11th February 2020, 12:07 PM
Electability! The circular reasoning that says you shouldn't vote for someone because they aren't electable. You know, a self fulfilling prophecy. Or self defeating in this case, like Y2K and (hopefully) global warming.
Now, there are a few ways to know if someone has a shot at being elected in advance (presumably what electability is). One of those ways is to run a primary. Sanders is off to a good start there, so hey, he seems more electable on that metric compared to Biden. However, is that fair? Doesn't that only tell us how the left will vote? Two things. First, the POINT of a primary is to pick someone that is electable, isn't it? If you're going to say that the person that does best in the primary has no shot in the general, why exactly are we doing primaries? Secondly, if you allow more independants, you get a wider view beyond JUST the democratic party, better feeding that primary purpose of the um- primary. It is wrong, I think, to say that independants necessarily reflect the vanishing "centrist wing" of the American public though. More and more, the independants represent idealogical extremes that aren't being met by either party. Right now, the republican party is meeting the far right, but the progressives feel the democratic party has betrayed them (evidence, this very thread you're reading, ABF), so THOSE are the influencers needed. Thirdly, kill the caucus. I mean, that's more of an objective than a point, but objective sustained! Forthly, don't suggest, as certain Goldbergs have, that the progressive wing needs to form their own party. They did that, multiple times, dating back to the 90's. Every single time the democrats yelled at the 3rd parties for "election spoiling", as though they have no right to exist and "meddle" with the two party system. So, fine, progressives accept that it's a two party system and they have to target a party to change it from within. Yes, we are trying to completely overthrow the party establishment and utterly redefine what a democrat is. That's the goal, that's the POINT of all this. If that upsets you, sorry but we're not sorry. We would have done it to the republicans but frankly there's a better chance of success in the democratic wing. Hey, maybe if we get that election reform thing going with an amendment to shift the entire electoral process to something like either ranked voting or scored voting (I prefer the latter) we can BREAK the two party system forever, but you know who isn't EVER going to let that happen right now? BOTH parties in the two party system.
So what about the OTHER way to determine who's electable? Well, there's always polls. Sanders tops the polls now. Well, that could change, we're only two states in. But- how do you look at poll after poll saying not just that Sanders leads nationally, not just that Sanders leads in a majority of state primaries, but also that he's stronger on the issues AND that he has the best matchup against Trump and THEN say that Sanders isn't electable? What then is it? I submit that at that point it's either denial or a transparent attempt to sway voters into not voting thus "proving" the initial thesis.
I guess what I'm saying is that right now, as the polls stand, Sanders is the most electable.
But hey, there's always the "we'll lose the senate!" argument. This is why I don't subscribe to cults of personality. There are numerous house and senate races going on right now where progressives are jumping into the fray to shift the party in both wings of congress. They are VERY important, and while I saw a lot of focus on those smaller races even up through the start of the new year, I'm seeing distressing silence on them for the past few weeks. That can't happen. We need to get out word on those progressive state level candidates too, and even the governer races across the nation. Kansas, KANSAS has a democrat for governer, this is doable.
Oh and I've been meaning to say this. Sanders DID support Hillary. He ran more rallies boosting her than ANYONE else save Hillary's own family. As for fighting dirty, Sanders did no such thing. He famously runs purely on policy. Hillary was the one that fought dirty, against Obama, and her own supporters didn't support Obama in that election. I mean, neither did Sanders in Hillary's election run, but number by number it would appear that Hillary's supporters supported Obama LESS than Sander's supporters supported Hillary.
That should diffuse any lingering resentment towards the man after 2016, I hope.
Okay fine, to be fair (and balanced) I should add things I disagree with Sanders on, since it's pretty clear after this I'm leaning heavily towards him. I'd have swung for Warren if she didn't seem to be tanking as of late (plus her odd choice to turn a single health care battle into TWO health care battles), but here we are. I prefer scored voting to ranked voting. Mathematically, it manages to avoid the problems any voting system that forces individuals to pick a winner does, and I think overall it's better to shoot for the superior option than have to revise it again later on. That's a more nuanced one. Here's a clearer one. Recently Sanders was asked if he still believes, as he wrote about 50 years ago, that billionaires should be "outlawed". He went into his policy hard, which is fine, but he dodged the question. I think he should have been direct and said a straight "banning" law isn't his policy now, and that rather he is focusing on taxing those making more than enough to live out every fantasy they've ever had. In other words, an answer more like "no not in that form" would have been the right one. Dodgy answers never sit well. Okay, minor as well.
"Have you seen Joe Rogan's podcast?"
Too many people ask me this. He's crazy popular. I don't like him, I don't like his views. No, I don't watch it. But, he recently promoted Sanders. Their positions on trans people are opposite, so what does that mean? Will Sanders compromise his views? Well, so far, that hasn't happened. He hasn't changed any of his policies, and frankly Rogan seems to be the one changing his views to be more alligned with progressive values. That's a win, also if ALL the people watching his podcast are hearing him promote Sanders, FOR his views, then they're going to have eye opening moments reviewing it. Rogan promoted Sanders to a massive field of people that honestly need their views changed, and Sanders didn't need to compromise one bit.
That's good, BUT! Then Sanders promoted the promotion, he boosted Rogan. He didn't need to do that, REALLY didn't need to because Joe Rogan ALREADY has a major platform, and it turned off a number of trans supporters in the process. That was a bad move. The better move would have been simply to ignore it and continue, let the benefits swarm in and compromise nothing. So yes, that one still stings. In the context of the rest of the platform though, it's no deal breaker any more than Warren's previous positions are for her, and the progressive side of the candidates as a whole have FAR fewer nasty surprises than say, Bloomberg.
Oh yes, Bloomberg's coming. Just you wait, he's been swarming the airwaves here in Oklahoma, HERE! And he's got billions, you know, THOUSANDS OF MILLIONS, so he's never going to exhaust himself. He's in this until the very end, you know, as a hobby. He BOUGHT a change in the rules just to get himself on the debate stage. So, the rest of the party especially the progressives now have to deal with the last hurrah- massive outspending the likes of which no one has ever seen before. From the man who instituted Stop & Frisk. That program that systemically if not explicitly targeted people of color, and got Bloomberg the Ice Key in his old save file. He is currently claiming that he "realized it didn't work and ended it". Yes, he ended it, because of a court order, which he fought against hard. He didn't Swap out Stop & Frisk because of a change of heart or because of the sheer weight of statistical evidence, no, he argued instead that it was fine that people of color were targeted because for "some reason" (racism) they're just the ones "doing all the crimes". So yeah, don't trust Bloomberg! He's awful, he just hides it better than Trump. In some ways, that's scarier.
Now, there are a few ways to know if someone has a shot at being elected in advance (presumably what electability is). One of those ways is to run a primary. Sanders is off to a good start there, so hey, he seems more electable on that metric compared to Biden. However, is that fair? Doesn't that only tell us how the left will vote? Two things. First, the POINT of a primary is to pick someone that is electable, isn't it? If you're going to say that the person that does best in the primary has no shot in the general, why exactly are we doing primaries? Secondly, if you allow more independants, you get a wider view beyond JUST the democratic party, better feeding that primary purpose of the um- primary. It is wrong, I think, to say that independants necessarily reflect the vanishing "centrist wing" of the American public though. More and more, the independants represent idealogical extremes that aren't being met by either party. Right now, the republican party is meeting the far right, but the progressives feel the democratic party has betrayed them (evidence, this very thread you're reading, ABF), so THOSE are the influencers needed. Thirdly, kill the caucus. I mean, that's more of an objective than a point, but objective sustained! Forthly, don't suggest, as certain Goldbergs have, that the progressive wing needs to form their own party. They did that, multiple times, dating back to the 90's. Every single time the democrats yelled at the 3rd parties for "election spoiling", as though they have no right to exist and "meddle" with the two party system. So, fine, progressives accept that it's a two party system and they have to target a party to change it from within. Yes, we are trying to completely overthrow the party establishment and utterly redefine what a democrat is. That's the goal, that's the POINT of all this. If that upsets you, sorry but we're not sorry. We would have done it to the republicans but frankly there's a better chance of success in the democratic wing. Hey, maybe if we get that election reform thing going with an amendment to shift the entire electoral process to something like either ranked voting or scored voting (I prefer the latter) we can BREAK the two party system forever, but you know who isn't EVER going to let that happen right now? BOTH parties in the two party system.
So what about the OTHER way to determine who's electable? Well, there's always polls. Sanders tops the polls now. Well, that could change, we're only two states in. But- how do you look at poll after poll saying not just that Sanders leads nationally, not just that Sanders leads in a majority of state primaries, but also that he's stronger on the issues AND that he has the best matchup against Trump and THEN say that Sanders isn't electable? What then is it? I submit that at that point it's either denial or a transparent attempt to sway voters into not voting thus "proving" the initial thesis.
I guess what I'm saying is that right now, as the polls stand, Sanders is the most electable.
But hey, there's always the "we'll lose the senate!" argument. This is why I don't subscribe to cults of personality. There are numerous house and senate races going on right now where progressives are jumping into the fray to shift the party in both wings of congress. They are VERY important, and while I saw a lot of focus on those smaller races even up through the start of the new year, I'm seeing distressing silence on them for the past few weeks. That can't happen. We need to get out word on those progressive state level candidates too, and even the governer races across the nation. Kansas, KANSAS has a democrat for governer, this is doable.
Oh and I've been meaning to say this. Sanders DID support Hillary. He ran more rallies boosting her than ANYONE else save Hillary's own family. As for fighting dirty, Sanders did no such thing. He famously runs purely on policy. Hillary was the one that fought dirty, against Obama, and her own supporters didn't support Obama in that election. I mean, neither did Sanders in Hillary's election run, but number by number it would appear that Hillary's supporters supported Obama LESS than Sander's supporters supported Hillary.
That should diffuse any lingering resentment towards the man after 2016, I hope.
Okay fine, to be fair (and balanced) I should add things I disagree with Sanders on, since it's pretty clear after this I'm leaning heavily towards him. I'd have swung for Warren if she didn't seem to be tanking as of late (plus her odd choice to turn a single health care battle into TWO health care battles), but here we are. I prefer scored voting to ranked voting. Mathematically, it manages to avoid the problems any voting system that forces individuals to pick a winner does, and I think overall it's better to shoot for the superior option than have to revise it again later on. That's a more nuanced one. Here's a clearer one. Recently Sanders was asked if he still believes, as he wrote about 50 years ago, that billionaires should be "outlawed". He went into his policy hard, which is fine, but he dodged the question. I think he should have been direct and said a straight "banning" law isn't his policy now, and that rather he is focusing on taxing those making more than enough to live out every fantasy they've ever had. In other words, an answer more like "no not in that form" would have been the right one. Dodgy answers never sit well. Okay, minor as well.
"Have you seen Joe Rogan's podcast?"
Too many people ask me this. He's crazy popular. I don't like him, I don't like his views. No, I don't watch it. But, he recently promoted Sanders. Their positions on trans people are opposite, so what does that mean? Will Sanders compromise his views? Well, so far, that hasn't happened. He hasn't changed any of his policies, and frankly Rogan seems to be the one changing his views to be more alligned with progressive values. That's a win, also if ALL the people watching his podcast are hearing him promote Sanders, FOR his views, then they're going to have eye opening moments reviewing it. Rogan promoted Sanders to a massive field of people that honestly need their views changed, and Sanders didn't need to compromise one bit.
That's good, BUT! Then Sanders promoted the promotion, he boosted Rogan. He didn't need to do that, REALLY didn't need to because Joe Rogan ALREADY has a major platform, and it turned off a number of trans supporters in the process. That was a bad move. The better move would have been simply to ignore it and continue, let the benefits swarm in and compromise nothing. So yes, that one still stings. In the context of the rest of the platform though, it's no deal breaker any more than Warren's previous positions are for her, and the progressive side of the candidates as a whole have FAR fewer nasty surprises than say, Bloomberg.
Oh yes, Bloomberg's coming. Just you wait, he's been swarming the airwaves here in Oklahoma, HERE! And he's got billions, you know, THOUSANDS OF MILLIONS, so he's never going to exhaust himself. He's in this until the very end, you know, as a hobby. He BOUGHT a change in the rules just to get himself on the debate stage. So, the rest of the party especially the progressives now have to deal with the last hurrah- massive outspending the likes of which no one has ever seen before. From the man who instituted Stop & Frisk. That program that systemically if not explicitly targeted people of color, and got Bloomberg the Ice Key in his old save file. He is currently claiming that he "realized it didn't work and ended it". Yes, he ended it, because of a court order, which he fought against hard. He didn't Swap out Stop & Frisk because of a change of heart or because of the sheer weight of statistical evidence, no, he argued instead that it was fine that people of color were targeted because for "some reason" (racism) they're just the ones "doing all the crimes". So yeah, don't trust Bloomberg! He's awful, he just hides it better than Trump. In some ways, that's scarier.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)