I Don't Know If Joe Can Do It

[s0me0nesmind1]

Buckle up Buckeroos!

Trump is gaining steam in the polls - It basically looks like it did in 2016.

BUT DONT WORRY GUYS! YOU GOT THIS! No need to get out to vote or anything.


Probably shouldn't have picked an idiot that prosecutes and dumps tons of minorities in jail for non-violent crimes, eh? Maybe for once in your existence you should listen to the loud progressive voices screaming in your ear.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1295155505564966912

 

[woolfe9998]

Buckle up Buckeroos!

Trump is gaining steam in the polls - It basically looks like it did in 2016.

BUT DONT WORRY GUYS! YOU GOT THIS! No need to get out to vote or anything.


Probably shouldn't have picked an idiot that prosecutes and dumps tons of minorities in jail for non-violent crimes, eh? Maybe for once in your existence you should listen to the loud progressive voices screaming in your ear.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1295155505564966912

You picked a single poll to illustrate your point. Sorry to disappoint you, but there is more than one poll:

Politics News | Breaking Political News, Video & Analysis-ABC News

ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

Biden's lead has shrunk about 1 point from its peak in early July. There's been 8 more polls since that CNN poll and all show Biden with a wider lead. Also, the last poll showing a tie was in April, and the last showing a Trump lead was in February.

Sorry. Not much for you get to excited about.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Please define what you mean by your buzzwords "leadership" and "visionary." It's kind of necessary for any serious discussion of past POTUSES you've mentioned, and any sort of comparison/contrast with others.

Sounds to me like you're indulging in cult of personality politics, and ignoring the context in which various POTUSES have governed. For example, prior to the most recent past, POTUSES did not face lockstep opposition to reform from an opposing party determined to use structural measures designed to benefit the minority party to stop the agenda of the party in power. A POTUS cannot conjure votes in Congress just by "leading" harder or "visioning" with moar passion.

Vision: Our nation requires a network of interstate highways and infrastructure to facilitate and drive economic growth that can also serve as a network of runways as part of our nuclear deterrence strategy.

Leadership: Building the public opinion and legislative support to enact that vision into law, with sufficient support, momentum and funding to sustain it beyond the confines of one administration.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So, Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Truman and Eisenhower got every one of their “visions” passed?

Did they remake society or did they lay the foundation of what we have today?

Why did they not get Medicare for All?
Why did they not get free college education for all citizens?
Why did they not get Universal Basic Income?
Why did they not get equality in the races?
Why did they not get a better mental health system?
Why did they not defund the police?
Did they believe in Black Lives Matter?

They addressed the issues of their times and placed building blocks that far outlasted their administrations as part of their legacy.

 

[ivwshane]

Vision: Our nation requires a network of interstate highways and infrastructure to facilitate and drive economic growth that can also serve as a network of runways as part of our nuclear deterrence strategy.

Leadership: Building the public opinion and legislative support to enact that vision into law, with sufficient support, momentum and funding to sustain it beyond the confines of one administration.

What democrat policies don’t have public support? Now figure out why they can’t get those policies enacted and then tell us how someone with more vision and leadership can overcome that.

 

[ewdotson]

Vision: Our nation requires a network of interstate highways and infrastructure to facilitate and drive economic growth that can also serve as a network of runways as part of our nuclear deterrence strategy.

Leadership: Building the public opinion and legislative support to enact that vision into law, with sufficient support, momentum and funding to sustain it beyond the confines of one administration.

That worked a lot better when we had two parties who were both operating in good faith. I am dubious of the idea that if only the Dems leadershiped harder, McConnell would allow actual compromises to be reached in the Senate.

 

[Jhhnn]

I disagree. Our most celebrated Presidents are the ones who were bold, visionary leaders. There is a reason that Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Truman, Jefferson and Eisenhower consistently rank in the top 10.

So what? That doesn't give you grounds to project lack of vision & leadership onto any future President. Only History can judge, & we're not there yet. Our next President will face enormous challenges. He or she will need the help of Congress & the support of the People to meet them. Your efforts undermine that last part, of course, but you already knew that, right?

 

[woolfe9998]

Vision: Our nation requires a network of interstate highways and infrastructure to facilitate and drive economic growth that can also serve as a network of runways as part of our nuclear deterrence strategy.

Leadership: Building the public opinion and legislative support to enact that vision into law, with sufficient support, momentum and funding to sustain it beyond the confines of one administration.

Vision: the nation needs a smart energy grid and massive conversion to clean energy, which will not only benefit the planet but create tons of jobs. That was Obama's vision, and HRC's, and Biden's. So why didn't Obama accomplish his vision by getting an energy bill passed? Must have been a lack of "leadership," right? Because governing in a context of hyper-partisanship is the same as governing at a time when partisanship wasn't nearly so bad as it is now. It's just a fact that no democrat, no matter how charismatic, no matter how determined, is going to get any of the GOP to back any of his or her policies.

Your argument just assumes that "extraordinary" individuals always overcome whatever obstacles in their path. In a democracy, that assumption is false.

Let's take a look at this from the contra-perspective. LBJ was no sort of visionary or leader. He got us into Vietnam because his advisers told him that even though we had very little chance to actually win the war, that going to war was better than not going to war. Wow, what a great leader. The man was not inspiring or particularly passionate. He had none of the qualities of the extraordinary individual you seem to idolize.

Yet look what he accomplished on the domestic front: Voting Rights Act, Civil Right Act. Medicare, Medicaid. He did at least as much to advance progressivism as FDR did, if not more. His only talent was that he was good at bullying and arm twisting members of Congress, neither of which made him a great leader or visionary, and was only possible because the opposing party wasn't nearly so rigid in its opposition as it is today.

 

[Muse]

ACA seems like the obvious example. I mean, it's obviously a whole lot less than perfect. I get why people would want a true national health care plan. The transition wouldn't necessarily be easy or straightforward, but every other first-world nation has found a vastly superior solution that works for them - there's no reason we shouldn't be able to as well.

But … ACA is a whole lot better than what we had before and a whole lot better than the GOP's nonexistent-to-actively-destructive plans. There's a lot to be said for helping the folks that we can while moving things in a generally positive direction. Letting people die because we can't instantly have a utopian plan seems very misguided

The pandemic begs the question here. The reason we are contracting and dying in record numbers from covid-19 is that we don't have comprehensive nation-wide health care for everybody. Any honest person who's reasonably intelligent should see this obvious fact. And each and every one should favor us moving to this ASAP. They should be breathing down Biden's neck to get this done. He should appoint some high class people to work on this as a top level administration priority.

 

[Starbuck1975]

What democrat policies don’t have public support? Now figure out why they can’t get those policies enacted and then tell us how someone with more vision and leadership can overcome that.

Many ideas have popular support. Leadership is the art of channeling consensus and momentum into action. If they had leadership qualities, they would have overcame those obstacles. Leaders are distinguished for their ability to overcome obstacles, not make excuses for why they failed to do so.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Vision: the nation needs a smart energy grid and massive conversion to clean energy, which will not only benefit the planet but create tons of jobs. That was Obama's vision, and HRC's, and Biden's. So why didn't Obama accomplish his vision by getting an energy bill passed? Must have been a lack of "leadership," right? Because governing in a context of hyper-partisanship is the same as governing at a time when partisanship wasn't nearly so bad as it is now. It's just a fact that no democrat, no matter how charismatic, no matter how determined, is going to get any of the GOP to back any of his or her policies.

It was a failure in leadership. Money talks and there were opportunities to make green energy an economic juggernaut. Obama had some initial mistakes and the GOP seized on those mistakes, which is what opposition parties tend to do. HRC and Biden are not leaders. Obama had charisma and vision but failed to maintain momentum.

Your argument just assumes that "extraordinary" individuals always overcome whatever obstacles in their path. In a democracy, that assumption is false.

Not extraordinary, which is why we celebrate some Presidents and dismiss others to the dustbin of history.

Let's take a look at this from the contra-perspective. LBJ was no sort of visionary or leader. He got us into Vietnam because his advisers told him that even though we had very little chance to actually win the war, that going to war was better than not going to war. Wow, what a great leader. The man was not inspiring or particularly passionate. He had none of the qualities of the extraordinary individual you seem to idolize.

Yet look what he accomplished on the domestic front: Voting Rights Act, Civil Right Act. Medicare, Medicaid. He did at least as much to advance progressivism as FDR did, if not more. His only talent was that he was good at bullying and arm twisting members of Congress, neither of which made him a great leader or visionary, and was only possible because the opposing party wasn't nearly so rigid in its opposition as it is today.

Those were visionary things at that moment in time and he achieved them by influencing others, which to me is a perfect example of leadership. Not all leaders are perfect. I am partial to Eisenhower, he was far from perfect.

 

[Jhhnn]

You picked a single poll to illustrate your point. Sorry to disappoint you, but there is more than one poll:

Politics News | Breaking Political News, Video & Analysis-ABC News

ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

Biden's lead has shrunk about 1 point from its peak in early July. There's been 8 more polls since that CNN poll and all show Biden with a wider lead. Also, the last poll showing a tie was in April, and the last showing a Trump lead was in February.

Sorry. Not much for you get to excited about.

It's ugly for Trump in the battleground states, where it matters the most. And it's been stable since April, too. Every move he makes just hardens resolve to throw the crazy motherfucker out. Trump needs a miracle like parting the Red Sea to win this.

 

[fskimospy]

Vision: the nation needs a smart energy grid and massive conversion to clean energy, which will not only benefit the planet but create tons of jobs. That was Obama's vision, and HRC's, and Biden's. So why didn't Obama accomplish his vision by getting an energy bill passed? Must have been a lack of "leadership," right? Because governing in a context of hyper-partisanship is the same as governing at a time when partisanship wasn't nearly so bad as it is now. It's just a fact that no democrat, no matter how charismatic, no matter how determined, is going to get any of the GOP to back any of his or her policies.

Your argument just assumes that "extraordinary" individuals always overcome whatever obstacles in their path. In a democracy, that assumption is false.

Let's take a look at this from the contra-perspective. LBJ was no sort of visionary or leader. He got us into Vietnam because his advisers told him that even though we had very little chance to actually win the war, that going to war was better than not going to war. Wow, what a great leader. The man was not inspiring or particularly passionate. He had none of the qualities of the extraordinary individual you seem to idolize.

Yet look what he accomplished on the domestic front: Voting Rights Act, Civil Right Act. Medicare, Medicaid. He did at least as much to advance progressivism as FDR did, if not more. His only talent was that he was good at bullying and arm twisting members of Congress, neither of which made him a great leader or visionary, and was only possible because the opposing party wasn't nearly so rigid in its opposition as it is today.

As you mention this entire line of argument depends on pretending Democrats don't have ambitious goals, which they absolutely do.

More importantly though, it depends on pretending that Republicans would go along if only the Democrats were sufficiently persuasive or showed enough leadership. This is dumb for a number of reasons:

1) It infantilizes Republicans, making them not responsible for their own actions or opposition. Progress relies on the Democrats being sufficiently great, not Republicans to, say, stop putting the wants of crazy people before the needs of the country. For Republicans in safe seats there is no threat whatsoever of losing their job in a general election. The only threat is from the right in a primary so why on earth would they ever... ever compromise? Ever?

2) It never, ever explains what these people who didn't show 'leadership' should have done differently, even in general terms. I don't need a ten page comprehensive plan but people should at least be able to give a general outline as to why a different way forward would have been more successful and why. This makes their position unfalsifiable because it's circular reasoning. Those that are successful showed leadership. Those that aren't did not.

 

[Commodus]

Buckle up Buckeroos!

Trump is gaining steam in the polls - It basically looks like it did in 2016.

BUT DONT WORRY GUYS! YOU GOT THIS! No need to get out to vote or anything.


Probably shouldn't have picked an idiot that prosecutes and dumps tons of minorities in jail for non-violent crimes, eh? Maybe for once in your existence you should listen to the loud progressive voices screaming in your ear.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1295155505564966912

I wouldn't freak out over a single poll result. The Economist/YouGov and ABC/Washington Post polls both have Biden with a 10-point lead, and that 4-point edge is the same as in the conservative-leaning Rasmussen poll. Other polls have Biden with a 6-point lead or more.

Look for overall patterns. If you see Biden's lead shrinking overall, then there's reason to panic. But right now, not yet... I definitely agree that we can't remain complacent, though. Not until (and unless) they're declaring Biden the winner.

 

[ewdotson]

The pandemic begs the question here. The reason we are contracting and dying in record numbers from covid-19 is that we don't have comprehensive nation-wide health care for everybody. Any honest person who's reasonably intelligent should see this obvious fact. And each and every one should favor us moving to this ASAP. They should be breathing down Biden's neck to get this done. He should appoint some high class people to work on this as a top level administration priority.

Well, Biden's plan at least calls for a public option. Which is good, although I get folks who would consider it inadequate. At least things would be moving in the right direction under him. Versus this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1234494005330796545

 

[ivwshane]

Many ideas have popular support. Leadership is the art of channeling consensus and momentum into action. If they had leadership qualities, they would have overcame those obstacles. Leaders are distinguished for their ability to overcome obstacles, not make excuses for why they failed to do so.

I know what leadership is, I asked you a very specific question, one you didn’t answer but instead replied with another vague and nonsensical response.

 

[Thump553]

If you intend to vote third party, at least be intellectually honest and vote for Trump instead-because the effect of your vote is going to be to preserve the status quo. Until the US amends it's constitution to eliminate the electoral college third parties are only spoilers-unless and until they grow enough to replace either the Dems or Repubs.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I know what leadership is, I asked you a very specific question, one you didn’t answer but instead replied with another vague and nonsensical response.

I answered your question to my satisfaction. Your question demonstrates that you don’t know what leadership is at all.

 

[ewdotson]

If you intend to vote third party, at least be intellectually honest and vote for Trump instead-because the effect of your vote is going to be to preserve the status quo. Until the US amends it's constitution to eliminate the electoral college third parties are only spoilers-unless and until they grow enough to replace either the Dems or Repubs.

In fairness, I think this depends on whether or not one lives in a battleground state. It's an unfortunate truth that our electoral system means an awful lot of people's votes don't *really* matter in the presidential election. So long as they're not advocating people living in battleground states follow their leads, I don't really have a problem with someone in Alabama (for example) voting third party.

(Although our hypothetical Alabamian had durned well better cast a real, meaningful vote in the Senate election.)

 

[Muse]

Vision: the nation needs a smart energy grid and massive conversion to clean energy, which will not only benefit the planet but create tons of jobs. That was Obama's vision, and HRC's, and Biden's. So why didn't Obama accomplish his vision by getting an energy bill passed? Must have been a lack of "leadership," right? Because governing in a context of hyper-partisanship is the same as governing at a time when partisanship wasn't nearly so bad as it is now. It's just a fact that no democrat, no matter how charismatic, no matter how determined, is going to get any of the GOP to back any of his or her policies.

In 2016 I thought John Kasich stood out as the ONLY Republican candidate who had any valid presidential characteristics. Monday he spoke during day one of the DNC, endorsing Biden. He's also AFAIK THE_ONLY Republican who has acknowledge that global warming is not just a hoax!!!!! But when he did that he said he didn't think we could do anything to ameliorate the threat. America (and the world) is going to have to do an end run around the GOP blockade on mankind's crusade to save ourselves from the catastrophe that will certainly happen if we don't effectively address this existential crisis.
- - - -
That social democracy will never take hold in the United States may well be true, but, if so, it is a stunning indictment, and just what Oscar Wilde had in mind when he quipped that the United States was the only country to go from barbarism to decadence without passing through civilization.

76 days until the big one! Vote... vote early, vote Democratic!

 

[woolfe9998]

As you mention this entire line of argument depends on pretending Democrats don't have ambitious goals, which they absolutely do.

More importantly though, it depends on pretending that Republicans would go along if only the Democrats were sufficiently persuasive or showed enough leadership. This is dumb for a number of reasons:

1) It infantilizes Republicans, making them not responsible for their own actions or opposition. Progress relies on the Democrats being sufficiently great, not Republicans to, say, stop putting the wants of crazy people before the needs of the country. For Republicans in safe seats there is no threat whatsoever of losing their job in a general election. The only threat is from the right in a primary so why on earth would they ever... ever compromise? Ever?

2) It never, ever explains what these people who didn't show 'leadership' should have done differently, even in general terms. I don't need a ten page comprehensive plan but people should at least be able to give a general outline as to why a different way forward would have been more successful and why. This makes their position unfalsifiable because it's circular reasoning. Those that are successful showed leadership. Those that aren't did not.

Exactly, it's argument by way of 2020 hindsight. It's why I used LBJ as an example. Of course, in his case, the hindsight is that no one thinks he was a great leader, because he was totally uncharismatic, and he just went along with what advisers told him in Vietnam, which was a disaster. Yet he accomplished possibly more on the domestic front than any POTUS of the 20th Century. Why? Because he was in the right place at the right time (civil rights movement), and had exactly one relevant skill: Congressional arm twisting. Heck, he passed the two most important pieces of civil rights legislation in our history and he was very probably a racist! Some times crappy people do good things and good people accomplish nothing. That's because the qualities of the individual are only one factor in determining outcomes.

This myth of the extraordinary individual is something we need to get off of. Right now it is fueling the cult of personality around Trump, including the Qanon crap. It's a road to authoritarianism. Democracies work by consensus, not because of extraordinary individuals.

 

[woolfe9998]

In 2016 I thought John Kasich stood out as the ONLY Republican candidate who had any valid presidential characteristics. Monday he spoke during day one of the DNC, endorsing Biden. He's also AFAIK THE_ONLY Republican who has acknowledge that global warming is not just a hoax!!!!! But when he did that he said he didn't think we could do anything to ameliorate the threat. America (and the world) is going to have to do an end run around the GOP blockade on mankind's crusade to save ourselves from the catastrophe that will certainly happen if we don't effectively address this existential crisis.
- - - -
That social democracy will never take hold in the United States may well be true, but, if so, it is a stunning indictment, and just what Oscar Wilde had in mind when he quipped that the United States was the only country to go from barbarism to decadence without passing through civilization.

76 days until the big one! Vote... vote early, vote Democratic!

I agree. The single most important thing for the democrats to accomplish if/when they get in power is to end the Senate filibuster rule immediately. We can't work with the modern GOP because they are serving a crazified base. We have to go around them. We simply don't have another choice.

 

[Muse]

Let's take a look at this from the contra-perspective. LBJ was no sort of visionary or leader. He got us into Vietnam because his advisers told him that even though we had very little chance to actually win the war, that going to war was better than not going to war. Wow, what a great leader. The man was not inspiring or particularly passionate. He had none of the qualities of the extraordinary individual you seem to idolize.

Yet look what he accomplished on the domestic front: Voting Rights Act, Civil Right Act. Medicare, Medicaid. He did at least as much to advance progressivism as FDR did, if not more. His only talent was that he was good at bullying and arm twisting members of Congress, neither of which made him a great leader or visionary, and was only possible because the opposing party wasn't nearly so rigid in its opposition as it is today.

LBJ was a very powerful man in the USA before he became vice president, and then "inheriting" the presidency when JFK was shot dead. He had major experience as the senate majority leader from Texas, and was an extraordinarily powerful one at that, and very experienced in getting things done on the legislative floor. "Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act. Medicare, Medicaid." Those things are no small accomplishments on his tenure. And I believe the fact is that the US involvement in Vietnam was already underway before JFK was killed. I have not seen the case made that it was LBJ's doing and not JFK's that got us on that path.

--- Muse, launching his personal Seti Project, searching for high intelligence in the Milky Way.

76 days until the big one! Vote... vote early, vote Democratic!

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I wouldn't freak out over a single poll result. The Economist/YouGov and ABC/Washington Post polls both have Biden with a 10-point lead, and that 4-point edge is the same as in the conservative-leaning Rasmussen poll. Other polls have Biden with a 6-point lead or more.

Look for overall patterns. If you see Biden's lead shrinking overall, then there's reason to panic. But right now, not yet... I definitely agree that we can't remain complacent, though. Not until (and unless) they're declaring Biden the winner.

Still, I would be incredibly cautious at this point.

They give AoC literally a 60-second recording - and she is basically a lead for the new progressive movement. They are really TRYING to keep their progressive candidates in the basement like a bastard child and refuses to really address their issues.

I mean, for christ sakes, 87% of Democrats support Medicare for All, and you can't even get a candidate that is in favor of that?

What could have saved him a bit though is if his VP pick was more progressive with the likes of Bernie or Warren in an attempt to appease those voters.. Instead he went the opposite way with another cookie cutter centrist that loves putting citizens in jail for petty crimes. Such a shame.


All I'm saying is.... a lot of people in your base aren't exactly going to be fired up to get out and vote during a pandemic.... and with Biden up at the mound, it isn't going to excite people much from getting up from their 6 moths of Netflix n' chill.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree. The single most important thing for the democrats to accomplish if/when they get in power is to end the Senate filibuster rule immediately. We can't work with the modern GOP because they are serving a crazified base. We have to go around them. We simply don't have another choice.

And we need to note the very real probability that even with a Biden win and a sweep of the House and Senate Democrats will likely have two years to govern before the GOP wins one or both houses back. They have to be pedal to the floor the whole time.