United States Politics Thread 47

[Ares Land]

It's a good point, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans really work as a party in the European sense of the word.

With that in mind, though I think "centre" or "centre-right" worked as an analogy until Bernie Sanders came along. That was kind of surprising.
I don't know how important the socialist side of the Democratic party really is. I'm tempted to say: "not that much", but maybe I'm overly cynical.

[Raphael]

You can describe most (not all) Democratic Party politicians as "center-right" on things like socioeconomic policy and international politics. But on issues like community relations and immigration, many (again, not all) of them would count as outright left-wing by European standards.

[Torco]

that's kind of the demopublican/republicrat strategy

While granting that both parties have always had terrible foreign policy, there are plenty of important differences. Just to name one, the Democrats are not trying to rig elections to retain power permanently. They also at least gesture at supporting civil rights for ethnic and sexual minorities instead of treating them as enemies.

christ's wounds, it's like you express an opinion that's to the left of bernard sanders and people stop reading you. no i'm not saying they're exactly identical (or, how travis puts it "essential equivalence"). i'm saying some things they agree on. any two parties will have a set of issues they agree on. for the us democrats and republicans, that includes regimechange abroad and other things that fall under what malloc calls "progress in his lifetime". this doesn't mean they have zero differences: of course there are different. the democrats aren't as psychotic, for one thing, and there's many, many, many more.

incidentally when are we gonna call a spade a spade? it's genocide, surely it's clearer now than it was last year.

I think most of us agree on this.

this is good

[malloc]

christ's wounds, it's like you express an opinion that's to the left of bernard sanders and people stop reading you. no i'm not saying they're exactly identical (or, how travis puts it "essential equivalence"). i'm saying some things they agree on. any two parties will have a set of issues they agree on. for the us democrats and republicans, that includes regimechange abroad and other things that fall under what malloc calls "progress in his lifetime". this doesn't mean they have zero differences: of course there are different. the democrats aren't as psychotic, for one thing, and there's many, many, many more.

Sure and I am hardly defending the foreign policy of either party. Nonetheless only one party is establishing a dictatorship and it's hard to overstate the problems that will create, both internally and externally. The sentiment that the Democrats also suck falls rather flat now that hundreds of millions of Americans will have to live with Republican dictatorship for the rest of their lives. Now everyone is stuck with terrible foreign policy without even the option of voting in someone who might act differently.

[Travis B.]

If I were to take the CDU/CSU as a prototypical "center-right" party, the Democrats would not be not a center-right party -- overall the Democrats, especially outside the area of foreign policy, are definitely to the left of the CDU/CSU.

[Torco]

christ's wounds, it's like you express an opinion that's to the left of bernard sanders and people stop reading you. no i'm not saying they're exactly identical (or, how travis puts it "essential equivalence"). i'm saying some things they agree on. any two parties will have a set of issues they agree on. for the us democrats and republicans, that includes regimechange abroad and other things that fall under what malloc calls "progress in his lifetime". this doesn't mean they have zero differences: of course there are different. the democrats aren't as psychotic, for one thing, and there's many, many, many more.

Sure and I am hardly defending the foreign policy of either party. Nonetheless only one party is establishing a dictatorship and it's hard to overstate the problems that will create, both internally and externally. The sentiment that the Democrats also suck falls rather flat now that hundreds of millions of Americans will have to live with Republican dictatorship for the rest of their lives. Now everyone is stuck with terrible foreign policy without even the option of voting in someone who might act differently.

agreed. while the democrats don't precisely look like a way to progress, them winning probably will result in slowing down, or even possibly stopping, the billionaire-sponsored move towards outright dictatorship in the us.

change towards the better, that's a taller order. then again, last time a marxist-leninist challenged for the seat of superpower things got much better for workers, and they stopped getting better -and started getting worse- as soon as said ML state collapsed. maybe this will happen again.

[rotting bones]

Good news, guys! Starvation meals are served: https://youtu.be/kVB9qA_QQUo

[malloc]

Over the past few weeks, Trump-endorsed candidates have soundly defeated incumbents in congressional primaries. This really makes question the accuracy of all those polls giving Trump low and plummeting approval ratings. Between opinion polls and electoral results, which should we trust?

[zompist]

Over the past few weeks, Trump-endorsed candidates have soundly defeated incumbents in congressional primaries. This really makes question the accuracy of all those polls giving Trump low and plummeting approval ratings. Between opinion polls and electoral results, which should we trust?

It certainly is amazing that the number that measures one thing is different from the number that measures another thing.

Here's another poser for you: if you count up the number of states with Republican governors, you get 26 of 50. Yet if you count Republican governors in states with Republican governors, you get 26 of 26! Disturbing! The only possible explanation is that the number of states is not what we think.

[lëtzeshark]

Zompist's analogy is spot on, especially because Kentucky has a closed primary system, which means only members of that party can vote in the primary elections for that party. (The same is true for Delaware, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wyoming.)

More: show

By contrast, Illinois and Missouri (two states relevant to some people in this conversation) as well as Wisconsin and Tex-ass have open primaries, and North Carolina (the state I vote in) is semi-open (if you're an unaffiliated voter, like I am, you can select one party ballot for the primary; if you're registered as a party member, though, you have to vote in the party primary of your registration).

US elections also have very low turnout as a baseline, and primary elections have even lower turnout: generally, only the really motivated voters either way (some of the hardcore party members) will vote in that primary. Many people are more likely to just vote in the general election: for example, in North Carolina, at the last gubernatorial election in 2024, there were ~1.7 million votes cast in the primaries and ~5.6 million votes in the general election. It's quite different from the case of the other country in which I now have to vote (Luxembourg), where voter turnout at the last national election was 87% and most elections have turnout of >80%.

[WeepingElf]

US elections also have very low turnout as a baseline, and primary elections have even lower turnout: generally, only the really motivated voters either way (some of the hardcore party members) will vote in that primary. Many people are more likely to just vote in the general election: for example, in North Carolina, at the last gubernatorial election in 2024, there were ~1.7 million votes cast in the primaries and ~5.6 million votes in the general election. It's quite different from the case of the other country in which I now have to vote (Luxembourg), where voter turnout at the last national election was 87% and most elections have turnout of >80%.

Most European countries without compulsory voting, such as Germany, lie between these extremes. In Germany, voter turnout has been falling over the years as more and more people got frustrated with the way democracy works here, but recently, this trend has decelerated as (1) people frustrated with democracy now (unfortunately) have something to vote for (the far-right AfD) and (2) many people are alarmed by the rise of that "alternative" and thus are more motivated to vote.

[Raphael]

Well, what about the goon slush fund? Plummeting popularity might not matter that much if you can set up the people who still do like you, or at least are willing to take your money, as the new ruling elite and reduce everyone else to peasants.

[malloc]

Well, what about the goon slush fund? Plummeting popularity might not matter that much if you can set up the people who still do like you, or at least are willing to take your money, as the new ruling elite and reduce everyone else to peasants.

Quite. Call me a doomer all you like, but you can't deny that the MAGAs keep finding new ways to rig the system in their favor.

[zompist]

Well, what about the goon slush fund? Plummeting popularity might not matter that much if you can set up the people who still do like you, or at least are willing to take your money, as the new ruling elite and reduce everyone else to peasants.

For under $2 billion? That'd be a bargain, even if the Republicans were efficient at spending money, which they aren't.

It's routine now for both parties to spend up to $200 million on a single Senate race.

(Also, the fund is apparently intended as a corrupt way to reward supporters. Those dudes were already going to vote GOP.)

[Raphael]

Well, what about the goon slush fund? Plummeting popularity might not matter that much if you can set up the people who still do like you, or at least are willing to take your money, as the new ruling elite and reduce everyone else to peasants.

For under $2 billion? That'd be a bargain, even if the Republicans were efficient at spending money, which they aren't.

It's routine now for both parties to spend up to $200 million on a single Senate race.

(Also, the fund is apparently intended as a corrupt way to reward supporters. Those dudes were already going to vote GOP.)

I'm not talking about more or less legit electioneering uses. I'm talking about paying people to be thugs.

[zompist]

I'm not talking about more or less legit electioneering uses. I'm talking about paying people to be thugs.

Could we restrict the discussion to evil things that are actually happening? Yes, thugs would be bad, so would nuclear war, or hantavirus mating with Ebola, or Nigel Farage besmirching the respectable office once held by Boris Johnson. I feel like actual evil things are bad enough, we don't have to make up more.

This is not a guarantee that evil things won't happen. Extreme pessimism pays off sometimes. But extreme pessimists never seem to apologize when their worst predictions fail to come true.

[malloc]

Could we restrict the discussion to evil things that are actually happening? Yes, thugs would be bad, so would nuclear war, or hantavirus mating with Ebola, or Nigel Farage besmirching the respectable office once held by Boris Johnson. I feel like actual evil things are bad enough, we don't have to make up more.

Sure but hypothetical evils have a funny habit of becoming reality. Trump taking power was once just another hypothetical evil, quite remote compared with global warming or police brutality. The question is how we should respond to these hypotheticals. One can reasonably argue that worrying about stuff that hasn't happened yet just makes us miserable without solving existing problems of course. But it often feels like people have gotten complacent and haven't really internalized just how horrible things can get if we don't take vigorous action.

[zompist]

Could we restrict the discussion to evil things that are actually happening? Yes, thugs would be bad, so would nuclear war, or hantavirus mating with Ebola, or Nigel Farage besmirching the respectable office once held by Boris Johnson. I feel like actual evil things are bad enough, we don't have to make up more.

Sure but hypothetical evils have a funny habit of becoming reality. Trump taking power was once just another hypothetical evil, quite remote compared with global warming or police brutality. The question is how we should respond to these hypotheticals. One can reasonably argue that worrying about stuff that hasn't happened yet just makes us miserable without solving existing problems of course. But it often feels like people have gotten complacent and haven't really internalized just how horrible things can get if we don't take vigorous action.

You are some sort of expert on what action to take? Or you think the ZBB is an appropriate forum for organizing resistance?

Please understand, I am not asking for debate on whether it's a fine idea to spread despair and defeatism, or to make up scenarios even more horrific than what we're already experiencing. I'm telling you it is not.

[alice]

Further to zompist: malloc, are there any other places where you vent your gloom and doom like this? (Don't give a list; a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.)

[malloc]

Please understand, I am not asking for debate on whether it's a fine idea to spread despair and defeatism, or to make up scenarios even more horrific than what we're already experiencing. I'm telling you it is not.

It has never been my intention to spread despair or defeatism, only to highlight how dire our situation has become. Sorry if my posts have spoiled the mood here. What would you recommend as a better way to discuss the crises facing us?