This is 100% the problem. Remember when Biden said that once Trump was out of office, the GOP would become more reasonable because, “the fever will break?” Remember when Nancy Pelosi said we need a, “a strong Republican Party?” They’re saying that Trump is an existential threat to democracy, but they’re not acting like they believe it.
They don’t offer any solutions other than, “vote harder.” Can’t reach the 60 vote threshold to get legislation through the senate? Well, eliminating the filibuster is too extreme, you’ll just have to vote harder. The Supreme Court is remaking the country into a fascistic theocracy? Well, stacking the court would go against tradition, you’ll just have to vote harder.
Even now, after the Supreme Court has granted the President unprecedented powers, Biden is more concerned with preserving norms. As he said:
I know I will respect the limits of the presidential power, as I have for three and a half years. But any president, including Donald Trump, will now be free to ignore the law.
So this is the message: “I have been granted insane amount of power, but I won’t use it because that would be irresponsible. However, my opponent, a convicted felon who instigated an insurrection, will use that power to do awful things. Guess you’ll have to vote harder!”
Republicans aren’t decent people with differing beliefs, our system of checks and balances is falling apart, and a rousing speech is not going to change anyone’s mind. The Democrats need to do whatever it takes to win, even if it means dumping Biden, and wield what power they have now, before they lose it forever.
Well, eliminating the filibuster is too extreme, you’ll just have to vote harder.
The Ds didn’t just decide not to kill the filibuster because it was too extreme, the goddamn billionaires BOUGHT Manchin and Sinema which killed that effort in the cradle. It’s already bad enough, you don’t need bend the truth.
Bending the truth is pretending that Biden didn’t insist that the filibuster was important and refused to call for it to be abolished for a full 2 years into his presidency. He spent the first two years convincing himself he was a brilliant negotiator who was going to break through partisan gridlock, and when he finally realized he couldn’t get voting rights through (because of course Republicans don’t want voting rights) he finally called for it to be abolished…sort of, because he still wanted the verbal filibuster to be an option. Probably because he watched too much West Wing and thought it would make a cool Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-like scene.
Even if a rousing speech would change things, they don’t have anyone capable of giving one.
Most self aware NYT journalist.
Never! I want my Bartlet presidency! Pleaseeee
Cries
Freakanomics had a decent podcast on framing RNC and DNC as a duopoly. Like coke and Pepsi before Dr Pepper, only in this system there is no and never will be a Dr Pepper. And the current duopoly system doesn’t work without mutual collusion. Given the amount of money both take in on the regular, business is a good analogy.
DNC is running on inertia and complacency. Inertia put Hillary in as the candidate when we had Bernie. Hod forbid the dreaded “change” should have a chance to occur. Complacency got us Joe. Both times. The moderate status quo shit is killing us by degrees.
Project 2025 has already been jump started by SCOTUS and the great orange cockroach will apparently live forever.
I think we’re fucked.
The DNC is controlled opposition for the owner class. They exist to attract and squash any substantial change to our current system, and to give you hope that such change is still possible so long as you stay civil and play by the rules.
What would you be doing right now if every single person in government behaved like Republicans?
?
The duopoly is the result of FPTP + Hotelling’s Law, as far as I can tell. That’s absolutely something worth worrying about and solving (including the resulting “strategic” efforts by the DNC to kneecap anyone who tries to pull them to the left), but you are just asserting based on nothing that they are mutually colluding to do it when there’s no reason at all to think that as far as I can see.
There are third parties, they just don’t have any support and the FPTP system is exactly why. If a third party with more leftist ideals form, they’d siphon most of their voters from the Democrats, which means that Republicans would have a bigger bloc and win. So to mitigate the worst result, it is strategically more valuable to vote for the one of the two biggest parties that you hate the least.
Proportional representation and the popular vote would make it easier for more parties to gain influence and in turn get voters.
So let’s recap
Biden BOMBED the debate
NYT printed a bunch of stories (like, more than they have and more frequently than on any other single topic for years including the insurrection) about how this was an objective disaster for Biden and there was no possible way he could win now
Polls came out, showing anywhere from 0 to 2 points of loss of support even after an absolutely historic fuckup
Polls investigating why that is, for some reason, are kind of hard to find, our media preferring to run weird slanted polls where they ask more or less “Why did Biden fuck up so bad and do you really want to continue to support him now?”. But the few of them that can be found investigating the more data driven issue report voters saying, more or less, that sure Biden is old but his opponent is an angry malicious liar who is an objective catastrophe for the country and that’s more important to me
So then after all that, the NYT runs a story today saying here’s what the Democrats don’t understand, the voters are influenced by style, not substance. If the Democrats want to stop being wrong about everything and losing they need to understand that.
Do I have my summary correct?
Not to mention the authors thesis is Democratic politicians have “west wing brain” and then proceeds forward with his own WWB idea; a frankly ridiculous assumption that Democratic politicians consider politics “a higher calling that flawed but idealistic people engage in from a place of civic pride.”
The idea that the Democratic party is just “a bunch of feckless dreamers” getting tricked by rascally fascists they need to get tough on is the most childish example of political understanding I’ve had the pleasure of laughing at this morning (and i got up early today).
Yeah, there’s that, too. It is just standard narrative-comes-first NYT horseshit
That is why the Democratic leadership kneecapped Bernie Sanders and DGAF that Biden is reducing income inequality and are trying to push him out now because of a vastly overblown panic about his image which far exceeds the degree to which the electorate seems to care about his image
They’re just a bunch of impractical hopeless dreamers who aren’t even aware of the seamy realpolitik of Washington DC, those DNC folk. If only someone could get them to be more cynical and corrupt, that might save us.
NYT is right though. Voters are generally influenced by style over substance. There’s a reason Bush and Obama went out of their way to get photographed having a beer with normal people. Campaigns aren’t about a test of ideologies. They’re high school popularity contests. And out of these two candidates I know who the student body will elect.
The polls I see put it at about 50-50 ( from Fivethirtyeight.com ).
Your summary is wrong. They put out an opinion piece arguing that the DNC underestimates the threat from the GOP. I agree, they’re running a pathetically weak campaign against someone who will probably end democracy and might have them all killed.
Yeah, it’s basically a dead heat in national polls; it is pointless given the incredible number of issues that make it more complex to look at than just “which number in the national polling is higher” to get any level of heated about swings up or down by single percentage points in the national poll, much less “should Biden drop out?” or similar questions.
None of this is to say there is no problem. 538’s overall bottom line estimate which takes into account factors way more complex than I have dug into, arrives at an ultimate output of Biden having about a 25% chance of winning the election. That’s probably the closest thing we have to an overall “what’s the likely election outcome” polling barometer. I’m just sort of talking about poking holes in the lazy and partisan way it tends to be analyzed when the media talks about polling.
Edit: Wait WHAT THE SHIT
I went looking for the summary model to send that said 25%, and found this - Nate Silver gives Biden overall a 52% chance to win. WHEN THE FUCK DID THIS HAPPEN
Was I just looking at the 2020 model before and not realizing it, or something? Have I become so dyslexic that I read 52 as 25 even when there was a whole chart and everything?
My world is upended and my morning is somewhat happier now. @Ensign_crab@lemmy.world hey dude I love polls again
Nate Silver is not at 538 any more. I believe his model has gives Biden 35% or so, but it’s paywalled so I’m not entirely sure
Not to mention fucking CNN now run by Trump supporters has been doing the same.
Really? CNN and USA Today, of all papers, seemed to me like they’d been doing this weirdly high level of actual journalism recently. Was CNN doing all fuck-Biden all the time in the same way and I just didn’t notice?
CNN flipped owners in 2022 and has been shifting. That’s why so many people were telling Biden not to agree to CNN hosted debates. It was literally a trap. Even if he had done well they would have ignored it and talked about something else.
You missed the part where news organizations are not a singular monolith but rather composed of numerous individuals that don’t all feel/think the same way let alone hold the same opinions in an op-ed.
Remind me again how many local news stations are owned by ClearChannel again? Do you not remember the video showing local morning broadcasts from around the country and them all being the exact same script repeated verbatim?
No, no we don’t have a wide swath of sources. We have many disguised as independent, but the sad fact is, few are.
You’re not wrong. It is however notable that the NYT’s editorial stance on Biden’s performance and place in the Democratic strategy was a monolith, and one that was misaligned with both the voters’ opinions and the objective reality, up until a couple of days ago possibly in my opinion because word of some level of lost subscribers started reaching back up to the monolith’s office.
I really agree with both of you here. While there was an article or two posted with the opposite narrative, the NYT used their editorial discretion in a fairly flagrant way on this issue. It stood in stark contrast to other issues that they have gone out of their way to keep a neutral stance on as an overall paper (which I applaud). I’m not opposed to the newsroom, editorial team, or contributing writers having a stance unlike mine. I’m not the type to say “fuck all the media” all the time and think they’re generally diverse groups of professionals trying their best and sometimes failing. The fact that the NYT op-ed page and front page were just plastered in a single perspective though, without an opposing narrative, was just really blatant on this issue.
I was one of those canceled subs. I canceled WaPo after their disastrous leadership developments too. I’m basically running on cables and international outlets now, which is a real shame because I like to read other perspectives presented well, which the op-ed teams at those agencies are capable of doing.
That’s all fine and well, but this is a contributing writer. She’s not even an employee of the NYT.
