It's comparatively small, but Trump turning the 4th of July into a campaign rally really pisses me off.

His event requires tickets too; I've wondered where the proceeds go.

edit: ok, they're apparently free, but for "VIPs"

Cozying up to a mass murderer and dictator with no intent to discuss policy, who would have thought ...

This would be just PERFECT it if weren't at the same time so sad.

This. I want Trump to lose and am in a swing state. I’d consider voting D. Yet, unfathomably, lefties continue to come after me with personal attacks when I express an opinion that differs from liberal orthodoxy. It’s like shaming people is more important than winning voters.

— Ben Lewis (@benelou) June 30, 2019

Heh. didn't embed the right thread. I meant this one, summing up what happened:

Me: “I live in a state that actually matters, and could be persuaded to move from third party to D if someone on the left were willing to engage me on policy issues rather than personal attacks.

Lefty: “YOU ARE A SELFISH UNAMERICAN GARBAGE HUMAN! GO BACK TO TRUMP!”

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ https://t.co/d54Kd5yxhM

— Ben Lewis (@benelou) June 30, 2019

"If someone on the left were willing to engage me on policy issues."

That's fine, but it's also like saying "well, you can either bend to our policy wills and have a non-horrible president, or bend to our policy wills and have a horrible president. Your choice." I think the Freedom Caucus, McConnell, etc. have shown that the right will absolutely not meet the left on issues, they insist on the left coming to them. What is "reasonable" has shifted so far to the right that moderation is "well, we're going to persecute blacks, browns, gays, and disenfranchise folks as we please, but ok we'll back down and not have a president who is an absolute train-wreck as a person and a leader. Man, I can't believe we're doing you such a favor."

Also, I think that after all is said and done anyone who made this administration possible SHOULD be shamed*. We should all be ashamed of it.

I'm not interested in someone bending to me on policy; I'd just like people to engage on the level of "here's why I think this policy is better." If I thought my side winning the election to be as important as many others apparently do (and I don't,) I'd spend the time they spend trying to get "wins" on the internet by shaming/ridiculing instead attempting to convince people why the policies I advocate for are the most viable. But it really does seem like folks are valuing put-downs over votes.



I am not so tribal to be in any way, shape, or form ashamed that Trump is President. Nope. Not remotely. And I even if I were ashamed, as someone who voted third party I'd accept no responsibility whatsoever for it. That's on the two major Parties for creating and continue to use a primary system, ultimately. Letting the masses be a part of their nominating process was the wrong move, and HRC vs. Trump was the natural eventual result of that ill-advised decision.

Dola...To be clear, sure, I think he's a hateful, lazy, incompetent buffoon who has sullied the office tremendously. It's that "American" (or any other tribe to which I belong, for that matter) is wayyyyy down the list in the hierarchy of all of my identities.

I think a big part of the problem is that both major parties seem to have abandoned committing to any particular policy other than tribalism. Consistuents of either side have little of substance to argue over because both parties' strategies have devolved into simply publicly de-humanizing the other.

Ben, you ignorant slut.... :)


No, it is sad that there is nothing close to discourse anymore. Even those on the same side viciously attack each other. I watched John Cusack attack AOC as a "party-shill" because she hasn't endorsed anyone. I can't think of anyone as close on the political spectrum as those two, but her not immediately endorsing Bernie makes her a fake. Democrats are going to have to learn to disagree among themselves and not immediately go nuclear over every issue/opinion.

Democrats are in this weird position of both being seen as too wonky (“No one wants to read Elizabeth Warren’s policy papers!”) and lacking any substance (“All they are is anti-Trump!”)

So Trump got to be the First President to Visit North Korea.

Understanding that he’s motivated by doing things others have not, I think we should amuse ourselves over the next two to six years by giving him lots of stupid human tricks to do.

“Obama lacked the courage to burp the entire national anthem.”

“No President has ever eaten two jars of mayonnaise in a row.”

“Liberals say that there’s no way you’ll be awesome enough to wear nothing but a Speedo when addressing the UN.”

Feeding conspiracy theorists of all ideologies, the Kochs and Soros are teaming up to start a think tank dedicated to diplomacy and stopping the U.S. forever wars.

Really.

You are probably correct for the most part, but my personal experience is that conservatives—even those online who don’t know me and at first go into attack dog mode—eventually come around to debating policy once they realize I’m not interested in a shouting match. Liberals (not those in here, mind you,) tend to just want to call me a scumbag MAGA Trumpist for disagreeing with them on anything. It may or may not be race related, but it does lend some credence to the argument that hardcore black conservatives often make about being “treated like a runaway slave for leaving the Democratic plantation.”

Thinking about this more, I wonder if there is simply more of an interest in winning a war of words for those on the left. Just thinking of how I keep hearing and seeing Democrats talk about how Harris or Warren would wipe the floor with Trump in a debate as if that matters. Hillary won all three debates fairly handily. Have they forgotten that? Nominating a candidate on the basis of how well they’ll do in the debates seems to be really missing the mark here, but it seems to be quite important to a lot of people.

The parties have realized that they can get elected without doing things. If they do not solve the problems they were elected to solve, are you going to go to the other side?

I find Trump personally abhorrent, but my likely alternative is someone taking the country in a direction from where I want it to go? What are my options, vote for someone who I disagree with and will likely negatively affect me, or vote for someone personally abhorrent, but has positively helped me in their policies?

How do you beat him then? The idea, I think, is that Harris and Warren are likely smarter than Trump, and that intelligence and reason should matter. Because if they don't, what have we? It's then just a race to appeal to the base instincts of the masses. That thought is about as disconcerting as anything about this whole Trump emergence. Logic, reason, science - they don't matter. Coherent policy plans? Bah! It's bread and circuses, all the way.

It's the grown-up smart kid was told that when he/she grows up, it's not going to be the kids who cared more about being popular than doing well in school, or the jocks, or the bullies who are going to run things or succeed, it will be the smart, hard-working kids. Nope! It's still the popular kids.

So you think that Trump is personally abhorrent but has been good for the United States?

Interesting.

Is that really an alien opinion to you? I know tons of people that feel like that. They love seeing their 401k go up.

Or simply “Trump is abhorrent but I get to keep more of the money I earn because he’s in there, and I’ll keep less if a Dem wins.” For many, I doubt it has as much to do with “good for the United States” as “good for my wallet.” We paid something like $8000 less in taxes in 2018 vs 2017, despite making a bit more in 2018. (And yes, our 401ks have gone up.) If money were more important to us than it is, we’d be tempted to vote for him.

That hasn't been the case for everyone though, certainly not at that level anyway. And the whole time Obama was president all we heard was debt, debt, debt and here we are, running up record deficits year after year with zero likelihood of them closing, and desired plans to shift spending from safety nets (can't afford it) , to defense (rah rah rah), and all that seems to matter now is how it effected us individually. Debt is fine now, because less taxes. I just don't understand how the conversation is about me, my 401k, my job. I mean if we're all so narrow minded to only focus on ourselves I guess we'll be alright. Surely during the great depression that mindset would not have worked. Maybe we won't need government intervention again? Maybe what the government does with it's budget and cash won't matter because 30% of us will be riding so high we don't care? The way things are going the bottom 70% won't have a voice in the game anyway. They'll have just enough to grind themselves to death in the economic machine of the consumer. That's what the gig economy does. That's why low income wages don't keep up. Their income level rises just high enough to survive to eat and sleep, but the window to prosperity gets smaller and smaller. The real money flows up from value produced from that work. No benefits, no vacation, just a cog in the wheel. Those lives are only significant enough to hold up the rest. It seems that as long as the middle upper and above are good, the things that matter to the rest just don't. The only time it matters is when that wheel gets slower because of catastrophe. I just wish we understood that this direction were going will have its consequences. Choosing to ignore them now will lead to a massive crisis.

No, it's not. It's just selfish and short-sighted as fuck.

Not so sound flippant, but you beat him by getting more electoral votes. Specifically, if the goal is to beat him, my sense is that the more left-leaning wing of the party is missing the fact that nominating a candidate who'll get you 250K more votes in California, New York, and Oregon, while losing remaining stagnant or losing voters in Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania isn't good strategy. That doesn't necessarily equate with winning debates. Again, HRC won all three fairly handily. But we're grown-ups now. If winning a specific election is your primary goal, then focusing on what *should* matter is irrelevant. (To be clear, winning a specific election isn't my goal, but I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of those who clearly have that goal.) An oafish, simplistic, misogynistic, bigoted jerkweed reality TV star as President. I guess this is where my theological bent kicks in. I'd say that of *course* this is the case. Man-made systems aren't going to get better on their own; they're going to get worse as people exploit the inherent flaws in the system.


Going back to winning more electoral votes: as divided as our country is, I suspect fewer and fewer voters will be switching sides. More and more, it's going to be a matter of a combination of convincing people who generally agree with you and usually vote to show up, and figuring out a way to tap into what is--by far--the greatest potential source of election-changing votes: the people who aren't showing up. I just ran some numbers on 2016 in Texas. Trump won handily there: 52-43. If HRC had gotten only 14% of the REGISTERED VOTERS who didn't vote--not merely all adults, just the actual registered voters--to show up for her, she wins Texas. Texas! We're not talking about some impossible task of getting all of them or anywhere near a majority of them; we're talking one outta seven. I don't claim to know what gets one out of seven to get off the couch, but I'm pretty sure being a better debater isn't it.

Dems didn't seem to care about debt when Obama was President, but now it's at the forefont. Republicans seemed to care deeply about it when Obama was President, but now it doesn't matter. We're hopelessly tribal, yes.


I don't necessarily disagree with any of this; I'm just commenting on what I suspect is driving it at the most basic level. Lots and lots of people (perhaps the majority) are motivated to vote by short-sightedness and selfishness, and if winning is your goal, attracting short-sighted and selfish people to vote for you/your candidate must be a part of the calculus, no?

I don't understand why the parties aren't spending millions on buses to the polls. The data is so good that you can target areas where you'll get many more of your voters than any opposition that might sneak on board. When presidential campaigns cost over a billion, it seems like a pretty cheap and efficient way to get votes.

On the surface, that would seem to be an excellent tactic for Dems to use in minority-heavy communities in Florida and NC in particular. (Southern states have higher percentages of minorities--picked the two large ones that can be swing states.) But given the numbers I just realized are the case in Texas, why wouldn't they want to try it in Texas and Georgia as well?


My first guess is that it would be less cost-effective for Republicans; transportation isn't an issue for their suburban voters, and the nature of rural areas being more spread-out would, I suspect, lead to a low ROI. Perhaps they could identify some of the larger majority-white trailer parks in FL, OH, NC, OH, PA and run buses from there, but it just seems like the numbers wouldn't be big enough to make a difference.

And Harris is out for me. You can't win the general running on forced busing in 2019.

So she wants to bring back busing? That was a boondoggle. A terrible program.

Need to fund schools equally. Its hard to compete when your tax base is small.

I live next to the 2nd largest school district in Missouri. They are based in west St Louis county. Huge tax base.

Our district is just west in a different county. We have a fraction of the tax base the big district has. The programs offered by that district compared to ours is crazy.

Well, one point of view on this is... the Democratic party basically can't win a modern presidential election without a transformational figure atop the ticket. Carter won because of post-Watergate blues and a Nixon pardon, set that aside. Clinton and Obama (whatever you think of them) were both unusually gifted and charming, and both "changed the game" when the November Tuesday night map of reds and blues got posted up.

Political people tend to look for "it." I know I do when I talk with candidates and office-holders. I think that's connected to both the intra-party desire to be inspired, and also the notion that inspiration is essential to succeeding. The string of also-rans in recent Presidential history who were generally competent and deserving, yet uninspiring and eventually unsuccessful is pretty long.

Interesting take. I wonder how many people understood that debate point to be about what is right for today rather than Biden being wrong at that time.

I get that, but other than perhaps only-Zeus-knows-what-she-might-say Williamson, isn't it safe to assume that *EVERY* Dem candidate would do better than Trump in a debate?

Harris seems to be collecting politically unpopular stances. As a black woman, she's already got a difficult road, she doesn't need to spend her time talking about things that repel a lot of voters.

Yes. But that's not the point. Dems win by inspiring. Or at least there's a logic there.

Maybe we will look back and say this is 1976 all over again, and basically anyone could beat Trump. It's possible.

But I can put myself in the shoes of a voter who looks at their lifetime and says "the only time I remember Dems winning was when people ran to the polls because they had to vote for them."


FWIW, I'm basically with you. I want Trump out more deeply than my current or future differences of opinion among the many alternatives, and my guess is that playing it safe is the best way to do that. But I just see the logic that Dems need to win by two touchdowns to win at all.

Got it.

It seems like one of the biggest issues in Wisconsin and Michigan is that voters in the cities did not come out to vote in numbers they had in the last two elections. It speaks to the need to get someone to get out of the vote, and not necessarily to appeal to moderate Republicans.

Dems have more infrequent voters than does the GOP, so excitement probably matters more for them.

But caring about the debate performances is silly. I'm pretty sure the data shows that debates don't do much and what they do is more short term than election day.

This passes my initial sniff test, so I'm not really doubting it, but I'm curious if there's data out there to back up this statement.

Are those people Liberals that somebody like Warren or Sanders will motivate to get out, or are there more complicated demographic and franchisement questions in there? For all the playing up of the Clinton's record and history with African-American voters, they overwhelmingly didn't turn out to vote for her.

Seems like you can spin that narrative two different ways with two different results, if it's just generically "getting out the vote" then it's almost certainly looking better than 2016 which was a huge wake up call. If it's more nuanced than that then that's a less rosy scenario for the Dems, and I agree that just going to the left and picking somebody who "excites the base" isn't really getting to the root of the problem, which is getting turnout in the rust belt and cities in the midwest back to a level where you will win. In that scenario I agree with Ben - most of the base who are excited are in places that don't really help you that much.

So I am someone who is very far left personally but often I get extremely frustrated at how hardline that makes some people as far as their communication with moderates or folks who are slightly right leaning. From my perspective, what I'm noticing is that a lot of these people on the left - especially keyboard warriors just arguing on reddit or facebook - is that there is an extreme sense of an idealistic viewpoint on the world, and having any one belief that is different from this idealized set of views makes you abhorrent and just as bad as any trump voter. The line is absolutely insane. For many that goes as far left as lifelong democrats who are supporting Biden right now. He's too big business, too status quo, nothing could possibly change with Biden, so if you land on him you're a piece of shit human being who is against progressive ideas to improve the situation of the lower and middle classes.

I could be off, I certainly cannot speak to your own personal experiences and the reasons for comments you've received, but the above is an attitude that I see far too frequently on left leaning echo chambers and it certainly leads to behaviors that you're mentioning.


I can also note my own hypocrisy in saying all that. I've got my own line in the sand drawn where individuals that still actively support and defend Trump are not people I'm interested in interacting with at all anymore. There is so much hatred coming out of that man, so much empowerment of white supremacy and hate based on gender and race that if someone still actively supports the man my judgement is that they are at the very minimum willing to decide that white supremacy is an acceptable side effect of whatever reason they've decided they like him. Maybe that makes me just as bad as everyone else. I don't think so personally but if that's the judgement of anyone here I'll own it.

Of course, I should point out that I'm not wishing death upon any of these people the way that someone like Jon will just openly and consistently state that the world would be a better place if I died. I'm just saying that on a personal level I lose the desire and ability to make a personal connection because of this belief.

Dola, I may not have picked the best thing to quote in my reply. The "war of words" line got me thinking more regarding Ben's own personal experiences that he was recounting earlier.

I'm sure I've seen it at one point, but I can't find it quickly. I do remember that traditionally a likely voter screen moves things a little in favor of the GOP.

If you had a moderate that actually excited people (Bill Clinton as an example), you may have an argument for them. But you don't here. Biden doesn't really excite people. Klobuchar is dullsville. Hickenlooper is meh.

So really what you are going to want to go for is a liberal who excites the base, but who can also speak to and excite more moderate elements. Which is why I thought Warren's trip to West Virginia, where she got Trump voters to be impressed with her, was very important. Potentially Buttigieg and Harris can do that too - but Buttigieg is kind of an empty suit at the moment and Harris has to decide her next steps (remember Bill Clinton decided to go 'tough on crime' to add some more moderate elements to his campaign and Harris definitely has that record - which may kill her with progressives).

I'll use two counties in Wisconsin, Dane (Madison) and Milwaukee, as an example. Dane County saw Bernie Sanders destroy Clinton 63% to 37% in the primary. But Hillary still outperformed Obama by 2000 votes in Dane County in November. Looks like the Sanders voters still showed up for Clinton. Milwaukee County was won more narrowly in the primary by Clinton (52-48) yet Clinton still underperformed Obama in Milwaukee County. So I don't think Sanders as the candidate would've made a difference in Wisconsin. The voters in Milwaukee County just didn't turn up to vote. And with a large segment of Milwaukee County being black, The Dems need to ask themselves how they can get those voters excited again. Unless voter ID suppressed turnout that badly. 2016 was the first Presidential election we had voter ID.

When people show you who they really are, believe them.

I hate to break it to ya, but it's kind of always been the popular kids. JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, how many of the prominent Presidents were good looking or war heroes that were never the brightest bulb in the room? We just had a century where Those Fucking Elites did a pretty good job as gatekeepers, and outside existential threats helped our national unity. Can't do anything about the latter unless aliens arrive, but for the former I'm still on board giving the parties more say than voters in who the party nominee is, as well as repealing the 17th Amendment and direct election of Senators! ;)

Presidential elections just happen too infrequently to really answer the question, but like Lungs is hinting at the real question is how many of the voters who showed up for Obama that didn't show up for Gore, Kerry, or HRC did it because he had the most progressive ideas, how many did it because he's the only charismatic one, and how many did it because of skin color. (And then down the road if Warren/Booker/Harris is the nominee does talking about certain race or gender related subjects help fire up those people more than it fires up ignorant voters on the R side or alienate genuine fence sitters.)

The 401K argument is weird because they went up much more under Obama than Trump.

Just vote for the guy you want, no need to make excuses up for it.

And I don't care that people vote for their own self interest. That's as natural a decision as you get. But there is a weird narrative out there that people have to vote Trump economically when the biggest economic growth periods in the past few decades have been under Democratic Presidents.

If you think a President controls the S&P 500, pull up the numbers for when it saw the biggest jumps.

Ugh, can we not do this? Nike Nixes ‘Betsy Ross Flag’ Sneaker After Colin Kaepernick Intervenes - WSJ

That flag flies outside my parents house, which was part of the underground railroad in a town known for abolitionist activism. I don't care if there are idiots misappropriating it, it's not a white power or pro-slavery symbol, and trying to say that that whole era should not be celebrated in spite of some people having some faults is just dumb.