Democratic (Party) Direction

Did you have a problem with Biden promising to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, or do you have a problem with Newsom saying that he would appoint a black woman to fill Feinstein's seat if she vacated the Senate? Those are better examples of deliberate inclusion.

that was not at all what I was thinking about when I agreed with table's comment? Kinda confused where you're getting that? My mention of Thomas was a "captain obvious" way of illustrating what is more contentious in the case of Harris. ... that there isn't inherent racial solidarity, the positions that Thomas took are going to most negatively impact Black people, and in the case of abortion, Black Women.

There is also a systemic structural problem that table and others (e.g. milo) bring up which is the roles they inhabit, some are basically pre-determined to act against the interests of the marginalized identities they embody. Kamala _was_ a cop. She acted on behalf of the repressive state apparatus. I feel like the contention here is "how much should that count against her?"

I end up being more pragmatic about these things (than perhaps I should? idk) and I believe that everyone, in order to effect real change, ends up having to compromise and negotiate. And maybe that's really why we are all arguing ... what are we willing to compromise

What disagreement? I asked if people had a problem with these two instances of deliberate inclusion strategy of Black women.

ufo was the only one to say unequivocally that it's not a problem. The other two people to reply listed a number of problems as their form of response, so I assume for them it is a problem. And one to such an extent they don't think it's possible to commit to an inclusion strategy in these cases as an upfront priority and then find someone qualified from the vast pool of Black women that could satisfy their particular needs and goals.

I don't think table knows enough about my body of work to assume, based on this, that we don't agree on many policies. But who knows, maybe he is a secret fan.

Does ‘it should not be a center-right Black woman’ indicate opposition to inclusion? Is it possible that skepticism has something to do with the centrist white men making these promises rather than the ‘pool of possibilities’?

Committing to replacing Dianne Feinstein with a Black woman is great. I have no reason to trust, however, that anyone seated by the Democratic Party will have good politics regardless of their identity.

(I think the strategy of deliberate inclusion is meant to inspire youth (as Obama did). So maybe a loss now could be recovered later. I do think it makes a difference to be able to identify/relate.)

(My gut feeling is that Harris is not at all close to Thomas and that her true beliefs are to the left of center, maybe not by much, if it is even possible to align issues on one axis.)

I do think it makes a difference to be able to identify/relate

i totally agree with this fwiw. When I was in college (last century ... I am an old), a lot of what I studied and read academically was focused on visibility and role models and media representation of various marginalized identities in non-stereotypical roles. But also, the curriculum included criticism of ways in which that was problematic, and how power is constructed, and how having a film or tv show with a lead actor who is black or female playing a cop (as many of these examples were)... is not a clear victory for feminism or racial justice.

and I apologize if what I'm saying is "yeah yeah we all know this. This is basic. Why are you even spelling this out?" ... but I feel like at this point, a number of people in this thread are making assumptions about other posters and where they are coming from, and what their assumptions are ... and maybe the basic baby steps are useful?

Bill Clinton strikes me as someone who got the benefit of the doubt on policy for his poltical skills. Harris has the bad public persona awarded her here and elsewhere also to overcome but that came with the national stage (and why?).

Are you talking retrospectively re Bill Clinton? ILX didn't exist when he was campaigning. Probably a significant number of American ilxors weren't even old enough to vote for him. Not meaning to sound aggressive/defensive ... just, maybe if you can clarify more where you're going with this?

Is Harris being held to a higher standard than, e.g., Clinton before, after, and during his Presidency? I don't know the answer to this question because I don't know enough about their policies and positions and how they evolved over time; my hunch is that she is being held to a higher standard than Clinton. I think many Democratics liked and continue to like Clinton.

Sometimes politicans who succeed in one country might not in another. California might be like another country.

I would say she’s absolutely been held to a higher standard than him. White dudes as a cohort have really coasted. And continue to, obv.

and ftr would happily take Kamala over Bill (even if you time traveled to prime time era Bill and brought him back) as POTUS.

no joke Bill Clinton might have been one of the worst things to ever happen to the Democratic Party

Many Democrats like Harris, too - leftist criticism of her (as a prosecutor/cop, for tacking to the center, etc.) represents a tiny piece of the American populace. She didn't get anywhere in the primaries but neither did the other 12 people splitting the centrist/Vote Blue No Matter Who vote before Super Tuesday. Dedicated Democrats, on the whole, aren't particularly critical of their politicians.

In the post-metoo era and running against a rapist, the Democrats put multiple people with sexual misconduct/assault allegations onstage at the DNC and nobody blinked. (Plus pro-life cretin John Kasich.) The Party really doesn't have standards.

most of the people I know who have issues with Harris, had plenty of issues with Bill Clinton ... and I'm only speaking here about the ones who were adults during Clinton's presidency. A lot of the activism I was around for during his presidency was around the immense media consolidation and focused on anti-globalization and protesting Capitalism in Excelsis -- the WTO protests in Seattle, for example, which you could draw a direct line from to the Occupy movement. ... however the people I know are largely lefists and, as milo said

leftist criticism of her (as a prosecutor/cop, for tacking to the center, etc.) represents a tiny piece of the American populace.

I remember when Harris did her campaign kick-off in my city, at the place local leftists refer to as Oscar Grant Plaza ... and she had the local politicians there supporting her, the mayor, our Congresswoman who has a very high popularity rating ... and my first thought when I saw that this event was happening where it was happening was ... "Why do this here? You know there are going to be a bunch of people there to protest because of her affiliation with law enforcement." ... and if you look at video of the event that shows the crowd, there they were, the protesters. I don't think shit got heated, but ...

Is Harris being held to a higher standard than, e.g., Clinton before, after, and during his Presidency?

question is really, "by who?"

by the general public, certainly harris is being held to a higher standard, but this also comes down to the biden administration's general ineffectiveness during much tougher times & harris being set up to fail by being put in charge of reducing asylum seeker numbers, in addition to her poor performance in interviews.

the left though has much much bigger criticisms of clinton and that's the perspective criticism of harris has been coming from in this thread, though the left is also a bit less marginal now than it was during clinton's era

the definition of "the left" has also changed tbh ...

no joke Bill Clinton might have been one of the worst things to ever happen to the Democratic Party

― no one wants to twerk anymore (will),

Yet the only one who could've won in 1992 (my pick in my first general election: Brown). History sucks like that.

Honestly I just can’t believe in that right person/ right time that stuff any more. Not that it’s wrong per se. But there are just so many random variables at any given moment. Like, as much as I want to retroactively say Bernie Would Have Won in 2016 (something I absolutely generally did not agree with until probably 1-2 years later), it’s purely speculative. Historical fiction in tweet form.

but I won’t argue he wasn’t a dynamite campaigner

Biden woulda won in 2016 (serious)

Yes. Sanders would not have won in 2016. Clinton would've won were it not for BUT HER EMAILS + Comey in late October.

yeah I do suspect a lot of rich democrats would have voted for trump in 2016

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/09/biden-democrats-abortion-dobbs/

For Jennifer Palmieri, a White House communications director under Obama, the criticism was never fair to begin with. “Republicans gamed the system, and they got two Supreme Court justices they shouldn’t have, and those people had a 40-year plan to overturn Roe and they did it. And to continue to blame Biden for the fact that more Americans didn’t vote for Democrats is an epic example of missing the forest,” she said.

“We are in such a bigger fight than what the president of the United States can deliver, and if you’re thinking that it can be solved by a president taking any action in the course of the two weeks after the decision, then you’re not appreciating what a big fight it is and what a precarious moment it is,” Palmieri added.

Democrats should have tried gaming the system or having a 40-year plan maybe?

yeah I do suspect a lot of rich democrats would have voted for trump in 2016

not so sure you're right. some did, maybe, but the republican agenda presents enough temptations to the wealthy that those who consistently choose to vote for democrats probably have some kind of ideological commitment to society apart from becoming wealthier and Hilary was hardly the sort of fire-breathing wild-eyed radical they couldn't bear to see in office. I mean, what do you think Trump offered them that every other republican office seeker didn't?

Polling suggested Sanders could have beaten Trump. Ik not absolutely sure he would have, but I’m not sure what the basis is for claiming he wouldn’t have won other than sort of untested conventional wisdom of the same sort that said Trump couldn’t win.

Anyone less disliked than Clinton and who could pick out Michigan and Wisconsin on a map would have done at least as well in 2016.

Corey Feldman?

you’re not appreciating what a big fight it is and what a precarious moment it is

It's funny because this seems like exactly what pro-choice people have been trying to get across to Biden.

the republican agenda presents enough temptations to the wealthy

The Democrat agenda doesn't differ all that much tbh. It also depends on the source of one's wealth. There have definitely been points in time recently when certain wealthy people felt that the Republican agenda would not be good for their money ... but at this point, in terms of economic impact, the Republicans vs. Democrats are like Chase vs. Wells Fargo. Apologies for any missed opportunity to come up with a more nuanced and apt analogy.

so, I may as well ask you then, what do you think Trump offered to wealthy Democrat voters that was more attractive than the usual run of Republican candidates who they usually rejected in favor of the usual Democrat?

wait what? The states with the highest concentrations of wealthy Democrats were very solid blue ...

Yes. Sanders would not have won in 2016. Clinton would've won were it not for BUT HER EMAILS + Comey in late October.

― Malevolent Arugula (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, July 10, 2022 3:01 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

yeah I do suspect a lot of rich democrats would have voted for trump in 2016

― no one wants to twerk anymore (will), Sunday, July 10, 2022 3:05 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

Will meant rich democrats would have voted for Trump over Bernie, not that rich democrats went Trump in 2016

(I am guessing "source of one's wealth" might matter. If not from income/wages, then the Republican establishment might determine whether or not some potential or former Democrats make it through retirement while maintaining the same standard of living as before without having to work unless they want to. Wealthy Deomacrats might have thought Sanders would change that. Democrats could also win over Republicans who work but do not have inherited wealth. Funding for environmental initiatives might win over wealthy Democrats. I thought Chase vs. WelLs Fargo was apt in terms of geography (and minimal difference in choice implied if intended).)

This was good:

The Democratic Party's leaders need to have a moment where they realize: "We have to find a way to sound really angry, pissed off and insulted by Donald Trump and his followers. We have to do it a way so that whoever watches us knows that we're pissed off in no uncertain terms. We can't act like we are trying to sugarcoat our anger." That is how the Democrats can start to win.

Not that I want to relitigate 2016 election again, but although the narrative was "WE CAN'T AFFORD TO NOT VOTE BLUE" that election, to many voters, the stakes probably felt a lot lower to them personally, because:

1) Most Dem voters thought Trump was done for after "grab em by the pussy", and that Comey's memo was too little too late. and once he lost, the Republican party would be damaged and struggle except of course at mid-term elections.

2) Many voters thought Trump was just saying things to get elected, and that he'd be much more watered-down in office if he got elected (I personally subscribe to the "believe who people say they are" school, but hey)

3) Some (very privileged, accelerationist) voters figured that even if Trump did get elected, the maximum damage that would be done would be another conservative justice replacing Scalia, and this would make the Democratic party capitulate to more progressive candidates...or burn down our institutions so we could start over. Whereas the current SCOTUS scenario is now causing the party and many of its voters to dig in even more on the "blue no matter who" and "electability" bullshit than before. It's probably going to be harder to win support for progressive candidates outside of the House now.

4) Prognosis looked good for Dems to either take the Senate 51-49, or have a 50-50 deadlock, so people felt like if somehow Trump got elected, he'd have a hard time confirming justices as removing the filibuster would have been more difficult and confirmations even more so. and then we got far fewer seats.

Enough people believe one of these four things or more, they don't feel bad staying home, voting third party, voting Trump, etc. because someone else will pick up the slack. Someone that wasn't being investigated by the FBI might have avoided the 2 point bump Comey caused, sure. but going by early polling to say Bernie would have most definitely won, well - polls look very different when they're 'potential candidates' vs when someone actually gets the nomination.

I remember being very anxious about the Romney-Obama election, purely because I thought the Affordable Care Act was gone if that happened. I was less stressed on election day 2016 because I thought it was essentially going to be a victory lap.

Election Day 2020, I was doubled over with anxiety and I wonder if any election will ever feel normal again.

Chase vs. WelLs Fargo was apt in terms of geography (and minimal difference in choice implied if intended).)

that was indeed intended! thank you!

Will meant rich democrats would have voted for Trump over Bernie, not that rich democrats went Trump in 2016

― symsymsym, Monday, July 11, 2022 9:20 AM (fifty-one minutes ago)

that was my understanding of Will's post as well ... so I was ???? when Aimless phrased it as rich democrats voting Trump.

I think a lot of the Republicans (current or former) I know personally who are Never Trumpers now may have, at the time, voted for Trump over Bernie. they will post screed after screed about how corrupt Trump is and then talk about how AOC is killing the Democratic party and how Dems need a moderate candidate to earn their support.

most of these folk I know are businessmen or well-off so....it scans that yeah, Bernie might have lost some votes over $$$$$ and "socialism".

(I think I understand now; sorry for being so dense and reading haphazardly. 'Yeah' was to agree about what happened to Clinton and the rest was to suggest what might have happened if Sanders made it past the primaries. If there needs to be a broader coalition to move forward from the establishment candidate, then that question might be relevant in the future?)

A surprising number of people I talked to after the 2016 election voted for Trump after having voted for Obama twice.

i make no claims to the people I know being representative of America at large. Like, no.

A surprising number of people I talked to after the 2016 election voted for Trump after having voted for Obama twice.

I do too.

I mean, there weren't enough to move the needle, but yeah, more than zero, which is what I would have thought.

Will meant rich democrats would have voted for Trump over Bernie

yes, I misread will's intended meaning. thank you symsymsym,

The thing about the Bernie would have won stuff is that it assumes a world in which the Democratic Party accepts him as the nominee, tells all their rich donors to get behind him, does lots of reassuring messaging, etc, vs a world where, idk, some centrist billionaire launches a third-party candidacy with the silent blessing of party leadership.

The thing about the Bernie would have won stuff is that it assumes a world in which the Democratic Party accepts him as the nominee, tells all their rich donors to get behind him, does lots of reassuring messaging, etc

yeah ... it speaks to the post earlier in this thread about how "the perfect is the enemy of the good" doesn't get applied to candidates to the left of what the party's perceived center is.

Huh. I honestly thought the Obama to Trump voters were mythical. Shows my lack of imagination.
― Antifa Sandwich Artist (Boring, Maryland), Monday, July 11, 2022 2:09 PM (eight hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

I do too.

― Malevolent Arugula (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, July 11, 2022 2:09 PM (eight hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

One explanation I've heard for this is that there's a low-information, racially conservative Democratic voter 10-15 years ago who nonetheless votes for Obama because Obama himself doesn't talk explicitly about race all that much (outside of the Jeremiah Wright speech, which he carefully puts in this universalizing "we all have families that we're stuck with" frame). Obama doesn't talk about race because the very fact of his being African American is enough to attract a multiracial liberal coalition, and because talking about it too much is a liability that would turn off those racially conservative voters.

But then two things happen: 1) Over the course of Obama's presidency, the right weaponizes his race in a way that makes it easier for low-information voters to clearly see Democrats as the party that wants to help nonwhite people, and 2) The historic nature of his presidency and the makeup of his political coalition makes Democrats more comfortable talking explicitly about race than they were before he came on the scene.

So by 2016, those low-information, racially conservative voters are no longer as sympathetic to a Democratic candidate, especially one who is using language like "systemic racism" in speeches as Hillary did, and maybe feel like the way Trump talks is more on their wavelength. Plus, they probably don't feel like Obama helped them much materially, anyway, so they don't have much to lose by switching teams.