2020 Democratic presidential primary

the New Deal's existence required a coalition comprised in part by Southern Dem racists who made sure black Americans saw little to nothing of the program's benefits.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 5:40 AM bookmarkflaglink

and then abandoned the coalition by the mid-30s in part because they understood that the new structures of power the new deal was creating endangered southern white supremacy safeguards or no

― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, October 16, 2019 5:50 AM bookmarkflaglink

nah, the South loved that federal boodle! That's why they got so many Army bases. WWII was another federal program.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 5:51 AM bookmarkflaglink

here's katznelson on this process, which i think is important to understand-- despite being designed and implemented by a racist country the reallocation of power that characterized the new deal era was so fundamentally radical that southerners came to fear it would outrun the desire even of its architects (even of the president) to continue sweeping white supremacy under the rug

During the first half of the New Deal, southerners cast sectional votes and defected from the Democratic Party position 5 percent of the time. During the second half, by contrast, sectional voting doubled, to 10 percent of the total, and the decision to defect was taken fully 19 percent of the time... On which issues did the South move from partisan and cross-partisan to sectional and defection voting?...

Most of the region's leaders almost giddily propelled the New Deal's radical economic policies, a program that offered the South the chance to escape its colonized status while keeping its racial order safe... At the start of the New Deal, racial segregation seemed immovable... The conciliatory culture that celebrated the reunion of the sections after the Civil War remained vibrant across party lines... southern civil society appeared safe. The South's daring policy positions were premised on this security. Southern members of Congress had little reason to fear the large number of their new nonsouthern colleagues in the House and Senate... Not one Democrat in Congress was African-American... the new president, who had been nominated with robust southern support... had selected a segregationist Texan, John Nance Garner, as his vice president... [and] never pushed civil rights legislation...

This equilibrium did not prove stable... Pressured in many unexpected ways, the white South became uncertain and unsure, perplexed about how simultaneously to maintain its commitments to racism and to a changing Democratic Party...

Issued on July 25, 1938, the fifty-nine-page "Report on Economic Conditions of the South" underscored the meaning of the region's colonial status without addressing its racial complexion... The report made no mention whatsoever of segregation. Its powerful catalog of regional economic ailments reads as if the race issue did not exist... By the time this document appeared, however, this course already was proving impossible to sustain... By 1938, the willful amnesia and quiet accomodation of racism on the part of New Deal leaders were becoming untenable...

[A]nxiety, if not outright paranoia, became more palpable as the decade was coming to an end. The most important reason was the growth of a far more ambitious and often more militant labor movement than had been anticipated... On the eve of the 1935 Wagner Act, which provided a supportive legal framework for labor organizing, 12 percent of nonagricultural workers had belonged to trade unions. By 1939, the proportion more than doubled, reaching 29 percent, thus making it increasingly likely that labor might come to play a central role in national politics...

In Congress, the southern wing of the party observed how the interests of "labor" appeared to supplant those of the "farmer" in the Democratic Party's "farmer-labor" coalition. The new unions that "added to the base of social reformism" and "gave the later New Deal a social democratic tinge that had never before been present in American reform movements," began to organize black as well as white southern workers in the late 1930s. Some unions also worked closely with advocates of racial change within the South... Despite the persistence of [racial] discrimination in many unions, and despite the practice of segregation by numerous southern locals, labor groups pioneered racial integration in American life. This role included some AFL unions, such as those of the bricklayers, masons, plasterers, and cement finishers, as well as the hod carriers' union, the longshoremen's union, and various garment workers' unions that offered equal treatment across the racial divide; some even fined members who discriminated on the basis of race...

[T]he new CIO unions cultivated African-American membership and played a key role in forging links "between urban liberals and the black struggle." They quickly became the most racially integrated institutions in American life. In all, these unions were the most important force in making it difficult for across-the-board southern support for the New Deal to persist. The developing labor movement added backing for legislation to punish lynching and eliminate the poll tax, thus helping to emplace civil rights on the agenda of Congress in a serious way for the first time in nearly five decades...

[W]hite southerners could observe the first signs of change in national white opinion, notice the President's Court-packing plan, and watch the 1939 creation of a Civil Liberties Unit in the Department of Justice, whose remit included race-related litigation... To be sure, [Roosevelt] "seemed ready enough to leave well enough alone in questions that involved white supremacy," yet he also did not want to forgo northern support, black as well as white, especially after African-Americans had begun to vote for the Democratic Party... [Southern Democrats] understood that... black voters had become potentially pivotal... [they] observed growing black aspirations and outmigration, demands for better education, the heightened activism of an assortment of liberals, union organizers, Communists, and socialists, and a general unsettling of race relations. They took in how some national unions in major industries like steel, rubber, automobile, oil, and mining included a growing multiracial membership... They worried that efforts to create a national minimum wage would undermine the racial order... At issue was not whether segregation would collapse, at least not in the near term, but whether these developments portended more fundamental change in the future.

Such worries helped revive talk of states' rights... These concerns made even those southern members most inclined toward the New Deal become wary about the strong national powers they had done so much to fashion... It was the first intimation of the possibility that later would cause many southern Democrats to abandon their party entirely....

that is: federal boodle may be all very well but encouraging organizing is unacceptably corrosive to racism. i am for whichever politics encourages the most organizing

semi-related to means testing I've been thinking a lot lately about the American obsession on people getting what they "deserve," -- not only the commonly expressed resentment at the idea of a "welfare queen," but also occasionally nixing the idea of universal programs because "we don't want a rich kid to get free college" or something like that. It does seem like the tide has turned somewhat in the last 5 years or so and there's a growing recognition that the benefits of universal programs vastly outweigh any moral harm done by someone who doesn't "deserve" help getting it or someone "taking advantage of the system."

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, October 16, 2019 12:46 PM (forty-four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Rich kid’s family would end up paying more in taxes than the sum of tuitions in the current system, so there is really no moral balancing to do here.

Also, if the system is set up to benefit everyone without reference to their means, then "taking advantage of the system" is simply what everyone does and everyone deserves; there is no way to game it to the detriment of others.

I liked how everybody kept bringing it up at the debate, but worth noting that there was not a single question about climate change. these debates are worthless tbh.

the Katznelson book is one of the more eye-opening things I've read this decade.

I liked how everybody kept bringing it up at the debate, but worth noting that there was not a single question about climate change. these debates are worthless tbh.

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, October 16, 2019 2:13 PM (eleven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

there could be 10,000 more debates (there might be!) and the moderators are still going to ask some form of "How you gonna pay for M4All?" and "What about people who like their private insurance?" every. single. goddamn. time.

I never need to hear any candidate refer to a semi-mythical American "hard working, middle class" dinner table "how we gonna pay the bills?!" scenario ever again

semi-mythical American "hard working, middle class" dinner table "how we gonna pay the bills?!" scenario

This is so popular because it flatters voters by imagining they are all dedicated financial planners who spend large amounts of time creating written budgets which they then track scrupulously and readjust constantly. In real life, they mostly just wing it from week to week and worry a lot.

"How you gonna pay for M4All?" and "What about people who like their private insurance?" every. single. goddamn. time.

tbf these questions are a mechanism designed to elicit responses that in principle - with a good candidate - would shine a very positive light on the policies in question

I am the happiness of this world

Trump Supporter Comes Away From Democratic Debate With Pretty Clear Idea Of Which Candidate He’s Going To Kill

LANCASTER, OH—Admitting that he had been struggling to identify which candidate he preferred, local Trump supporter James Brimhall told reporters Wednesday that he came away from the Democratic debates with a more clear idea of who he wanted to kill. “Early on, I thought it was definitely going to be Biden, but a lot of other candidates made great points about why they needed to be killed to save America, so I was really torn,” said Brimhall, who claimed hearing Bernie Sanders’ arguments for universal healthcare put him at the top of his list for a few months. “I was actually flirting with Andrew Yang for a bit—his freedom dividend seems like exactly the kind of idea I need to cleanse from the face of the Earth, but there wasn’t much beyond that. I’m honestly leaning towards Warren now. She has a lot of proposals, and her fire during the debate really stood out as something I would want to destroy. Plus, I like that she’s a woman.” Brimhall added that we would probably hold off making his final decision until after President Trump singles one out as an enemy of America.

link

other people have pointed this out, but it really seems like the Onion has gotten extra bleak/savage since they unionized (a good thing)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/16/marianne-williamson-after-last-nights-debate-theres-no-way-im-dropping-out/

Last night’s debate was a lot of things, but it was not exciting. It contained no magic. If anything, it reduced some very nice people to behavior their mothers probably raised them not to engage in. Which woman who claims feminist ideals can be the nastiest to another woman? Which young person can show the greatest arrogance toward those with decades of experience under their belts? Which intelligent person can best reduce a complicated topic to pabulum for the masses?

lol

Marianne!! no!!

truly a Ross Perot for our times

I notice the Chapbros have been quieter about singing the praises of the orb.

"hard working, middle class" dinner table "how we gonna pay the bills?!" scenario ever again

...

it flatters voters by imagining they are all dedicated financial planners who spend large amounts of time creating written budgets which they then track scrupulously and readjust constantly. In real life, they mostly just wing it from week to week and worry a lot.

Totally. Our kitchen table discussions are primarily dominated by how much we think we should drink to cope with current reality. Secondly, about whether we can afford the okay booze or need to switch to the slightly worse booze. We're currently at a stalemate because the cheaper the booze, the more you need mixers, and mixers can get expensive quite quickly.

I believe you'll find you can cover all of your bases with a family-sized bottle of Scope.

If one of these candidates tells the story of a hardworking family that has to decided between Netflix and Disney Plus because they can't afford both they will win the nomination

tbh i do have the "how are we gonna pay the bills?!" conversation a lot, it's just that i internalize it and take it out on strangers in a passive aggressive fashion in a public place of commerce, like an adult

good morning!

Scope and tonic with a twist of lime, please.

does anyone have any used rubbing alcohol containers?

has anyone done "(in the race) so long marianne" yet

anyway can we not use the term "pay-fors"

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/16/politics/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all/index.html

RE: all the welfare queen stuff up thread, did anyone read the "The Queen: The Forgotten Life Behind an American Myth"

i have not but i did listen to the Dollop episode about this. wild af.

btw at some point today we passed 12000 posts on this thread. I guess I’m proud of us.

what is the longest ilx thread? we should never switch to a new one. listen, naysayers, first of all use bookmarks (it's one of the three options under every post), secondly if your computer can handle 12K posts it can handle 25K, let's do this

DC has to be pretty long at this point

I’m with Karl, let’s be legends.

Well, it's still much too soon for "2020 Democratic presidential primary II: The Votening". So, I'm all for staying the course with this monster until the eve of the Iowa caucuses.

It kinda feels like there are only three viable candidates left. Maybe I’m wrong but that feels unusual for an out party four months or whatever before the voting even starts

buttigieg is still polling double digits in early (white) states. if biden collapses on stage, his voters might drift that way and then who knows

I could imagine once some of the random low polling candidates start dropping out, maybe one of the 2nd tier candidates will get enough of a boost to be viable.

So long as buttigieg still has money to spend, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain. He's a dark horse who began as a total nobody, but he could inherit Biden's don't-rock-the-boat constituency if Biden stumbles for whatever reason (as Biden is often known to do) and be a power at the convention. Even in losing, he is winning national name recognition and a national constituency to boost his career. He's not going to go away soon, and I predict the more support he wins, the more he'll turn to nasty attacks to chip away at those ahead of him. His donor base won't mind at all if he heaps dirt on Bernie and Warren. Even Biden, if Biden looks too weak.

This campaign has at least 9 months and every single primary and state caucus to go before the convention picks its nominee. That's an eternity.

Tom Steyer is already running TV ads.

Oh my god, he's been on youtube for a couple years with the commercials. Asshole

If the bulk of Tom Steyer's ads are just him saying billionaires like himself need to be taxed a hell of a lot more and it is more than fair to do so, then I don't mind if he blankets the media with them. I'd view them as PSAs.

this makes some sense (and is not good)

He's also got a much different base from Biden, though. College educated, youngish, and, so far, very white. To me, it's not clear whether Buttigieg is more of a problem for Biden or for Warren, whose base overlaps more with his. https://t.co/xQjp3ZNavy

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 16, 2019

The scenario where Buttigieg surges and wins Iowa, turning NH and NV into free-for-alls before a possible big win for Biden in SC, is one of the more plausible ways where Warren stumbles.

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 16, 2019

nate bronze predicting it makes me feel more assured it won't happen

This campaign has at least 9 months to go

ffs

NBC took one of Bernie’s best quotes from the debate and attributed it to Warren. Totally shameless. pic.twitter.com/TN2xd05Bnq

— Samuel D. Finkelstein II (@CANCEL_SAM) October 17, 2019

NYMag did this too apparently?? can't decide if malice or incompetence

what is the longest ilx thread?

pitchfork is dumb has 15k+ posts

That one needs to remain longer than any politics thread if this site is to maintain any kind of coherent identity

idk Buttigieg as Warren's biggest threat in Iowa and possibly winning isn't out of the realm of possibility

looking at the polls right now, Pete is doing surprisingly well in Iowa right now. is his ground game there really that strong? he's way out of contention in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

I would say we shouldn't give Iowa so much power but South Carolina Dems seemingly can't wait to put Uncle Joe in the White House.

A chunk of them are black voters.

do we have to restate the obvious