United States Politics Thread 46

[doctor shark]

Regarding the House/Senate results, bear in mind that it is more the rule and not the exception that the President's party loses seats in both houses at each election: the times this happened in the last hundred years (so 25 midterm elections!) were in 1934, 1998, and 2002. For example, the Republicans lost 32 seats in 2006; the Democrats 63 seats in 2010; the Republicans 41 seats in 2018. When you go into the election with a slim majority to begin with (~9), that can easily get eaten away by slight gains, so the fact it wasn't a bloodbath is not a bad thing for the President's party. This was also right in the aftermath of a redistricting (and some gerrymandering involved), so the fact the losses were not as bad as they could've been is not bad.

And another thing of note is the vulnerable Senate seats and governorships that didn't flip (or flipped to the Democrats). Maine, Wisconsin, Oregon, Michigan, Arizona, and Kansas (!) all had Democratic party contenders seen as somewhat vulnerable, and they managed to win. It's all too easy to see where things went south, but the fact it wasn't catastrophic for the Democrats is still worth noting. (Nevada did flip to Republicans, but Maryland and Massachusetts also flipped in the other direction.)

[alice]

I suggest all the recent posts to the venting thread related to US politics can be cut and pasted here (if that's a thing the mods can do).

Same with the ones from the elections thread.

[Linguoboy]

Alternatively, y'all could just copypaste the post you're replying to here, providing a link back to the thread if you think the full context is really vital to understanding your replies. (I don't know how Zompist feels, but I find moving posts fiddling and annoying and hate having to do it unless there are really no viable alternatives.)

Here, let me show you what I mean:

What do you mean by that? Apart from anything else, we need to take care of the environment simply to ensure our own survival. Filling the air and water with hazardous waste or exhausting arable land will everyone or radically reduce our quality of life at the very least. The left needs to emphasize how protecting the environment benefits us in the long run rather than appealing to the gut instincts of fossil fuel workers for short-term support.

MacAnDàil says it's a good idea to support a fascist like DeSantis just because he's been forced to take a soft stance on climate change. Even if you don't care about workers, see his speeches about "woke" ideology.

OK so I misunderstood you in the other thread. Here it's the reverse.

I never said it's a good idea to support DeSantis. I said that he was less awful than Trump. I went back to my last post on the subject and checked it up. Those were my exact words. 'Less awful'. Not 'good'. 'Less awful'. Sure, saying 'less awful than Trump' is not saying much. But let's clarify things because it seems it is not clear: because I agree more with the Democrats than the Republicans on basically every issue they disagree on and third parties have so little space in the American political field, I would vote Democrat if I had American citizenship.

But that doesn't stop me from having preferences among the other side, in the same way as Zompist:

I think they're both nasty and dangerous, but DeSantis doesn't seem to be a narcissistic insane idiot, so there's that.

I think we should be wary of having the most awful candidate on the other side in the hope that it would be obvious that they lose. After all, many thought the 2016 US election would be a shoe-in for Hillary Clinton. We all saw how it wasn't because Trump backwards-won. I think the best opportunity for a shoe-in does not come from a most awful opposition candidate but from a torn party:

I hope they may tear the party apart from within.

And the way that most likely could happen, in my opinion, is if DeSantis win's the GOP candidacy and Trump claims fraud, leading his strongest supporters to either abstain or vote a third party. Incidentally, if Trump loses the Republican primary to DeSantis, could he still run for president with another party?

Which one did you have in mind?

I think he'd most likely run as an independent. At most, he might give his grifting operation a catchy name.

I'm also with you on not having anyone on the ticket you really don't want to see in office. Back in early 2016, a friend was urging us to vote in the Republican primaries in Illinois because "the only way to make sure Trump doesn't become president is to keep him off the ballot". I didn't heed his advice (mainly because the Democratic primary is the only actually competitive election in Cook County), but it's sensible, and I'm among those who believes that the Democratic Party strategy of interfering in Republican primaries in order to hurt moderate Republicans with the goal of facing a more extreme (and therefore--so the thinking goes--easier to defeat) candidate in the general is foolhardy and short-sighted.

[rotting bones]

MacAnDàil: Apologies if I misunderstood you. Sorry for the delay. There was a disruption in the original thread, and I was distracted by other matters. If you're still interested in the merits of DeSantis vs. Trump:

I'm also with you on not having anyone on the ticket you really don't want to see in office. Back in early 2016, a friend was urging us to vote in the Republican primaries in Illinois because "the only way to make sure Trump doesn't become president is to keep him off the ballot". I didn't heed his advice (mainly because the Democratic primary is the only actually competitive election in Cook County), but it's sensible, and I'm among those who believes that the Democratic Party strategy of interfering in Republican primaries in order to hurt moderate Republicans with the goal of facing a more extreme (and therefore--so the thinking goes--easier to defeat) candidate in the general is foolhardy and short-sighted.

What do you think of the rumors that DeSantis is ideologically close to Orban? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFV0VaufMOM

[zompist]

What do you think of the rumors that DeSantis is ideologically close to Orban?

That's not exactly a rumor. The GOP loves Orbán; he had a rapturous reception at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference). (Both Trump and DeSantis gave speeches there.)

[rotting bones]

What do you think of the rumors that DeSantis is ideologically close to Orban?

That's not exactly a rumor. The GOP loves Orbán; he had a rapturous reception at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference). (Both Trump and DeSantis gave speeches there.)

Is a competent Orban really better than an easily mockable buffoon?

[zompist]

The GOP loves Orbán; he had a rapturous reception at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference). (Both Trump and DeSantis gave speeches there.)

Is a competent Orban really better than an easily mockable buffoon?

I don't think evil is just a continuum. Is there some metric where Trump is 56.712 Evils, and DeSantis is 47.952? If there was, what difference does it make?

They're evil in different ways, and then you have to use human judgment to decide what to do about them. Neither of us is about to support them, so it's not a choice we have to make.

Trump is dangerous because he destroys trust. He's a liar, he's a fascist, he's a vindictive narcissist, and he's enabled the right to seriously contemplate violence, hatred of the truth, and dictatorship. Yes, he's a buffoon; never underestimate how much damage a buffoon can do.

DeSantis is dangerous because he's far smarter and more normal, but dedicated to criminalizing LBGTQ and Black people. This is also fascist, but where Trump wants to be a dictator because he really hates anyone opposing him, DeSantis just wants to stamp on people's faces. Then you could throw in Rick Scott (governor of Texas), who throws in a complete abortion ban, criminalizing parents of trans kids, plus he wants to eliminate Social Security and Medicare and increase taxes on the poor.

Even sadder, these complementary evils don't cancel each other out. Trump didn't particularly plan to eliminate the social safety net, but he also didn't try to stop Paul Ryan from doing so, and if a GOP Congress tried to do so, he wouldn't fight against them. And though DeSantis isn't on record as supporting Trump's insurrection, he's also avoided being on the record as opposing it.

[rotting bones]

DeSantis is dangerous because he's far smarter and more normal, but dedicated to criminalizing LBGTQ and Black people.

While eliminating the rights of women and minorities should be opposed at every turn, those are hard to enforce while cutting taxes and can be reversed by future administrations. I'm more worried DeSantis might rewrite the constitution to make himself Eternal President. While Trump would probably try this as well, his genius may not be stable enough to let him follow through.

[Ares Land]

While eliminating the rights of women and minorities should be opposed at every turn, those are hard to enforce while cutting taxes and can be reversed by future administrations.

I'm not sure about that. Harrassment is really cheap to implement -- in many cases all you have to do is make sure police and justice turns a blind eye.

[hwhatting]

I'm not sure about that. Harrassment is really cheap to implement -- in many cases all you have to do is make sure police and justice turns a blind eye.

Or, even more, are in on it, as they historically often have been. If there's one part of government conservatives normally aren't against spending money on it's police and security forces. Although many police forces have become more diverse and open-minded in the last decades, it would be easy for the Republicans to stop and reverse that progress.

[Linguoboy]

I'm not sure about that. Harrassment is really cheap to implement -- in many cases all you have to do is make sure police and justice turns a blind eye.

Or, even more, are in on it, as they historically often have been. If there's one part of government conservatives normally aren't against spending money on it's police and security forces. Although many police forces have become more diverse and open-minded in the last decades, it would be easy for the Republicans to stop and reverse that progress.

One area where they might be focusing is training. The GOP has already passed laws banning the teaching of critical race theory and materials derived from it in public schools. If they haven't already begun to do the same in police academies, I imagine they're working on it. (In general, their approach seems to be to reduce officer training in general in the name of "getting more officers on the streets" due to their notion that what stops crime is bullets and not sophisticated policing techniques.)

[MacAnDàil]

And the way that most likely could happen, in my opinion, is if DeSantis win's the GOP candidacy and Trump claims fraud, leading his strongest supporters to either abstain or vote a third party. Incidentally, if Trump loses the Republican primary to DeSantis, could he still run for president with another party?

Which one did you have in mind?

I think he'd most likely run as an independent. At most, he might give his grifting operation a catchy name.

Yes, running as an independent would be a possibility, like the third candidate in 1980. He could also for a new party e.g. the Truth Social Party or for the Reform Party (of which he is a former member). On the other hand, he is also a former Democrat, so it's not sure whether the Reform Party would want him.

I'm also with you on not having anyone on the ticket you really don't want to see in office. Back in early 2016, a friend was urging us to vote in the Republican primaries in Illinois because "the only way to make sure Trump doesn't become president is to keep him off the ballot". I didn't heed his advice (mainly because the Democratic primary is the only actually competitive election in Cook County), but it's sensible, and I'm among those who believes that the Democratic Party strategy of interfering in Republican primaries in order to hurt moderate Republicans with the goal of facing a more extreme (and therefore--so the thinking goes--easier to defeat) candidate in the general is foolhardy and short-sighted.

I agree, that is exactly the kind of thing that could backfire.

[Moose-tache]

So it turns out I am still mad about the strike breaking, and now it's y'all's problem.

For those who missed it, the House, the Senate, and Joe Biden all agreed to make the railroad strike on Dec 9 illegal. Both chambers voted to include paid leave in the deal they forced the unions by law to accept, but they failed to pass the filibuster threshold in the Senate. 80 of them voted to break the strike anyway, and Biden signed it. He called himself a "labor president" while he signed it, and his man in the Senate Chuck Shumer said "I'm glad the two sides got together," presumably referring to the Dems and the GOP, but I guess he could have meant he was glad the government and workers could get together and agree on how much shit the workers are legally obligated to eat. After a busy day at the office taking away the ability of workers to agitate for better conditions, the President of the Senate went on Twitter to complain about Ye. Various Democrats supported the smack down of labor by saying the alternative would be a recession, as if getting seven more Senators to vote for paid leave was never even an option, which to me seems to be an admission of "You see us? The powerful people in Washington? Yeah, we're entirely the problem." It seems we are now fully immersed in the center-left dystopia in which the boot on our necks hasn't moved, but the foot inside now comes in a variety of genders and ethnicities, but it's the same boot.

I wanted to see who the 80 senators are who voted to break the strike. But while it is referred to as "a bill" (with no SB number) in all the news media, congress.gov has no record of any bill, resolution, or amendment relating to this topic any time in the last several months, for either chamber. No news outlet is willing to say the name of the bill, and no one seems to know who voted for or against (except that Rand Paul voted "present"). So we're told that a) we can all go fuck ourselves if we want to be treated like human being while we bring people their treats, b) we are to enjoy this fucking, as it comes from friendly liberal leaders who care about us, and c) no, you're not allowed to know abything about this process; it has been expunged from the public record.

Excellent country, you guys. Top notch. Most woke boot marks so far.

Before anyone says "What do you wish would happen, a railroad strike?" What I wanted was for the "labor president" to tear up the bill and tell Congress to get fucked. They could override his veto in the Senate, but they didn't have the votes in the House. They would have to decide if they would rather watch society burn to the ground just in time for the holidays before they let plebs drink from the golden chalice of Basic Human Dignity. Alternatively, I would accept a tantrum and some crying. A fugue state. Literally anything other than all the people we worked so hard to put in power telling us what good boys and girls they are.

EDIT: I did find the bill! It was H.J.100. Only 5 dems voted against it: Sanders, Warren, Hickenlooper, Merkley, and Gillibrand. Warnock, at the time still on the campaign trail, at least didn't vote, so that's something.

[Linguoboy]

I wish I could be more joyful about Warnock's victory in Georgia but the vote was so fucking close it's like that meme that says

Everyone Gets a Puppy: 50.1%
Diarrhea Forever: 49.9%

and that just further depresses me about the state of the electorate. (I know at least part of that closeness was due to election suppression but COME ON. Why does it always seem like the Dem candidate has to be near-perfect to beat a Republican who is clearly garbage? And this in the election where we were told candidate quality mattered.)

At least the Dems now occasionally get to tell Manchin or Synema (but not both!) to go pound sand once in a while, so that's something to look forward to.

[Moose-tache]

Well, remember GA was the sort of place where Democrats couldn't get elected under any circumstances years ago. If you told little me that a Democrat would win 50.1 to 49.9, I would tell you that will never happen. Also, is Kurt Cobain still cool in the future?

I'm still sour on the fact that we worked to put Dems in positions of power for no reason. Other than saying nice things, it's clear that the Democrats aren't interested in making tangible improvements in people's lives. If we get powerful enough to improve our own lives, they will stop us. They are stewards of the same system.

[Travis B.]

I'm still sour on the fact that we worked to put Dems in positions of power for no reason. Other than saying nice things, it's clear that the Democrats aren't interested in making tangible improvements in people's lives. If we get powerful enough to improve our own lives, they will stop us. They are stewards of the same system.

The key thing is that the Republicans are so unspeakably awful that even boring centrists are significant improvement on them.

[Moose-tache]

I would find it easier to accept the lesser of two evils if they weren't actively trying to be evil. A shitty political party that's trying and failing would be one thing. A political party that has fully embraced the same death cult as the GOP, but painted it friendly colors, is not much of an improvement. I expect the Dems to do more to earn my vote, such as not actively trying to make things worse. This is Reagan and the air traffic controllers all over again. Someone can call himself a "labor president" and fuck labor. This would be beyond the pale of Republican demagogues a couple of generations ago, but now we're told "just accept it, it's not as bad as the other side." Barf.

[Travis B.]

I would find it easier to accept the lesser of two evils if they weren't actively trying to be evil. A shitty political party that's trying and failing would be one thing. A political party that has fully embraced the same death cult as the GOP, but painted it friendly colors, is not much of an improvement. I expect the Dems to do more to earn my vote, such as not actively trying to make things worse. This is Reagan and the air traffic controllers all over again. Someone can call himself a "labor president" and fuck labor. This would be beyond the pale of Republican demagogues a couple of generations ago, but now we're told "just accept it, it's not as bad as the other side." Barf.

What you propose is essentially saying "because the lesser evil isn't completely good all the time, I'll instead say fuck them and effectively let the greater evil win".

[Moose-tache]

Wow, that sounds stupid. Good thing I didn't say any of those things.

Nobody's asking for people to be perfect. But saying they're "not completely good all the time" makes it sound like they just did an oopsie, like "Whoops, I accidentally broke a strike!" It's hard to succeed at all of your goals, but it's not hard to establish good goals and pursue them to the best of your abilities. I consider that to be the bare minimum: do not actively seek out the wrong path, on purpose, deliberately.

I've been voting for Democrats for decades, often because they were the lesser of two evils, and honestly I will probably vote for them in plenty of races in the future. But they've gone from well meaning and incompetent to morally dubious and incompetent. The worse the Republicans get in their slide into far-right insanity, the more unacceptable it becomes to be slightly less evil than that. Surely someone out there is willing to just... not be evil at all? Is that really so much to ask?

[Torco]

I understand the rationale of lesser evil voting, i've been doing it for years... but eventually, sometimes, a lesser evil is evil enough that it's not very meaningfully different from a greater evil, except in like controversial-but-not-very-transcendent issues.