Cont: The Biden Presidency (3)

[Pixel42]

We don't have inflation because of Covid. We have inflation because of trying mitigate the economic impact of Covid containment policies that shut down a broad swath of economic activity for extended periods of time, and which have probably made permanent changes to some parts of our economy that we weren't prepared for and still haven't fully acknowledged - let alone addressed.

If A caused B and B caused C then A caused C. The mitigation measures were only necessary because of Covid, without them its impact on the economy (not to mention the death rate) would have been significantly worse. So yes, we do have inflation because of Covid.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not badmouthing Biden. I've never badmouthed Biden. He's done all of two things in his entire presidency that I didn't like. And to be fair one of them was kind of retroactively. That does t change the fact that his approval ratings are in the low 40s.

I do think there are better candidates out there.

You're not the only person in the thread. But the post I quoted was short-sighted. See Pixel's post above.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Yes, but who?

Hakeem Jefferies? I guess he's had a moment recently and at least looks the part.

Kamala Harris is on the outs as any sort of heir apparent, or at least I hope so else their handling of her image is criminally incompetent.

Really the party seems to be pumping up Biden personally right now rather than pushing the narrative of some sort of "next generation of young guns" angle. Which of course they are.

That's because the next generation is largely composed of progrssives and the establishment really don't want one of them in charge. They may never regain control of the party then. Whether they win the election is of secondary importance.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

If Biden runs, it would be lethal to the party for someone to run against him. Jimmy Carter was severely weakened by Ted Kennedy's primary challenge in 1980, and it was one (of several) factors that put Reagan in the White House. And I can't recall an incumbent being challenged since then. Biden might still choose not to run. I suspect Jill will have a lot to say about it. But if he runs, the party will have to stand behind him or lose for sure.

If he runs the party loses in the long term anyway. They can't afford to be milquetoast republicans any more, but that's whoat running Biden again will be signalling.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Yeah well, you do you following the alt-right ignorance and I'll do me with my 30+ years of infectious disease experience and educational expertise. More than a million people died in less than 2 years. Hospitals and funeral homes all over the world were overflowing.

Your idea we didn't need said mitigation is not based on infectious disease science. We needed more.

Exactly. I shudder to think what would have happened if we followed the right's "just twiddle our thumbs until it goes away" strategy.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Actually, having a real Nominations process would be great for the Dems, as long as keep it classy.

 

[Aridas]

I'm not badmouthing Biden. I've never badmouthed Biden. He's done all of two things in his entire presidency that I didn't like. And to be fair one of them was kind of retroactively. That does t change the fact that his approval ratings are in the low 40s.

I do think there are better candidates out there.

I'm pretty sure that I count as having bad mouthed Biden a number of times. I'm pretty sure that he's done plenty more than two things that I'm very willing to criticize.

With that said, personally, I don't see the "approval ratings in the low 40s" angle to be a particularly worthwhile one. Especially given the current state of the media, which potential Democrats, specifically, would end up being even in the high-40s? Without at least that much difference to at least somewhat counteract, for example, the incumbent advantage, why care about that in the first place?

ETA: Honestly, I think that I should make special note to extend that to Kamala Harris to some extent. Approval ratings of her, I think, have a fair bit less to do with her and what she's actually done, though, than other factors. Not least being overall Biden Administration approval ratings and the right-wing attacks happening largely without counter. Attacks on Biden are likely to bring out defenders/truth checkers far more often than attacks on Harris are, I think. To put it a different way, the GOP is trying to do a Hillary Clinton on Kamala Harris with lots of unwarranted, but not really countered, BS... for similar reasons.

 

[Delvo]

That's not alt-right stuff the prestige is touting. Thats the mainstream/left economic view. Inflation was caused by backed up supply chains from a global shutdown. Weird things happened when we opened back up. The alt-right view is it's because no one wants to work any more because the libs give out free money.

It's fairly rightward by acting as if the decisions by various companies in various industries all agreeing to price-gouge their customers and taking in record-breaking profits had no role in inflation when it's actually the biggest factor.

I agree but even with the promises Obama offered we got very little.

Obama's just another of the same ilk as Biden and Pelosi and the Clintons and most of the rest of the party after decades of making sure as much as they could that only their kind could get anywhere in their party. He was just better at hiding it behind false promises for a while.

I really don't see the next magical POTUS candidate waiting in the wings.

People really should stop bad-mouthing the guy unless they have that magical candidate they want to support.

This kind of use of the word "magical" is always a straw man.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... This kind of use of the word "magical" is always a straw man.

Not a straw man, I had a specific purpose choosing that adjective. Obama was a magic man until he wasn't. Sanders never was for ... reasons (plural).

Has anyone in this thread yet named someone the country could get behind enthusiastically?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Has anyone in this thread yet named someone the country could get behind enthusiastically?

That's the problem, isn't it? Shouldn't identifying presidential candidates fall under the purview of the DNC? I don't know every promising Democratic senator or governor that might be up for the job, but they're supposed to. Do viable alternatives really have to become so obvious that "anyone in this thread" could name them and defend their universal appeal before being worthy of consideration?

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

Credit to Biden, he's been alright. Solid B+. He was elected on a platform of returning to normalcy and he delivered exactly that. An average, inoffensive, perfectly boring Democratic presidency that tries its best to make some things better in tiny ways. The only problem is these aren't normal times where a soft hand on the wheel is all it takes to right the ship. We need more Dark Brandon and less Uncle Joe.

 

[bruto]

I think one of the first things that should be done, and it should be done now, not later, is to confront Republican buzz words and phrases with a demand that they be defined. I see now that the R party are leaning on the idea that the government has been "weaponized" against the people.

I think that now, not later, now and over and over again, every time that is said, Biden and his followers should say "what does that word mean?" What is being done that exemplifies that word? Be specific. What do you mean? Who is doing what to whom?

Sloganeering is handy and universal, but sometimes I think we have to fight the growing tendency to find a nasty term first and skip the thought.

 

[wareyin]

That's the problem, isn't it? Shouldn't identifying presidential candidates fall under the purview of the DNC? I don't know every promising Democratic senator or governor that might be up for the job, but they're supposed to. Do viable alternatives really have to become so obvious that "anyone in this thread" could name them and defend their universal appeal before being worthy of consideration?

Ah, yes, the old "I have no idea who or what could possibly be a better idea, but it's the DNC's/establishment's fault that they don't have that magic bean!"

If you (general) are going to complain about how bad the current crop of candidates are, then you ought to have some idea who would be better.

Credit to Biden, he's been alright. Solid B+. He was elected on a platform of returning to normalcy and he delivered exactly that. An average, inoffensive, perfectly boring Democratic presidency that tries its best to make some things better in tiny ways. The only problem is these aren't normal times where a soft hand on the wheel is all it takes to right the ship. We need more Dark Brandon and less Uncle Joe.

I'm with the first part of this, but "Uncle Joe" was definitely what the public wanted. "Dark Brandon" would have lost.

 

[wareyin]

Of course they were. It's hard to come up with something at all relevant that wasn't a factor in a race that close. Comey's shenanigans, weather, who knows.

The argument isn't that some Sanders voters didn't vote for Trump. It's that it is weird to somehow blame Sanders because he attracted people who wouldn't otherwise vote Democrat. Which is in the end what this is.

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. And maybe the mealy-mouthed "endorsement" after months of bashing was clearly too little too late to keep those people who wouldn't otherwise vote Democrat, but I really do blame the Bernie Bros for their own choices to vote Trump or not vote at all and allow Trump to win.

You know, like how it would be Very Smart to nominate someone to appeal to moderate Republicans and independents who wouldn't otherwise vote for a Democrat?

Like Biden? Yeah, looking at Presidential races, the far righty or the far lefty doesn't tend to win the general very much. Both parties try to get someone at least kinda moderate to represent them because they recognize that a candidate that's more extreme will drive the middle towards the other party.

(There is also that claiming that these Bernie voters not voting for Clinton was dispositive is essentially claiming that Bernie would have won by attracting Trump voters)

Ok, the coffee hasn't kicked in enough for me to parse this statement.

Are you trying to say that the guy who couldn't even attract moderate Democrats would have been able to win them plus centrists plus moderate righties, enough to win?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I think one of the first things that should be done, and it should be done now, not later, is to confront Republican buzz words and phrases with a demand that they be defined.

The two bugaboos that immediately spring to mind are “woke” and “CRT”.

Marjorie Taylor Greene had a stab at one in a hearing:

Greene: Can you tell me how much money went to CRT?
Dodaro: CRT?
Greene: It’s a racist curriculum used to teach children that somehow their white skin not equal to black skin and other things.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

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. And maybe the mealy-mouthed "endorsement" after months of bashing was clearly too little too late to keep those people who wouldn't otherwise vote Democrat, but I really do blame the Bernie Bros for their own choices to vote Trump or not vote at all and allow Trump to win.

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?

 

[Delvo]

The DNP has seen to it that the key to winning for the last couple of rounds of its own primaries & caucuses has been to run to the right, so that must mean Hillary's planned "pivot" would have been to the left... which Bernie prevented her from doing... by prodding her to do it...

The desperately inane blithering nonsense of the defenders of the DNP's conservatism knows no bounds.

 

[wareyin]

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?

However could you get that out of what I actually wrote?


eta: Ah, I see there is some confusion by a couple of posters over how campaigns go. You see, when a candidate has to focus on deflecting attacks from a different candidate despite their mathematical impossibility to win, they are unable to direct their focus on the real opponent. Sniping from the left gives both cover and ammunition to the right, as it were.

 

[Suddenly]

1/ What was the state of the nation on Jan. 20, 2021?

2/ What is the state today?

3/ Which is better?

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.

On top of that I've been pretty consistent that having an absolutely evil Supreme Court is by far the biggest problem right now and the Biden led Democrats have been very consistent in wishing that wasn't the case and acting like it's a win when the Court now and then doesn't do the worst things possible.

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.

 

[wareyin]

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.

On top of that I've been pretty consistent that having an absolutely evil Supreme Court is by far the biggest problem right now and the Biden led Democrats have been very consistent in wishing that wasn't the case and acting like it's a win when the Court now and then doesn't do the worst things possible.

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.

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.

 

[Suddenly]

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. And maybe the mealy-mouthed "endorsement" after months of bashing was clearly too little too late to keep those people who wouldn't otherwise vote Democrat, but I really do blame the Bernie Bros for their own choices to vote Trump or not vote at all and allow Trump to win.

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.

Like Biden? Yeah, looking at Presidential races, the far righty or the far lefty doesn't tend to win the general very much. Both parties try to get someone at least kinda moderate to represent them because they recognize that a candidate that's more extreme will drive the middle towards the other party.

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.

Ok, the coffee hasn't kicked in enough for me to parse this statement.

Are you trying to say that the guy who couldn't even attract moderate Democrats would have been able to win them plus centrists plus moderate righties, enough to win?

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

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.

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.

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.










.