Is Mr Biden Trying to Lose the Election?

[Sunstone]

Not what I'm saying at all

My thought is that most voters aren't voting "because progressive".

The risk is that significant numbers of progressives will be so alienated by the Democratic establishment's behavior that they will sit this one out or vote third party. Of course, most will vote for Mr. Biden, but it doesn't always take a lot of votes to swing an election. Had Mr. Nader's 5,000 votes in New Hampshire gone to Mr. Gore, Mr. Gore would have been president, and not Mr. Bush.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To be clear, I am determined to vote for Biden/Harris come any obstacle to doing so short of being struck by a comet.

And to be clear, I continue to be a Stacy Abrams supporter. Still. there's some truth to be found in the NYT article

Progressives Didn't Want Harris for V.P. They're Backing Her Anyway

“At the end of the day, this isn’t some democratic decision,” said Evan Weber, the political director for the Sunrise Movement, the climate advocacy group, which endorsed Mr. Sanders in the primary. “This was always going to be a decision that was up to the vice president and a personal one of his.” ... “I don’t know that the left is more excited by the Harris-Biden ticket than they would’ve been otherwise,” Mr. Weber said. “But it’s clear that she’s to the left of Biden and she’s been more accountable to movements throughout her career.”
​

That last sentence is critically important.

 

[icehorse]

The risk is that significant numbers of progressives will be so alienated by the Democratic establishment's behavior that they will sit this one out or vote third party. Of course, most will vote for Mr. Biden, but it doesn't always take a lot of votes to swing an election. Had Mr. Nader's 5,000 votes in New Hampshire gone to Mr. Gore, Mr. Gore would have been president, and not Mr. Bush.

Yup, I'm mostly with you.

My question though is how many people vote because they think their political category matches the political category of the candidate?

 

[exchemist]

In 2016, Mr Trump won the electoral college but lost the popular vote by about 3 million. He won the electoral college by wining three key states that were predicted to go for Ms. Clinton. He won them by less than 100,000 votes.

My point is how did he get 49% of the popular vote (which I understand he did)? To do that, he had to appeal way beyond the Tea Party and the Qanon nutcases. He must have got a lot of votes from ordinary, sensible, middle-of-the-road people. Those will be the people Biden/Harris needs to win over, this time round, which they won't do by playing to the leftwing gallery.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It makes quite a bit of sense. I think just about any political analyst would tell you that turn-out is key to winning elections here for both the Republicans and the Democrats. The dynamic goes something like this, Dave. In general, there are more Democrats in America than there are Republicans. However, Republicans tend to turn out more faithfully than Democrats. Meanwhile, the majority of eligible Americans don't vote at all.

Consequently, the Republicans try to suppress voter turnout, while the Democrats try to encourage it. That's simplifying it a little bit, but you get the idea. Republicans are big on voter suppression, Democrats are big on voter registration, and other turn-out tools.

Now, Mr. Trump is an exceptionally unpopular president. Hence, this year you are seeing an unprecedented voter suppression campaign from him. He's doing things to suppress the vote never done before -- most notably, he's slowing down mail delivery to mess with mail-in ballots, which polls show are much more likely to be used by Democrats than by Republicans.

People who think Mr. Biden has this thing wrapped up are politically naive. Mr. Trump is within striking distance of Mr. Biden even without voter suppression. In addition, Mr. Biden seems hellbent on alienating the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. He talks a fine line about reaching out to it, but the establishment Democrats, very much including Mr. Biden, see this election as a shoe-in for their candidate (due to Mr. Trump's unpopularity), so they do not feel they need the progressives behind them to win.

Time will tell what happens.

Thanks, that makes sense (and I get that you're broad-brushing a little to make it clear to me).

It's a very interesting topic to me. We have mandatory, preferential voting. The impact of that appears much less subtle, and much more direct than I would have assumed 10 years ago.

The willingness to vote for third party candidates, and the political impacts of such votes is closely aligned to preferential voting, I think.

 

[Watchmen]

Rice would have been a good pick. I personally liked Tulsi and Klobachar.

 

[Watchmen]

Harris is the Aaron Burr of this election.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news....
Exclusive: Harris could help Biden with women, young voters, maybe some Republicans too - Reuters/Ipsos poll

 

[Sunstone]

My point is how did he get 49% of the popular vote (which I understand he did)? To do that, he had to appeal way beyond the Tea Party and the Qanon nutcases. He must have got a lot of votes from ordinary, sensible, middle-of-the-road people. Those will be the people Biden/Harris needs to win over, this time round, which they won't do by playing to the leftwing gallery.

I think you are making a number of assumptions about American politics, some of which I believe are warranted, and some of which I believe are unwarranted. There were in fact several reasons that came together to give Mr. Trump 46% of the popular vote. Those reasons range from the simple, but key, fact that a very large percentage of the electorate on both sides of the aisle habitually (and invariably) vote for the same party in election after election, to the much more nuanced affect that decades of neoliberal policies had on the Democrat's prospects. Let's talk about the latter.

Go back 40 or more years in this country, and the Democrats are in many respects ideologically and in practice aligned with not only most of the middle class, but especially with the economic interests of the working class. That begins to change under Mr. Carter. Over the following decades, the Party shifts its core alignment from the economic interests of the working class to the interests of the managerial class. This understandably leaves the working class feeling abandoned. Many become Republicans in response to social issues, but the Republicans are no more interested in their economic interests than are the new -- or neoliberal -- Democrats.

Enter Mr. Trump. In 2016, he runs as a Washington outsider and populist on -- among other things -- economic promises attractive to the working class, such as a better universal healthcare system than "Obamacare". Several of Mr. Trump's 2016 economic ideas were left of center among the elites, and center among the masses. They got him a lot of votes, along with several other factors, such as his promise to appoint judges that would overthrow Roe v Wade and allow for the criminalization of abortion, his racism, his misogyny, etc. All of those things and more contributed to his getting 46.1% of the vote. Of course, as we all know now, Mr. Trump dropped most of his economic populism the moment he got elected, and the working class once again got screwed.

 

[Sunstone]

Yup, I'm mostly with you.

My question though is how many people vote because they think their political category matches the political category of the candidate?

Offhand, I would say most people prefer to vote for a candidate they perceive as sharing their politics. In presidential elections, however, many people are not offered candidates who are good matches for their politics. Most of those then adopt a strategy of voting for the lesser of two evils. At least, that's my impression.

 

[exchemist]

I think you are making a number of assumptions about American politics, some of which are unwarranted. There were in fact several reasons that came together to give Mr. Trump 46% of the popular vote. Those reasons range from the simple, but key, fact that a very large percentage of the electorate on both sides of the aisle habitually (and invariably) vote for the same party in election after election, to the much more nuanced affect that decades of neoliberal policies had on the Democrat's prospects. Let's talk about the latter.

Go back 40 or more years in this country, and the Democrats are in many respects ideologically and in practice aligned with not only most of the middle class, but especially with the economic interests of the working class. That begins to change under Mr. Carter. Over the following decades, the Party shifts its core alignment from the economic interests of the working class to the interests of the managerial class. This understandably leaves the working class feeling abandoned. Many become Republicans in response to social issues, but the Republicans are no more interested in their economic interests than are the new -- or neoliberal -- Democrats.

Enter Mr. Trump. In 2016, he runs as a Washington outsider and populist on -- among other things -- economic promises attractive to the working class, such as a better universal healthcare system than "Obamacare". Several of Mr. Trump's 2016 economic ideas were left of center among the elites, and center among the masses. They got him a lot of votes, along with several other factors, such as his promise to appoint judges that would overthrow Roe v Wade and allow for the criminalization of abortion, his racism, his misogyny, etc. All of those things and more contributed to his getting 46.1% of the vote. Of course, as we all know now, Mr. Trump dropped most of his economic populism the moment he got elected, and the working class once again got screwed.

Well there you are, then, that's exactly what I'm getting at. Now we are getting somewhere. Trump made a promise to the people who felt left behind economically, who had previously voted Democrat. It was all lies, of course, but they bought it and backed him. The key question must be: do those people now perceive he lied to them, or do they still have faith that with another term he may deliver the benefits they hoped for? And what do Biden and Harris have to say to these "left behind" people?

 

[tytlyf]

I think it's obvious Kamala is to the left of Biden. Abrams wouldn't have been as rock solid a choice as Harris. This is more than VP, you have to take into the fact that the VP could be president. Same would have happened with Bernie.
Americans wouldn't have viewed Abrams as ready to be president as they would towards Harris. Progressives yes, but the majority would not.
You'd only be hurting the chances of Biden if Abrams were VP. Harris is a more responsible and safer choice. And a fellow progressive as well.

 

[Watchmen]

I think it's obvious Kamala is to the left of Biden. Abrams wouldn't have been as rock solid a choice as Harris. This is more than VP, you have to take into the fact that the VP could be president. Same would have happened with Bernie.
Americans wouldn't have viewed Abrams as ready to be president as they would towards Harris. Progressives yes, but the majority would not.
You'd only be hurting the chances of Biden if Abrams were VP. Harris is a more responsible and safer choice. And a fellow progressive as well.

Keep drinking the kool aid. Harris is a disaster. An absolutely terrible pick.

 

[exchemist]

Keep drinking the kool aid. Harris is a disaster. An absolutely terrible pick.

Why do you think that?

 

[Watchmen]

Why do you think that?

She’s the Aaron Burr of this election.

 

[exchemist]

She’s the Aaron Burr of this election.

Help me a bit. I'm from the UK. I've no idea about Aaron Burr.

 

[Watchmen]

Help me a bit. I'm from the UK. I've no idea about Aaron Burr.

You should know about Aaron Burr! He was part of the revolution! Lol

Harris, like Burr, doesn’t really stand for anything. She just says/does what she thinks the people want to hear to extend her career. I don’t think she has any core beliefs. She’s also shallow on her understanding of the issues. All emoting, no substance.

 

[exchemist]

You should know about Aaron Burr! He was part of the revolution! Lol

Harris, like Burr, doesn’t really stand for anything. She just says/does what she thinks the people want to hear to extend her career. I don’t think she has any core beliefs. She’s also shallow on her understanding of the issues. All emoting, no substance.

Aha, thanks. That could be a problem, then. I'll watch events with that characterisation in mind.

 

[tytlyf]

Keep drinking the kool aid. Harris is a disaster. An absolutely terrible pick.

What Kool aid? I understand you drink RW kook-aid. Because every other person who loves radical right media repeats what you just said.
Stop letting Hannity do all the thinking for you

 

[Watchmen]

What Kool aid? I understand you drink RW kook-aid. Because every other person who loves radical right media repeats what you just said.
Stop letting Hannity do all the thinking for you

I’m not right wing. I don’t watch Hannity. I presented a topic for discussion. You can participate or not.