5
Michigan congresswoman Rashida Tlaib declines to endorse Kamala Harris
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
5 points (51.9% liked)
politics
19089 readers
1735 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean, the person i'm responding to is. And we're not talking about this election cycle.
But since you asked in good faith, I'll at least respond to how I think things might shape up going forwards. Its going to take a minute so I put up a quick response and will @ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com here so you get it when I'm finished.
So in 2016 Bernie Sanders broke through a barrier as an independent who suddenly, a crotchety old white guy from a very white state, almost single handedly swooped in to scoop up the Democratic nod from, perhaps the most insider of party insiders, Hillary Clinton. He did so with a rag tag coalition of black, brown, lgbtq+, anti-war, and primarily progressive voters. Bernie Sanders showed that there was a viable path, where by focusing on groups not serviced by mainstream parties, you could build a coalition of voters and represent a very material electoral threat to a party structure that up until that time had proven to be unassailable. Bernie Sanders did this with an almost laser guided focus on polices which addressed the criticisms of the post-2008 era, who felt jaded and misabused by the faux economic populist/ actually corporatism politics of Obama.
At the same time, we saw a similar story play out on the Republican side of the coin. However, unlike Democrats, Republicans were not so competent in their ability to "manage" their party process internally (read: in-spite of all efforts, they couldn't steal it from Trump the way D's stole it from Bernie). The result was that the nationalist populist won the nomination, and would go on to win the election.
Between here and there, we had covid. So that was a bit of a zinger. Threw quite the unpredictable wrench in things. 2020 election cycle rolled in and we had basically a similar match up as we did in 2016. And again it looked like Bernard was going to be the nominee; until super Tuesday (the weekend before which 3 nominees all simultaneously 'dropped' out to endorse Biden). Stolen again. But this time would be different. While Biden got the nod, Bernie got the platform. Instead of burning the bridges like Hillary before him, Biden built a bridge to the now-self-evident progressive populist wing of the party. And he basically gave them control of the platform, which ended up being one of the most progressive platforms in the history of American electoral politics. And it worked! The coalition defeated Trump, even if it performed worse than perhaps polling indicated.
So now we're in 2024. Harris makes her first move to the left with a couple announcements and the Waltz pickup. Her polling is like, mooning. Her early august number seriously looked like she could get into the 55's by election day. During the convention, she makes a rightward pivot, and continues that through the convention and then, in-spite of declining poll numbers, keeps leaning to the right. We'll see Tuesday how all that turns out, but with these things in mind we can make a couple of conclusions.
First, the American people are desperate for a change, an basically have been needing to scream with no mouth to do so since 2008. Trump in 2016 was a brick through the window of a two party system which simply isn't interested in the opinions of its voters. Its clear to many voter that since almost 2008 (next Presidential election will represent 20 years), the voters of the Democratic party have either had their will suppressed or have been outright ignored.
This election cycle, had Biden not stepped down, and if West and Stein had been able to resolve their issues, I think we could have seen the greens making a legitimate stab at taking the presidency. That being said, I don't think the greens are a particularity good party, but I do understand for strategic reasons why you just shoot for an office like the presidency when you have limited resources. The key here is that the American electorate is still looking for that better option and have been since the year 2008 when so many people in the US saw their lives turned upside down, to have never really recovered since. This is what opens up that lane. Its the grievance politics of the left, and one dismisses it at their peril. I think Talib and Omar, and maybe Porter; any Democrats that have been ratfucked by the party: becoming Independents may represent the most viable path forwards.
So this got a bit shaggy and rambly, and I haven't really slept in days. But long and short of it, the Democrats leave a lane open because there are legitimate grievances left unaddressed by the existing party structure. I would put very, very good money that this lane gets taken (if we still have elections) in 2026/ 2028.
I agree with pretty much all of the substance of what you said. I agree, the democratic party, when feeling pressure in a presidential election, always move right instead of left. And that ends up often being the wrong choice. I think I'm just not sure we are reaching the same conclusions - if your post means you feel a non-Harris vote is rational, which maybe I am misunderstanding.
There are two issues if so.
First - and again, I don't even know if we disagree on this - is that voting for third party candidates and hoping to shoot the moon with democratic support flipping to, e.g., green (which I feel is a joke/spoiler party in this country, not even legitimate, but just for example) just does not work in a FPTP election. Maybe you can infiltrate the Democratic party, and by force or subterfuge wear its skin over your effectively-new-party candidate - which is exactly what Trump did with the GOP. But a separate left party is at such a disadvantage mathematically that it almost assures victory for the competing right-wing party for one more more elections (which is not an option right now). And then, if by some chance it succeeds, the same people who were "democrats" will fill into the new party, immediately diluting whatever novel left-wing power it had.
Second, is that even if it's illegitimately birthed, the right-wing propaganda alternate-reality pipeline is a hard anchor that makes left candidates legitimately fear that their blue-collar-friendly policies will be twisted by a Fox News into "communism" or never reach their blue-collar audience, leading to those voters to vote irrationally. For example, I have a different take on Biden, which is that Biden won precisely because he was able to backdoor in messaging about left policies while also appealing to the "moderate" right by being an old white guy who "reached across the aisle." He certainly never had the image of Bernie, a left populist. And the low-info "vibe" voters that likely made a difference wouldn't dig into policies to see if he was "left" enough anyway.
My take is it's the wrong target to look at left policy as an "open lane," or even the "long term" vision of losing a few elections to establish a third party (even without Trump, who changes the election to a referendum on democracy rather than policy). Looking at it that way is just arguing why it's valuable enough to bet it all at the roulette table. But the house always has an advantage - the game itself needs changing to an actual functional multi-party democracy.
We get there by pressuring and choosing primary candidates not on left policies, but singularly, laser-focused on ranked choice voting, elimination of the electoral college, and on creating a truth-in-news law that will leash right-wing propaganda. Pretty much no candidates are even talking about those items regularly, much less campaigning on it, which means we are choosing the wrong candidates to change anything.
Theres like, way to much to un-pack under all of this, so I'm just gonna hit the highs.
Yeah I don't think we agree on that. The whole spoiler mythology has been thoroughly debunked. Also, there is a strong strategic reason why the green party focuses on only the presidential race. Its a test of your knowledge of the American political process if you know what that is. Blaming 3rd parties for the political failings of a major parity is so utterly naive, it needs far more time/ space than we have here to address. Hillary's failures in 2016 were her own, just like Gores failure to go through the appropriate hurdles and demand a proper recount in Florida. Democrats failures are squarely to blame for two of the worst election outcomes we've ever had in this country. Blaming third parties when only 60% of the population votes is such a ridiculous notion, we can just write it off.
Ok, you need to separate out the concept of Left from Democrat. Conservative Democrats behave the way you just describe and struggle because they are chasing the same lanes as their republican opponents. But most of the successes on the Democratic side in the previous 20 years arent' in that lane. They are on the other side of the party in the actually left side of the left, that caucuses with the Democrats, but really didn't find their way into the party till 2016. The fact is that centrism/ moderate appeal is a demonstrated-to-fail strategy over the previous 6 election cycles. And frankley, the same is true for Republican. Neither party does well running to the center because there are no voters in the center. The electorate is, by and large, bimodal at this point. And the important point is that when you at least run, and signal and put on the fan fair thats required to drive out your base, you win (See Obama 08,12, Bernie 16, Biden 20 for examples of running to the left and winning, and see Kerry 04, Hillary 16 for counter examples).
Thats fine, but I dont really agree with the points you've made. And I'm also not even talking about necessarily forming a party. I'm not sure a third party is where the power is or is worth investing in. For example, I think Bernie had his greatest strength as an Independent. Its going to depend on how well the green's do this time around (again for that secret reason that I know that 99% of lemmings don't know about, because as much as they like to come down and spin their wheels, most lemmings really don't know fuck about shit about politics). I gave you some hints where to look for that reason.
I guess I'm confused by this response. So you do think that one should vote for a third-party candidate in this election? Or not?
Sure just let me know what you need explained.
Yeah I didn't advocate for a position. Third parties have historically been pretty insignificant and the idea that they are spoilers isn't borne out by reality. The identification of, for example, the greens' in 2016 as spoilers, is so patently absurd, the person making that argument or any argument that follows from probably isn't worth addressing, because whoever is making it doesn't know up from down, or even have the basic ability to count. I dont advocate for any particular voting policy or strategy, but rather try an stay focused on the effectiveness of campaigns in terms of what works or doesn't work. Both major parties are leaving more votes in their respective couch cushions than any modern 3rd party candidate has ever received.
I think the miscommunication is that you're looking for a game-theory explanation for the best way to vote given a desired outcome, and TDD (forgive the shorthand) is doing a higher-level analysis on large-scale electoral trends and demographics that explain a shortcoming in the democratic campaign strategy. Even working within the 2-party electoral system, democrats have been leaving a lot of voters on the table, and the only outreach they've been doing for those voters (who are getting more and more frustrated) has been to scare them/shame them into falling in line and swallowing their scruples.
The reason why it's dumb to paint Greens or other third-parties as 'spoilers' is because of this implicit assumption that those votes will trickle-down into one of the two major parties if they weren't there. TDD is pointing out that Greens (and RFK before he stepped out, and PSL, ect) are filling political voids that the democrats and republicans have left open by not addressing the concerns of those voters. Assuming those voters would simply make a different choice ignores the fact that there was something about whatever third-party candidate that was motivating them that isn't present in the 2-party candidate. That voter is about as likely to decide not to vote at all as they are to decide to give up their scruples and vote for the party that they were actively avoiding in the first place, especially when that candidate has refused to give those voters/those interests representation.
All of this analysis is on top of a foundational understanding/materialist lens that suggests that the US is heading toward economic/capitalistic collapse independent of whatever electoral showmanship is happening every 4 years. This game-theory bullshit is completely indifferent to the environment that is actively pushing voters away from the center and into more and more extreme populism.
This is a very insightful comment and helps me understand why TDD seems to be responding with intensity while not hitting the points I (at least think I) am making.
And there is an important proviso: I don't consider the "game theory explanation for the best way to vote given a desired outcome" to be "the point" so-to-speak of my comment, but just a premise. I do consider that "game theory" voting (a) results in a definite single rational course of action for this election for anyone who favors democracy or left-leaning policies. But I also, it (b) is not be the endgame and just a mitigation until we prioritize ranked choice voting and other structural reform.
This is fine if there was any indication that the underlying problem of fascism in the US is going to be addressed by the incoming administration, or if you believe it is addressed by voting against it. The problem is that many of us don't believe either to be the case, especially when the current campaign strategy has been to grant concessions to those nationalist solutions while turning away from socialist ones.
When neither of the most likely outcomes address the continued growth of fascism inside the US, the 'game theory' of electoral politics suddenly seems like a naieve indulgence more than any kind of solution, even a temporary one.
So as someone who admittedly knows nothing about politics, are you gonna tell us that reason or not?
It's in the response. I left a hyperlink on the period at the end of that sentence.
Yup. This is what frustrates me here and especially the last year: everyone pretends as if Trump is the singular threat that - once defeated- we may move on to other more important things.
But Trump is a manifestation of a national disillusionment with electoral politics and a broader economic failure. We keep dismissing the progressive populism of the left, while the fascistic populism on the right grows to a fever pitch.
If tonight trump keels over from a stress induced aneurism, by tomorrow lunch an opportunistic upstart will take his place because conservatives are frothing at the mouth for retribution. If Republicans return to classical wasp conservatism now, they'll lose the next decade of elections because half their voting base simply isn't interested in stale fiscal policy anymore.
The longer democrats ignore the conditions creating that current of populism beyond the orbit of Big Orange, the shorter lived any victories they might squeeze out now will be. We'll see what happens Tuesday, but i think the odds are leaning away for Harris. We might have to confront that failure sooner than we think.