Joe Biden, Senator from Citibank (oops, DELAWARE), to Run for President

Yes, that may also be true! There's no real way of knowing that other than I would think it would be less effective than when its against someone currently in power. Also I'd say that didn't really work 2012-2016 in regard to Bernie, and his rise during that period

in other news, 538 made its first prediction as to who will win.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

people might point out these were Hillary's odds from 538, but....not at this point. she was initially given an 80% chance of victory during first rollout, and the 70% was on election day. so not surprisingly, and also because it's an incumbent, they're definitely being cautious.

honestly idk why I even look at this shit two months out but....w/e posting in case anybody else gives a shit

we must, first, help Henderson or Snowden to beat Lloyd George and Churchill (or, rather, compel the former to beat the latter, because the former are afraid of their victory!)

twas ever thus

The anti-Trump coalition is centered in the center-right - from the Lincoln Project to Biden.

There was a poll a few weeks ago (before the conventions) that asked Biden supporters their "main reason" for voting for him. The top reason *by far* was "He is not Trump" at 56%, followed by "Leadership/performance" at 19%. I take that to mean the "anti-Trump coalition" includes many people beyond the center-right. These people may incidentally like Biden personally and agree with him on certain issues, but I don't think they are necessarily committed to his specific beliefs and style of politics.

in other news, 538 made its first prediction as to who will win.

The 2020 forecast debuted on August 12, fwiw.

Tbqh, I'm voting for president for the second time ever, I'm 36, and it's for similar reasons. The first time was to attempt to get rid of W., and this time it's to attempt the get rid of Trump.

I thought Kerry sucked, and I think Biden sucks. There are a lot of people like me!

Just about every vote in my lifetime has been a negative vote, and that's normal.

AUGUST NATIONAL POLL:

General Election:@realDonaldTrump 47%@JoeBiden 49%
Undecided 4%https://t.co/y5l9apBSUk

— Emerson College Polling (@EmersonPolling) August 31, 2020

Seems bad if the mail in ballots are delayed...

Early number trending trump, a reversal days or weeks later... 😬

This poll also had trump with 19% of black voters, radically higher than any other republican in recent history. Seems unlikely unless there is something happening on the ground we are all missing among black conservatives and moderates.

it also depends a lot on when absentee ballots can be counted, which varies by state.

Arizona can start tallying vote totals as early as 14 days prior to Election Day, but can't release tallies early.

Florida, on the other hand, can't actually count Absentee ballots until after the polls close.

Georgia can start counting at 7 am on Election Day.

Maryland can't begin counting them until the Wednesday after Election Day.

(now, that's just when the counting can START....no idea when it usually FINISHES).

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-16-when-absentee-mail-ballot-processing-and-counting-can-begin.aspx

that Emerson poll also indicates 28% of respondents indicate they plan to vote by mail. i imagine that's much higher than previous years, but I know in 2016 33 million absentee ballots were sent, soooooo...idk?

If there is a scenario where they count the in person ballots first, and then the absentees trickle in, tipping the election from trump to biden, that would look very suspicious to trump voters.

I had no idea there were that many absentee ballots last time tbh

a lot of them probably come from states where the vote isn't in doubt?

ugh. two months to dwell on this shit is gonna wreck me. esp given that this election will probably drag on for weeks.

Whats up with the polls showing significant black support for trump btw? There have been a few now, not just emerson. (The others were smaller, less established ones)

It's because he's done more for African-Americans than anyone ever, except (maybe) Abraham Lincoln - do keep up

seriously!

i like how he always refers to him as "the late, great abraham lincoln"

tbf you can't hear him on the radio

if we want the masses to follow us (and unless we achieve that, we stand the risk of remaining mere windbags), we must, first, help Henderson or Snowden to beat Lloyd George and Churchill (or, rather, compel the former to beat the latter, because the former are afraid of their victory!); second, we must help the majority of the working class to be convinced by their own experience that we are right, i.e., that the Hendersons and Snowdens are absolutely good for nothing, that they are petty-bourgeois and treacherous by nature, and that their bankruptcy is inevitable; third, we must bring nearer the moment when, on the basis of the disappointment of most of the workers in the Hendersons, it will be possible, with serious chances of success, to overthrow the government of the Hendersons at once

The rest of Lenin's quote explaining his reasons for voting Biden. Also interesting to see that, in this context at least, he wasn't an accelerationist

Looking forward to the day the masses overthrow the Biden regime

We can recontextualize the quote for the times and take 'overthrow the government of the Hendersons' as 'vote for a more left wing option in the primaries in 2024 than would be possible if Trump were president 20-24, due to a less pronounced fearful "safety first" mindset'

I mean reframe

I guess it’s a good thing this guy doesn’t have to campaign out west right now, some nice backdrops for his “let me be clear I will NOT ban fracking” business

The LGBTQ Town Hall went great for Biden, uh pic.twitter.com/QUjQlJI1Xg

— Timothy Burke (@bubbaprog) October 11, 2019

I hope someone mixed this into an absolute banger

I'm interested in your take on the Lenin quotes, and of applicability (or not) to todays situation, Milo!

"C'mon, man!"

It feels like someone behind the scenes presses a button that triggers a small shock to Biden and makes him say that, whenever the operative feels it is necessary

reports indicate that you do indeed come on man during round-the-clock sex at the gay gay gay gay gay bathhouses, Biden otm tbf

Oh, I thought you were joking because it's completely meaningless in regard to today's situation?
Lenin's talking about the need to make temporary political accommodation with the Labour Party of 1920, which had never been in power and had existed for... 25 years at that point? The closest analogy for today, politically, would be telling leftists to work with trade unions, Bernie and AOC. Which, uh, duh.

The question of voting for Biden or not is entirely irrelevant to any broader (left) political goals aside from 'electing Joe Biden.' He's Lloyd George in the quote (and Trump is Churchill but with less genocide)(so far).

I think I answered the basic question above - the idea that 'the left' can grow via conversion of liberal and centrist Democrats under a centrist Democratic President is a fantasy, as borne out by the three centrist Democratic Presidents of the last five (lol) decades. Tribalism is used as an epithet to beat Republican voters over the head but it's just as applicable to people who consider themselves Democrats (or are Democratic politicians) today. Any act committed by their team is to be celebrated (or actively ignored if it happens anywhere outside of the US itself).

The 'left of the party' might grow via young people, but it will be fought tooth and nail at every step by the Democrats, from the power brokers to the normies, because it criticizes the party. We've had repeated previews of this post-AOC/Squad, even down to a primary challenge of the one old liberal open to making an accommodation with the young progressive. (Upwardly mobile young people are also prone to shifting politics when they get good healthcare at a job or buy a house, of course.)

Whatever real growth or success there is on the left in the United States will come from otherwise uncommitted people - youth and immigrants who haven't formed 'Democrat' as part of their identity, or people who have lost it due to disillusion. This will come from building extra-partisan structures to advocate outside of politics (ie unions) or, perhaps, from actively organizing to hold votes hostage from the Democrats.

Thanks Milo, wasn't joking - I appreciate your viewpoint is all!

I was just thinking over the Lenin quote, I hadn't really decided my own thoughts on it (still haven't)

First sentence sounded combative, not intended, was sincere about thinking it was a gag.

Despite some others' assertions, I'm very much 'rooting for' (war criminal, probable sex criminal) Biden in November but it is purely as a tourniquet for a leg that's going to get cut off. Given that his people are already talking austerity, at best he gives us all a few months of not vomiting every day from anxiety and that would be pretty cool.

Working with reformists (Lenin's desire, I gather) and not closing yourself off into Red Guard cosplay is important - but the Democrats (in total) are not reformists. The progressive wing of the party might be, which is why they should be worked with and agitated for, but the Bidens and the Schumers and the Pelosis got us into this mess and have no interest in getting us out. (Cue clip of Pelosi's "Green New Dream" line set to footage of the entire Pacific Time Zone on fire.)

Now is not the time to make the big play to withhold votes and make them come left - but if that time never comes, if they can continuously make the lesser evil case, electoral politics will remain a largely pointless exercise.

A few months before 9/11, Punk Planet reprinted an interview with Howard Zinn that had a couple of paragraphs that I think are probably more instructive given the last few months and continuing uprisings -

It’s a bad move for progressive organizations to tie themselves to the electoral system because the electoral system is a great grave into which we are invited to get lost. For progressive movements, the future does not lie with electoral politics. It lies in street warfare – protest movements and demonstrations, civil disobedience, strikes and boycotts – using all of the power consumers and workers have in direct action against the government and corporations. To sink too much of our energy into electoral politics is a mistake. The result is to dishearten people because it gives us a false picture of how much strength the establishment has; because counted up, it looks as though all these people voted for Gore or Bush, but only a handful voted for Nader.

The fact is that millions and millions of people voted for Gore who would have voted for Nader if they thought he had a chance to win. That is, millions and millions of people would whose basic views are closer to Nader than they are to Gore. But because people are trapped in this electoral system in which two parties and wealth control the media and control the electoral process, people are trapped in that therefore they vote their conscience, they dont vote their beliefs. They become pragmatic the moment that they go to the polls. They sort of shrug their shoulders and go “We’ve only been given two choices – we’ve been given a multiple choice test with only A and B. We can’t do C or D.” So the result is to give a misleading picture about the strength of the progressive movement. That was the mistake of the Nader campaign, to fall into that trap.

In 2001 he points to some positive signs in the wake of the WTO protests, but we get to look at how they all got turned inside out by 9/11, the failure of Iraq War protests and the retreat of the left into disillusionment or Democratic Party politics.

They would do better by taking a look at the actions people have been taking these past few years – the new vitality in the labor movement, the unionization of white collar workers, the victory of the United Parcel Workers strike, which is one of the largest labor victories of the past decade.

I know we've had our disagreements here, but I appreciate these posts, Milo, and am in agreement for the most part. Thanks.

TS: “growing the left” vs. getting Trump the fuck out of office

we clearly have to do both

This quadrennial discussion about the shortcomings of the presidential candidates isn't very useful, imo. If you're going to have a larger and more effective left, it shouldn't concern itself too much at this point with a binary national election where you're almost always going to be frustrated and end up arguing about whether or how much to support whatever compromise candidate emerges.

Concrete and theoretically achievable goals are important, otherwise it's just a lot of yelling about "capitalism." The things you can actually get people organized around are things like labor conditions and protections, access to healthcare and education, criminal justice/police reform. There are movements on all of those fronts, and the Green New Deal too, and I think working on the ground issue by issue and taking each small win as a step forward makes a lot more sense than trying to construct a viable left out of thin air at the presidential level. A "real left" presidential candidate is the end point of that movement, a decade or more in the future, not the starting point.

yep, though having a non-crank candidate kicking around for a while who was the closest to "genuine left" or whatever any of us have seen in our lifetimes certainly muddied the waters for a bit there

(I am of course referring to marianne williamson)

You mean you didn't refer to Nader?

woefully lacking in orb power

https://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/blog_header/RQ08WV0Q4U241314297472185.jpg

stay a while and listen

I think working on the ground issue by issue and taking each small win as a step forward makes a lot more sense than trying to construct a viable left out of thin air at the presidential level. A "real left" presidential candidate is the end point of that movement, a decade or more in the future, not the starting point.

i think all of this is right, but we should also keep in mind that so much work has already been done, and that there will never be a clearly defined time when the movement is at its end point and it's time to consolidate all the gains with a leftist president. it's always going to feel like there's so much more to be done, first. i think that's why a lot of leftists get exhausted with the "wait until the movement is stronger" thing - it may prove to be true, but it's what people always say

9/09 Mike Luckovich: Decisions, decisions https://t.co/JVIH8ZbtH2

— mike luckovich (@mluckovichajc) September 9, 2020

Whatever real growth or success there is on the left in the United States will come from otherwise uncommitted people - youth and immigrants who haven't formed 'Democrat' as part of their identity, or people who have lost it due to disillusion. This will come from building extra-partisan structures to advocate outside of politics (ie unions) or, perhaps, from actively organizing to hold votes hostage from the Democrats.

― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Thursday, September 10, 2020 1:07 AM (nine hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

I genuinely appreciate this paragraph, Milo. I feel like I've tried to push you in the past on what you saw as a "path for success," and maybe I've gone about it in a clumsy or ill-tempered way, but I had the impression that you thought that there wasn't a viable path, or at least that you didn't seem to have any interest in answering that question. This is what I was looking for. I'm not sure I agree, but I understand it.

dunno if this has been touched on but i thought it was an interesting, if frought, way to frame an explicitly progressive and radical path forward

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/08/one-billion-americans-by-matthew-yglesias-book-excerpt.html

And while reproductive freedom is crucially important, in practice Americans end up having fewer children than they say they would like to. As Lyman Stone from the Institute of Family Studies writes, “The gap between the number of children that women say they want to have (2.7) and the number of children they will probably actually have (1.8) has risen to the highest level in 40 years.” It’s no great mystery why. Having and raising children is an increasingly costly and difficult undertaking, as anyone who has, or is hoping to have, children could tell you. A 2018 poll for the New York Times asked people who have or expected to have fewer children than they considered ideal why they hadn’t had more. The No. 1 answer was that child care is too expensive. No. 3 was worries about the economy. No. 4 was “can’t afford more children,” and No. 5 was that the parents had waited to start having kids until they achieved financial security and then ran out of time. Climate concerns, frequently discussed in the press, do not show up as prominently in surveys and perhaps for good reason — greenhouse-gas emissions are probably too big a problem (a global rather than a national one, for starters) to tackle through population restriction. Instead, what is needed is a wholesale re-creation of our energy infrastructure to make sustainable power sufficiently abundant that population would become less relevant. (In the meantime, opening up borders is among the best ways to allow the world as a whole to adapt to warming.)

The idea of taking deliberate action to increase national fertility gives some progressives the willies, just as conservatives are these days in a perennial state of alarm about immigrants. But Americans, as a whole, simply do want to have more kids...

oof.

sorry to be the person with the willies here, but please, no, let's not have a billion people in united states. i think this is the only thing in the excerpt that deals with resource scarcity:

if the extra 650 million came from immigration/open borders, great. if it comes from purposely trying to convince people to raise the birth rate from 1.7 to 2.7 million, no thanks. what are his reasons for wanting a population that is 3x larger? to compete with China in a war? and because people want to have more kids? are there any others?

and of course we want to get to a place where population is irrelevant because clean energy is so abundant. maybe it will be by 2100! but we are nowhere close to that point right now, and are loooooong past the carrying capacity of the planet, by a multiple of 4.

1.7 to 2.7 million kids/family, i meant

i'm sure there are other reasons to increase the population that he has in mind, but this is the big one that leads off the article, and which he spends time on addressing, before getting to other things:

When America faced down Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, we were the big dog. We had more people, more wealth, and more industrial capacity. (Back in 1938, the gross domestic product of the U.S. alone was larger than that of Germany, Japan, and Italy combined.) But against China, we are the little dog: There are more than 1 billion of them to about 330 million of us. Chinese people don’t need to become as rich as Americans for China’s overall economy to outweigh ours. If they managed to become about half as rich as we are on a per person basis, like the Bahamas or Spain, then their economy would be far larger than ours in the aggregate. To become one-third as rich as we are, like Portugal or Greece, would be enough to pull even. To stay on top, we probably need to grow the country threefold — to one billion Americans.

i am...unconvinced? we all need to fuck like rabbits so we can stay on top and crush china? no

The entire premise of the article is based on nationalism and the primacy of the child. It's also complete lunacy.

intelligencer, more like......stupider