2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

[Bobcat]

If this is the stategy of the Democrats they will be in for another surprise in 2020.

That's just stupid. Obama did not sit for two terms because he was black (or a man for that matter), but because he is and was a terrific speaker and a proper statesman. Identity politics is a blight and the left needs to rid themselves of it if we ever hope to stop the right wing surge.

Putting up a candidate because they tick some irrelevant boxes is folly

 

[roseguy64]

That's just stupid. Obama did not sit for two terms because he was black (or a man for that matter), but because he is and was a terrific speaker and a proper statesman. Identity politics is a blight and the left needs to rid themselves of it if we ever hope to stop the right wing surge.

Putting up a candidate because they tick some irrelevant boxes is folly

I highly doubt that's the only qualification they're looking for

 

[Precaution]

I honestly think Trump would tear Elizabeth Warren to pieces if she ran in 2020, there needs to be a Candidate who can ignore Trump's obvious attacks and not bite.

 

[Raoul]

I honestly think Trump would tear Elizabeth Warren to pieces if she ran in 2020, there needs to be a Candidate who can ignore Trump's obvious attacks and not bite.

Biden is probably more plausiable in terms of being able to deal with Trump's fire.

 

[senorgregster]

I honestly think Trump would tear Elizabeth Warren to pieces if she ran in 2020, there needs to be a Candidate who can ignore Trump's obvious attacks and not bite.

I hate to potentially derail the thread but I've been wondering what would have happened if Hilary did bite when Trump did this in the debate:

If she simply turned around and told him to back off what would have happened?

 

[Raoul]

I hate to potentially derail the thread but I've been wondering what would have happened if Hilary did bite when Trump did this in the debate:

If she simply turned around and told him to back off what would have happened?

It would've probably backfired as she would've been marketed by Trump and his supporters as unhinged and overly emotional (as in, you can't trust an overly emotional woman).

As they say, don't mud wrestle a pig. If you do, you will only get dirty and the pig will like it.

 

[sun_tzu]

I honestly think Trump would tear Elizabeth Warren to pieces if she ran in 2020, there needs to be a Candidate who can ignore Trump's obvious attacks and not bite.

The rock... at least he will give as good as he gets... though it's more wrestlemania than a typical election but the Twitter bants would be good

 

[Bobcat]

I highly doubt that's the only qualification they're looking for

No, but having it is a priority is stupid. Virgina just elected Danica Roem, a transgendered woman, as their state legislator. That's great and all, but she did not get elected because she is trans, but because she is competent and a hell of a lot better than the bigot she ran against.

My point is that any elected official should be elected on their capacity to do their job, sex/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation should be completely irrelevant.

 

[roseguy64]

No, but having it is a priority is stupid. Virgina just elected Danica Roem, a transgendered woman, as their state legislator. That's great and all, but she did not get elected because she is trans, but because she is competent and a hell of a lot better than the bigot she ran against.

My point is that any elected official should be elected on their capacity to do their job, sex/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation should be completely irrelevant.

Yeah. That's understood. Diversity helps though in crafting legislation.

 

[Ubik]

No, but having it is a priority is stupid. Virgina just elected Danica Roem, a transgendered woman, as their state legislator. That's great and all, but she did not get elected because she is trans, but because she is competent and a hell of a lot better than the bigot she ran against.

My point is that any elected official should be elected on their capacity to do their job, sex/gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation should be completely irrelevant.

Do you think that congress is 80% white and 80% male purely based on their capacity for the job?

 

[Bobcat]

Do you think that congress is 80% white and 80% male purely based on their capacity for the job?

There is a multitude of factors why its still like that, sexism/racism/bigotry are still issues in society, but that alone does not make identity politics a valid solution. We should do our best to create equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. As the latter is just a stone throw away from tyranny

 

[Ubik]

There is a multitude of factors why its still like that, sexism/racism/bigotry are still issues in society, but that alone does not make identity politics a valid solution. We should do our best to create equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. As the latter is just a stone throw away from tyranny

Sure, promoting the election of more women and minorities is a step away from tyranny. Gotcha.

 

[Bobcat]

Sure, promoting the election of more women and minorities is a step away from tyranny. Gotcha.

Nice strawman. Promoting women and minorities is not identity politics pretty far from it. Promoting women and minorities is perfectly reasonable, but as i am sure you know it is in no way a guarantee that it will produce the wanted results and actually get them into those positions.

For example in Scandinavia politicians have been trying for decades to equalize women and men. In the current government in Norway exactly half the cabinet are women and the leaders in all three ruling parties are women. You may or may not like them, but i believe most people agree that they are somewhat competent politicians and that whats matters, them being women is not really that big of a deal for most people. The thing is, this happened naturally over time so the women in power did not get there because of some misguided chase for equity, they got there because they are competent and because the people voted them into government.

Like the 80% white males in congress you brought up. Based on their racial and gender categories it's a huge disparity here, no one is denying that. But how do you propose we make that number more fair? I can't foresee the future, but if the DNC decided to put up their candidates based on whether they belonged to x,y or z category that would not go well for them.

I am all for equality, but you can't force it on people

 

[Silva]

I am all for equality, but you can't force it on people

this is literally what all equality laws do and they work

 

[Bobcat]

this is literally what all equality laws do and they work

They are usually not that strict though, they can strongly encourage organizations too have a more fair and representative practice in terms of hiring/promotion, but as far as i know there are no laws that forces organizations in such a manner.

Especially when you are dealing with elected officials i think it would be unwise to operate with quotas in that manner. Imo the solution is too remove the barriers for women and minorities and create an environment of equality of opportunity, not force equality of outcome

 

[Silva]

They are usually not that strict though, they can strongly encourage organizations too have a more fair and representative practice in terms of hiring/promotion, but as far as i know there are no laws that forces organizations in such a manner.

Especially when you are dealing with elected officials i think it would be unwise to operate with quotas in that manner. Imo the solution is too remove the barriers for women and minorities and create an environment of equality of opportunity, not force equality of outcome

The barrier in this case is that political parties have been running mostly white, straight males since like forever.

 

[Ubik]

Nice strawman. Promoting women and minorities is not identity politics pretty far from it. Promoting women and minorities is perfectly reasonable, but as i am sure you know it is in no way a guarantee that it will produce the wanted results and actually get them into those positions.

For example in Scandinavia politicians have been trying for decades to equalize women and men. In the current government in Norway exactly half the cabinet are women and the leaders in all three ruling parties are women. You may or may not like them, but i believe most people agree that they are somewhat competent politicians and that whats matters, them being women is not really that big of a deal for most people. The thing is, this happened naturally over time so the women in power did not get there because of some misguided chase for equity, they got there because they are competent and because the people voted them into government.

Like the 80% white males in congress you brought up. Based on their racial and gender categories it's a huge disparity here, no one is denying that. But how do you propose we make that number more fair? I can't foresee the future, but if the DNC decided to put up their candidates based on whether they belonged to x,y or z category that would not go well for them.

I am all for equality, but you can't force it on people

Norway is a strange example to use, given that it's a place where plenty of affirmative action has taken place. Multiple parties have mandated 40% quotas for females and have done for decades, there are similar laws at board level, and parties alternate their party-lists male-female to ensure better representation. It's therefore unsurprising that a state which has actively promoted the representation of women for so long now has a politics where it feels perfectly natural and unforced for women to hold power.

Which isn't even what that original tweet was! It was normative, not prescriptive. Promoting something as worth achieving, without any actual policy attached to it. Which is why I've been bemused by the reaction to it. If I could criticise anything about it, it would be that it's empty words with no solution.

What can be done? It's a good question. Open primaries for individual seats in the US means you can't just select more women for a list and have them well up the order as in Norway, and you can't enforce all-women shortlists for seats as done by Labour in the UK. The only real method is patronage in the form of endorsements and funding, which, as we saw a little over a year ago, can go Badly.

If I was being glib I'd say maybe really all they can do is tweet? But apparently even that will get a backlash.

 

[Bobcat]

The barrier in this case is that political parties have been running mostly white, straight males since like forever.

True, but what is really needed is a change of culture in the general public. No doubt there are still fossils that want to maintain the status quo, but i think we are headed in the right direction, albeit slowly. Regarding the US i can't really say what needs to be done since that system is all kinds of fecked, but if the DNC want to get back in power they need to play their hand right.

Norway is a strange example to use, given that it's a place where plenty of affirmative action has taken place. Multiple parties have mandated 40% quotas for females and have done for decades, there are similar laws at board level, and parties alternate their party-lists male-female to ensure better representation. It's therefore unsurprising that a state which has actively promoted the representation of women for so long now has a politics where it feels perfectly natural and unforced for women to hold power.

Which isn't even what that original tweet was! It was normative, not prescriptive. Promoting something as worth achieving, without any actual policy attached to it. Which is why I've been bemused by the reaction to it. If I could criticise anything about it, it would be that it's empty words with no solution.

What can be done? It's a good question. Open primaries for individual seats in the US means you can't just select more women for a list and have them well up the order as in Norway, and you can't enforce all-women shortlists for seats as done by Labour in the UK. The only real method is patronage in the form of endorsements and funding, which, as we saw a little over a year ago, can go Badly.

If I was being glib I'd say maybe really all they can do is tweet? But apparently even that will get a backlash.

The mandated 40% quotas are voluntarily put there, but as i said, it's the result from a decades long nurturing of equality not by forced laws. And i might have reacted to harshly as you say its only normative, but i still take issue with the general principle of identity politics and forced quotas. One problem is that it's just not men vs women, there are a lot of different categories of people and if that starts to be the guiding principle of who gets into what the meritocracy which much of our society is built on will die.

Women are just as capable as men, and as shown, they will step up to the task if given the opportunity.

 

[Silva]

True, but what is really needed is a change of culture in the general public. No doubt there are still fossils that want to maintain the status quo, but i think we are headed in the right direction, albeit slowly. Regarding the US i can't really say what needs to be done since that system is all kinds of fecked, but if the DNC want to get back in power they need to play their hand right.

So, what's the problem with the democratic party running more women and minorities?

 

[Sweet Square]

But apparently even that will get a backlash.

There's firstly the obvious backlash from bigots but some of the backlash will be from the Left, who are tired at seeing a political party claiming to represent people who they completely feck over when in office. It's a perfectly good tweet if it came from the DSA or todays Labour Party but coming from the democrats, it's completely meaningless.

 

[Bobcat]

So, what's the problem with the democratic party running more women and minorities?

Ideally, none, but we both it's a bit more complicated than that.
1) There is still, especially in the US, a culture of sexism/racism towards women and minorities in politics so any woman/minority has to be a really solid candidate too compete.
2) Candidates should be nominated based on their competence, and i don't see sex/race as relevant factors in that regard. Now granted, i am sure there are loads of competent women/minorities who have been overlooked for various reasons and parties could surely do more effort too promote those candidates.

From a pragmatic point of view an old white guy might be a smarter choice than an equally competent black woman. Not because he is better, but because he will simply get more votes.

Now the remedy for this, i can't really say. As i mentioned above, here in Norway we have fostered this culture for years and no one bats an eyelid at a cabinet of 50% women and 40% in Parliament. Maybe i am wrong, but say if the DNC chose to run 50% of their representatives in the midterms as women i believe they would suffer as a result

 

[Silva]

Ideally, none, but we both it's a bit more complicated than that.
1) There is still, especially in the US, a culture of sexism/racism towards women and minorities in politics so any woman/minority has to be a really solid candidate too compete.
2) Candidates should be nominated based on their competence, and i don't see sex/race as relevant factors in that regard. Now granted, i am sure there are loads of competent women/minorities who have been overlooked for various reasons and parties could surely do more effort too promote those candidates.

From a pragmatic point of view an old white guy might be a smarter choice than an equally competent black woman. Not because he is better, but because he will simply get more votes.

Now the remedy for this, i can't really say. As i mentioned above, here in Norway we have fostered this culture for years and no one bats an eyelid at a cabinet of 50% women and 40% in Parliament. Maybe i am wrong, but say if the DNC chose to run 50% of their representatives in the midterms as women i believe they would suffer as a result

So, first you say you want a meritocratic selection process, now you're saying old white men get more votes so they're better candidates? Something's wrong with the logic.

 

[Bobcat]

So, first you say you want a meritocratic selection process, now you're saying old white men get more votes so they're better candidates? Something's wrong with the logic.

The first one is an ideal i think we should follow, the latter is just an observation

 

[Raoul]

The blueing of Texas continues. Might be in play next time.

 

[Il Prete Rosso]

The blueing of Texas continues. Might be in play next time.

It won't happen yet but Texas would become a blue state in about a generation or so.

 

[Raoul]

It won't happen yet but Texas would become a blue state in about a generation or so.

Definitely, probably even sooner. There are more immigrants, younger voters and progressives in Texas each cycle, at at time when older baby boomers (typically white males) are dying off, so the balance of power could shift sooner than we may think.

 

[ClutchHunter]

So, what's the problem with the democratic party running more women and minorities?

It's just more discrimination. The fact that we've reached where we are now is surely evidence enough that, given enough time, society will progress to the point that gender, race, and so on are non-factors. It's particularly frustrating for me because those are total non-factors to me and yet they are becoming factors because I'm principally opposed to positive discrimination.

That's before we get to whether pandering to the identity politics wing of the left is likely to be successful to a broader political audience. I doubt it.

It is also wasting a lot of ideological energy. Imagine what could be accomplished if all this energy on the left was being focused on economic policy. But I suppose we won't be doing that because so many of the prominent figures of modern feminism and identity politics are just fine with the economic system as it is now. I think most modern woes of racism and sexism in the first world are just class masquerades, by which I mean the underlying issues are really relating to class and wealth, not race or gender.

Sorry this post was a little misjointed, I'm half browsing the web and half working. Context switching does not help literary flow! :-)

 

[Silva]

It's just more discrimination. The fact that we've reached where we are now is surely evidence enough that, given enough time, society will progress to the point that gender, race, and so on are non-factors. It's particularly frustrating for me because those are total non-factors to me and yet they are becoming factors because I'm principally opposed to positive discrimination.

That's before we get to whether pandering to the identity politics wing of the left is likely to be successful to a broader political audience. I doubt it.

It is also wasting a lot of ideological energy. Imagine what could be accomplished if all this energy on the left was being focused on economic policy. But I suppose we won't be doing that because so many of the prominent figures of modern feminism and identity politics are just fine with the economic system as it is now. I think most modern woes of racism and sexism in the first world are just class masquerades, by which I mean the underlying issues are really relating to class and wealth, not race or gender.

Sorry this post was a little misjointed, I'm half browsing the web and half working. Context switching does not help literary flow! :-)

They're not banning white blokes though. They're just running a more diverse selection. That's the opposite of discrimination.

 

[ClutchHunter]

They're not banning white blokes though. They're just running a more diverse selection. That's the opposite of discrimination.

Tweet makes it look like they are openly favouring women over the alternatives (i.e. men). That's discrimination.

 

[Silva]

Tweet makes it look like they are openly favouring women over the alternatives (i.e. men). That's discrimination.

They have primaries and caucuses to choose candidates. The people who wrote the tweet don't hand select final candidates. It's not like the UK system where Oxbridge cnuts get parachuted into seats.

 

[Ubik]

Somebody please save the white men, they are being discriminated against in US politics.

 

[SirAF]

Somebody please save the white men, they are being discriminated against in US politics.

 

[ClutchHunter]

They have primaries and caucuses to choose candidates. The people who wrote the tweet don't hand select final candidates. It's not like the UK system where Oxbridge cnuts get parachuted into seats.

Because the Dems didn't collude at all to pick their favoured candidate last time around?

Here in the UK we actually do have all-women shortlists, something I'm naturally opposed to as an egalitarian against discrimination. It won't take long for that to reach the Dems in the US, just look at that tweet!

To the other fellow jesting; two wrongs don't make a right, and an arguably greater wrong doesn't right a lesser wrong. It's also just hilarious that this form of positive discrimination won't affect those who you're actually thinking of (the wealthy), only those younger and more aspirational who just so happen to have the wrong set of genitalia to fulfil your criteria.

Apparently you can only hold extreme positions on the matter of identity politics, and if you're not in favour of positive discrimination you must be in favour of traditional discrimination - no middle ground allowed!

 

[Ubik]

The god of the left at the moment is an old white dude. Pretty sure having a knob is okay for the foreseeable.

 

[Silva]

Because the Dems didn't collude at all to pick their favoured candidate last time around?

That was corruption not discrimination.

Here in the UK we actually do have all-women shortlists, something I'm naturally opposed to as an egalitarian against discrimination. It won't take long for that to reach the Dems in the US, just look at that tweet!

Yes, and we also have an old boys network that openly channels white men from Eton into high political office. It's far less democratic than the primaries and causes the democratic party holds.

To the other fellow jesting; two wrongs don't make a right, and an arguably greater wrong doesn't right a lesser wrong. It's also just hilarious that this form of positive discrimination won't affect those who you're actually thinking of (the wealthy), only those younger and more aspirational who just so happen to have the wrong set of genitalia to fulfil your criteria.

Going from 90/10 males to 50/50ish isn't discrimination, it's proper representation.

 

[Ubik]

These are meaningless still but also fun, lulling us into a false sense of security that Trump will lose big regardless, making his inevitable reelection all the more painful and horrifying

 

[Cheesy]

These are meaningless still but also fun, lulling us into a false sense of security that Trump will lose big regardless, making his inevitable reelection all the more painful and horrifying

If he's up against a strong candidate and his numbers don't improve I do genuinely think he'll struggle to get back in.

 

[Ubik]

If he's up against a strong candidate and his numbers don't improve I do genuinely think he'll struggle to get back in.

I'm approaching this like I approached the Sanchez deal, assuming the worst every step of the way.

 

[Cheesy]

I'm approaching this like I approached the Sanchez deal, assuming the worst every step of the way.

It is kind of weird to think that with the US electoral cycle, we're basically just a year away from this all starting up again. Fun times ahead...

 

[Dante]

These are meaningless still but also fun, lulling us into a false sense of security that Trump will lose big regardless, making his inevitable reelection all the more painful and horrifying

Neither will 79 year old Sanders nor 78 year old Biden run in 2020.