the case was big enough, Biden might just do it. The Debt Ceiling stuff might fit. On the night before we default Biden comes out, says the Debt Ceiling is unconstitutional, and says that we will continue to print money to cover our debts. The GOP goes to the Supreme Court to stop him, the Court inexplicably sides with the GOP, Biden breaks out Andrew Jackson.

 

[Suddenly]

1) We weren't talking about confronting the Court.


2) "Tired" though the facts may be, they remain the facts at hand. Without an overwhelming majority that they have not had, Dems can't do anything about the Court.
3) The time to worry about the SC make-up is when you vote for the President. That is literally the only way you have any hope of affecting the SC.

It is if you have a limited idea of how political power works, sure.

And, spoiler alert, enough progressives thought Clinton was too boring or moderate to elect, so they let Trump pack the Court instead. And now we're stuck with that for a generation.

Hillary Clinton, the party backed candidate, lost an election to Donald Trump. They don't get to blame the people who didn't vote for them. It's irrelevant. It's the one job a candidate has, and she, the party backed candidate, lost a race to a reality show clown. It's that simple.

That's where it ends. The boomer generation of Democrats have been stacking failure after failure and getting owned by right wing conservatives and they are going to blame everything on the progressives they've been openly crapping on since about 1994. As if the whole shift to the right that made Trump even plausible didn't happen on their watch.

Being embarrassed enough about 2016 to push "stabbed in the back" theories is understandable, I guess.

 

[Suddenly]

Biden could have handled that better, maybe by pfessuring management to improve their offer or appointing an arbitration board. But keeping an already well-paid union from wrecking the national economy is a legitimate use of Presidential power.

It's also taking away the right to strike to make sure the trains run on time. Legality and legitimacy don't enter into it.

Framing it as well paid workers wrecking the economy is pretty much the kind of thing I'm talking about. Not railroads wrecking the economy by refusing to pay it's workers in order to pocket record profits, but placing the blame fully on workers.

We are about four months from a landmark Supreme Court case making unions liable for damages caused by a work stoppage. Not for willful destruction of property. Just damage caused because people didn't show up for work. An opinion that will be written broadly enough to either in that opinion or a following opinion to include all economic damages. Which would amount to outlawing unions as the whole point of a strike is that it economically hurts the business.

Which I guess will once and for all make sure those Amazon orders are shipped promptly.

 

[Suddenly]

Hey, if the case was big enough, Biden might just do it. The Debt Ceiling stuff might fit. On the night before we default Biden comes out, says the Debt Ceiling is unconstitutional, and says that we will continue to print money to cover our debts. The GOP goes to the Supreme Court to stop him, the Court inexplicably sides with the GOP, Biden breaks out Andrew Jackson.

Sure, although Biden minting the trillion dollar coin and then having that fight would be better because the court going against that would be a good example of their being way more pretextualist than textualist.

The student loan cases might be the better choice. There is no legal basis for standing in that case and the court ruling against the administration would be a serious escalation given that context.

It would be better if they'd been building a public case before that, but crazy talk, etc.