:up:

I'd argue on the other hand that if the Democrats wish to win, they need to move back to the center, instead of continuing to drift left because that shift is reactionary to Trump and not the result of a sudden desire by middle America to emulate European liberalism. — Hanover

Honestly, who knows where the center is anymore in US politics? Trump and with him most of the republican party went to somewhere completely outside the pre-Trump political spectrum. It's a shift to the right on many policy issues, but it's not just that.

Does it even make sense to talk of this as a right/left issue? Isn't it more a question of Trumpism vs. representative Democracy?

I find a diagram with socially Conservative vs. Socially progressive on the one hand and laissez faire capitalism vs economic socialism on the other a reasonably helpful tool to plot most political parties.

Sure. I am aware of those kinds of compasses. But what's special about the Trump presidency is not just the policies. Those had already been republican policies, if at the fringes.

Beating Trump shouldn't be the goal, transforming US politics and aligning it more with what a majority of people want should be the goal

I agree with what the US needs, but the populists just promise these things while smearing the opposition to get into power. Once in power the promises don't matter any more. If the Democrats make the same promises, they have to have something equivalent to the smear so as to discredit their opposition. They have to defeat the slogans like "drain the swamp" and "make America great again". Because the voter thinks they are getting the promises fulfilled, as well as make America great again, and to have a strong leader.

Does it even make sense to talk of this as a right/left issue? Isn't it more a question of Trumpism vs. representative Democracy? — Echarmion

No because that suggests that Trump wasn't voted into office.

No because that suggests that Trump wasn't voted into office. — Hanover

How does it suggest that? There are principles apart from "you have to be elected" that have come to define representative democracies after WW2.

Wouldn't be surprised if Warren drops out before Massachusetts

Research is quite clear on this. What the majority of voters want doesn't matter in the USA. — Benkei

Ahh yes, the objective research shows that America does not want what Trump offers but the Trump voters are too stupid to vote for what they want.

Bernie Sanders isn't reactionary at all but the most sensible of the democrats as it most closely aligns what a majority of Americans want. As consistently polled when people are asked about policies without identifying whether it's a republican or democratic idea. — Benkei

The only polling that matters is that actual polling that occurs on election day. The other polls, and there were many, showed that Clinton was going to easily win the election. I guess you've located another poll that shows that Americans really don't want the president that they elected and that even should they continue to vote for him, they really don't want him.

Also, we're mostly not Liberal but then that's not the only thing Americans consistently get wrong because they actually barely know anything about anything outside of the US. — Benkei

The quibble is likely over how you use the term "liberal," not in what I think European politics is like. I also realize that European politics varies from country to country, so I'm not suggesting there's a unified position on this.

But, in speaking to my ignorance of the European mindset, I'm sure I'd be better informed if I lived it day to day like you. I expect I feel the same frustration you do in being told what the general sentiment of my country is. Bernie is absolutely reactionary and is part of a continual move to the left. It seemed to have started with Bush/Cheney, that begot Obama, that begot Trump, that will then beget Bernie (or someone similar) if not this cycle, the next.

But, to the extent that you suggest that voters choose candidates for some reasons other than their polices, I think that's obvious. Charisma, presentation, persuasiveness, and rhetoric surely matters. It's why sometimes the ugly loser gets the girl. Surely you're familiar with that dynamic.

Ahh yes, the objective research shows that America does not want what Trump offers but the Trump voters are too stupid to vote for what they want — Hanover

Latest polling shows that Trump's tax cuts have around 30% approval, and that 50% feel his immigration enforcement goes too far, while about 20% feel they are just right. Feel free to show which Trump policies have majority support.

Ahh yes, the objective research shows that America does not want what Trump offers but the Trump voters are too stupid to vote for what they want. — Hanover

You seem to have forgotten he lost the popular vote.

The only polling that matters is that actual polling that occurs on election day. The other polls, and there were many, showed that Clinton was going to easily win the election. I guess you've located another poll that shows that Americans really don't want the president that they elected and that even should they continue to vote for him, they really don't want him. — Hanover

Yeah, never mind trying to figure out what people actually want and need. There's just one moment in time that matters. And together with your two similar options for parties is why the US is a failed democracy. Congrats.

Bernie is absolutely reactionary and is part of a continual move to the left. — Hanover

He's only reactionary to you because you're a die hard Conservative. To a lot of Americans he isn't. The proof we see in his performance in iowa and new Hampshire.

The only polling that matters is that actual polling that occurs on election day. The other polls, and there were many, showed that Clinton was going to easily win the election. — Hanover

Polling tracks popular sentiment. A series of polls (data points) tracks a trend (curve) of popular movement, or direction. The polls in 2016 accurately predicted that HRC would win 'the popular vote' (just as they also were accurate in 2000 predicting that AG would win 'the popular vote'). U.S. presidential elections are decided, however, not by 'the popular vote' but by the Electoral College. Why otherwise intelligent folks keep mindlessly repeating this "the polls are not accurate" innumerate crypto-conspiracy bullshit is beyond me. :shade:

"Bernie is a reactionary and is part of a continual move to the left" what the fuck does this even mean

Polling tracks popular sentiment. A series of polls (data points) tracks a trend (curve) of popular movement, or direction. The polls in 2016 accurately predicted that HRC would win 'the popular vote' (just as they also were accurate in 2000 predicting that AG would win 'the popular vote'). U.S. presidential elections are decided, however, not by 'the popular vote' but by the Electoral College. Why otherwise intelligent folks keep mindlessly repeating this "the polls are not accurate" innumerate crypto-conspiracy bullshit is beyond me. — 180 Proof

The reason people keep saying the polls aren't accurate is because they aren't. They did the polling by state and incorrectly predicted wins in the various states They then used that incorrect information to add up the electoral college votes and incorrectly predicted Clinton would win. It's not as if they did a single national poll and just assumed since Clinton won that, she'd win the election. They knew how the electoral college worked when they did the polls.

You seem to have forgotten he lost the popular vote. — Benkei

You seem to forget that the majority vote isn't relevant. Campaigning is strategized around the electoral college system, so whether Trump would have won had the rules been different is unknown.

Yeah, never mind trying to figure out what people actually want and need. There's just one moment in time that matters. And together with your two similar options for parties is why the US is a failed democracy. Congrats. — Benkei

Do you guys vote daily in the Netherlands just to be sure you keep with the popular sentiment.

He's only reactionary to you because you're a die hard Conservative. To a lot of Americans he isn't. The proof we see in his performance in iowa and new Hampshire. — Benkei

I just mean he's a reaction to Trump, who was a reaction to Obama, who was a reaction to GW. I admit Trump is reactionary. I don't know what that has to do with me being Conservative.

Why is Bernie doing well? He's young, hip, sharp, articulate, and he's captured the hearts and minds of the American public with his dazzling personality. It's either that or he gained popularity when he was the only one that Clinton couldn't exclude from the race with back room deals last election and everyone hates Trump so much that they're now willing to vote for a dying, babbling Socialist.

Ok :rofl:

Do you guys vote daily in the Netherlands just to be sure you keep with the popular sentiment. — Hanover

Missing the point as usual. Must be your age. Our politicians aren't so retarded to think they can ignore polling data about important issues.

Our politicians aren't so retarded to think they can ignore polling data about important issues. — Benkei

You said that only one vote mattered, which was a reference to the one vote the people make at the ballot box. That's how that works.

In terms of whether our politicians look at polling data, I'm sure they do, but I'd expect they're more interested in what those who voted them want than their opponents. Maybe in the Netherlands, no one is in a party and no one has an ideology, but all politicians vote exactly the same based upon the objective polling data and unanimous votes are the norm.

In the US, our politicians do whatever the hell they want, totally disregarding the will of the people, but then they get re-elected because they talk fast and say exciting things.

It's an interesting contrast between our two nations, but it's good to understand the differences so that we can all live in harmony, with you in your irrelevant underwater outpost, and me in the center of universe.

Who made Hanover a mod

with you in your irrelevant underwater outpost, and me in the center of universe. — Hanover

:yum:

Hanover's a mod?

I thought the icon on the top left of a profile pic indicated that

Oh, right. I can only presume there's been a terrible mistake. Just don't blame me. I have no recollection of any events regarding this whatsoever. :zip:

It's only because he knows what Baden did last summer.

:scream:

One of the underappreciated positives of Bernie's front-runner status is how it is completely melting the brains of so many liberals who lack the conceptual tools that explain his momentum and appeal.

One of the underappreciated positives of Bernie's front-runner status is how it is completely melting the brains of so many liberals who lack the conceptual tools that explain his momentum and appeal. — Maw

Not only that; but, he's defying the expectations of the right and the left!

But!@1 Chomsky said this and that!

I'd argue on the other hand that if the Democrats wish to win, they need to move back to the center, instead of continuing to drift left because that shift is reactionary to Trump and not the result of a sudden desire by middle America to emulate European liberalism. — Hanover

The Democrats have not moved to the left. Everyone has moved to the right, it’s just that Republicans have moved so much further to the right that relative to themselves, the Democrats look further left than they did before. Richard Nixon was more to the left than modern Democrats; he supported a universal basic income, for example.

Trump didn’t even get a plurality of votes, so in a sense he really wasn’t voted into office.

You seem to forget that the majority vote isn't relevant. Campaigning is strategized around the electoral college system, so whether Trump would have won had the rules been different is unknown. — Hanover

Nobody is saying that Trump didn't successfully navigate the rules that determine who becomes President of the United States. They're saying that those rules do not necessarily reflect the will of the people in their outcome -- that it's possible for someone who is not only supported by less than a majority, but who isn't even more supported than any of the alternatives, to win that process -- and that that's a problem.

Under 1/2 of people are even eligible to vote.

Only around 2/3 of those actually voted.

Under 1/2 of those voted for Trump.

So under (1/2)*(2/3)*(1/2) = 1/6 of people voted for Trump.

(Looking at the actual numbers it's closer to 1/8, but I'm rounding for simplicity).

Of course the same is approximately true for Clinton, but the takeaway is that Trump (like most presidents in at least recent history) governs at the behest of only a small fraction of the population, and can hardly be said to have a mandate from the masses.

No, I meant what I said not what you want it to mean. Research is quite clear on this. What the majority of voters want doesn't matter in the USA. — Benkei

Absolutely right, and there's very good research about this. Take a look at Tom Ferguson's work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition

Trump's election was reactionary to the fact the political establishment hasn't listened to people for quite some time and was a lurch to the insane right. — Benkei

Despite the Republican establishment trying to tear Trump down, he used his existing notoriety, outlandish behavior and free media coverage to push through. He's also a very skilled politician, knowing exactly what played well to crowds and what to repeat. His voting coalition is gun enthusiasts, evangelicals, pro-lifers, white nationalists, xenophobes, and the uneducated. He throws them bones once in a while to keep them happy, and it's working -- 95% approval rating in the party. The Republicans having consequently kowtowed to him.

But you're right -- he plays to the worst aspects of the right. But why is the "right" so insane these days? Look to the financial crisis and the election of Obama. What came out of that? The Tea Party -- anti-establishment, feeling like their country is being taken from them, etc. Years of Fox News and conversation radio propaganda stirring their worst impulses, and suddenly you have a "movement" of voters reacting to things in their own way. The result was Trump.

Meanwhile, look at the Occupy Movement. For those who remember, this was a very big deal, drawing massive crowds and a lot of publicity. The the slogan of "We are the 99%" has stayed around, as has a lot of the imagery that developed within it, all despite critics saying it wasn't leading anywhere. It's led to Bernie. The difference between him and Trump is that the Democratic establishment in 2016 was able to beat Bernie back, as the Republicans did in 2012 with Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.

And here we are. There was a good article today in the NYT about how Bernie has already won, in the sense that he's transformed the party. I agree with that. Whether he gets elected is hard to tell, given he has no support by the establishment and democratic voters seem much less interested in the (necessary) solidarity needed to prevail. Still, one can hope. It would be very good for the country right now.