Chapo Trap House and the rise of the dirtbag left

“Declaring victory” is the joke, not the discussion.

the 11th hour argument with a nonagenarian is the embarrassing part

Chomsky appears willing to appear on any podcast that invites him and argue with randoms, it might be his reason for living.

The "leverage votes" claim is bullshit. The Briana Joy Grays and Virgil Texases of the world are not part of any organized or meaningful effort to leverage a specific block of votes in exchange for specific concessions, they're just resentful. The democrats are not going to make concessions to a handful of podcast-listening randos who don't like that Bernie lost and might not show up at the polls even if Biden does add x to his platform and probably won't even pay attention to what's in his platform anyway. I don't think they understand what "leverage" actually means. You can't leverage vague dissatisfaction.

no lies detected

part of the Bernie strategy was the idea that there were all of these dissatisfied non-voters out there who could be transformed into voters if their economic concerns were addressed. This did not occur as yet. THe message the Democratic party takes from this is that they need to focus on people who actually vote.

he "leverage votes" claim is bullshit. The Briana Joy Grays and Virgil Texases of the world are not part of any organized or meaningful effort to leverage a specific block of votes in exchange for specific concessions,

It's a strategy that has never actually been tried by the left - Gray and Texas are probably not the people to do this but that doesn't mean it's not a potential future strategy.

I'm not sure it's "never actually been tried by the left." Depends on what you mean by "the left" and "never." Left-leaning unions have certainly done it, for example. Also depends on whether you are speaking about presidential elections or more broadly. The point is you need an organization, not just atmospheric discontent. DSA is a great example of an organization that has meaningfully leveraged political support for candidates, they just don't do it for non-left candidates, which is an understandable and wise choice based on allocation of limited resources.

Yes, you need an organization like the DSA to be a negotiating body. That doesn't make Gray and Texas talking about future strategy or the failures of Voting Blue No Matter Who - such as actually making use of that organization - "bullshit."

There is also a difference between endorsements, as the DSA has done, and withholding votes as a bloc. As above - the percentage needed to swing a national election is not actually that large. An organization, like the DSA, that could hold a relatively small bloc of votes hostage may find it easier to force concessions rather than try to overcome the entire national party apparatus, as has failed twice with Bernie.

The problem is that it will, as ever, draw a barrage of ire about the evils of not voting Democratic. (Which... is pretty much what Texas and Gray are being subjected to now.)

it seemed they were talking about the 2020 election--not some future strategy

They both vote in New York, their votes don't matter.

... in the screen cap like 10 posts back, Gray is very obviously talking about theoretical strategy.

Which is why she and Chomsky are both OTM and it seems like people are talking past each other in a rush to have the right Twitter hot take.

Leveraging votes is a strategy for a smaller group on the national stage to exert outsize influence, absent billionaire money backing it.
Given the state we're in, now is not the time (ignoring that it's October and people are already voting anyway) to withhold those votes.

well, Chomsky has taken heat for semi-endorsing Biden, and BJG has famously declined to do so. Given that context I see why Chomsky would see these questions as being about the current election, not some future contest between neolib x and neocon x.

I hope Chapo doesn't break up before we get a movie episode for Ron Howard's 'Hillbilly Elegy.'

"rather than try to overcome the entire national party apparatus, as has failed twice with Bernie."

IIRC Bernie isn't the only campaign DSA has thrown their weight behind

national

There is, of course, also a difference in positive action and endorsements and vote leveraging.

If anything I would say that DSA benefitted *from* Bernie, whereas the organization has mattered quite a lot in smaller races (perhaps most notably AOC). Also, building support for Bernie has, in fact, led to some concessions from the party nationally (we ought to reflect on how remarkable it is that Bernie Sanders, a self-identified socialist and outlier senator from Vermont, is playing a substantial role in shaping the Democratic platform - try to think about that from the vantage point of ten or twenty years ago). Not that any one left organization can claim credit for Bernie's success, but his candidacy has done way more than a "strategy of withholding votes" ever could.

They both vote in New York, their votes don't matter.

... in the screen cap like 10 posts back, Gray is very obviously talking about theoretical strategy.

― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Wednesday, October 14, 2020 1:19 PM (twenty-nine minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Which is why she and Chomsky are both OTM and it seems like people are talking past each other in a rush to have the right Twitter hot take.

Leveraging votes is a strategy for a smaller group on the national stage to exert outsize influence, absent billionaire money backing it.
Given the state we're in, now is not the time (ignoring that it's October and people are already voting anyway) to withhold those votes.

― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Wednesday, October 14, 2020 1:22 PM (twenty-six minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Also this is all wrong. Again, you are missing the point about having an organization. And also you are missing the point that "leveraging votes" would need to be in exchange for specific concessions. Like what the fuck do you think is going to happen, 200,000 leftists in key swing states are going to spontaneously express their "discontent with the rightward drift of the party" by not voting or voting third party, Democrats will lose, and then four years from now they'll say "Man, we fucked up in 2020, we'd better nominate a socialist this time." I can't even begin to parse the cloudy thinking behind that idea.

I mean, if unspecified discontent and "withheld votes" was enough to shift the party -- guess what, most people already don't vote and already are vaguely discontented!

If anything I would say that DSA benefitted *from* Bernie, whereas the organization has mattered quite a lot in smaller races (perhaps most notably AOC).

Yes, they have. But you're the one who brought up the DSA as an example of a left organization, so I don't know what your point is?

And also you are missing the point that "leveraging votes" would need to be in exchange for specific concessions.

Yes, that's a large part of the idea. General discontent is how you bring people whose votes can be leveraged into the organization.

Once again, it's all theoretical and 'things to be tried,' because the alternative ('vote blue no matter who') has been a complete failure.

There is, as of yet, no evidence of concessions on the part of the party, which remains well to the right of its voters overall. The lesson of Bernie's two runs is that the Democrats with power will do anything to halt meaningful moves to the left - including gut everyone with a functioning prefrontal cortex for Joe Biden (who would probably be losing if not for COVID).

idk about "losing if not for COVID" but certainly not a safe bet, I agree with that

Biden has been consistently polling well ahead of Trump head-to-head for TWO YEARS. Sanders was doing just as well. It's ridiculous to act as if Trump had this in the bag, or even was leading, "if not for COVID." If anything, COVID could have saved him if he'd stepped up and taken real measures, as many very right-wing governors did, but Trump didn't do that, because he's Trump.

(And of course he could still win!)

He’s seems unlikely still to meet Obama ‘08’s ‘landslide’ despite 220k dead and 18% unemployment. Hiding in a bunker for the entire summer obscured his weakness at campaigning - fewer chances to openly lie about shit and yell at people to not vote for him - and allowed Trump to repeatedly punch himself in the dick.

If we were cruising into Nov 3 with low unemployment, Biden would be losing.

nah

hard to say
i do get the general sense from a lot of people that trump is a TV show they are sick of an they want to change the channel

but milo otm i don't think the last six months could have worked out any more to biden's favor - and to obscure his considerable deficiencies as a candidate

If we were cruising into Nov 3 with low unemployment any dem including Bernie would have a tough climb. It’s historically pretty hard to make the case for change when everything is good.

Any Dem would have had a tough climb but stronger speakers, stronger campaigners, people who centered their campaign on making a positive case for themselves and their Presidency would be in a better position than Biden's pure return to normalcy. Even Mayor Pete would have been able to contrast his youth and functioning brain with Trump's cognitive decline.

Literally absurd to suggest Mayor Pete would have done better than Biden.

I mean, say whatever you want, make up shit. Biden was and remains very popular and well-known among key democratic voting constituencies. Mayor Pete had no traction outside of specific Manhattan neighborhoods.

Like, we get it, you don't like Biden, and you wish it was Bernie. Me too. But let's not confuse preference for reality.

"Key Democratic voting constituencies" aren't the concern? Biden is not doing particularly well with Black voters or Latino voters, he's pretty much at Clinton 2016 numbers (or worse) in polling before Trump got the 'rona. Any Democrat's floor with Black voters is in the high 80s. Biden's gain has been with old people - who would not have switched without COVID - and rich white suburbanites. Who are... that "specific Manhattan neighborhood" kind of demographic you refer to.

It's ridiculous to pretend that Biden was some kind of all-conquering world beater - we all lived through the run up to the primaries and then the primaries themselves.

Yes, I'm clearly just, uh, wishcasting for Bernie by arguing that Mayor Pete would have been a better candidate than Biden in a normal summer and fall.

It's ridiculous to pretend that Biden was some kind of all-conquering world beater - we all lived through the run up to the primaries and then the primaries themselves.

― Donald Trump Also Sucks, Of Course (milo z), Wednesday, October 14, 2020 9:18 PM (four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Mayor Pete won zero primaries. Are you sure you actually remember them?

sorry, one primary - Iowa

and that's arguable

Then finished second in New Hampshire, then was running competitively even in the south until Clyburn's endorsement and then Obama clearing the field.

Do you think post-1968 nominees are inherently the best option from the party each election?

I think Biden is polling well above Trump right now so you're just not on the best footing to argue he was a poor choice. I think Bernie could hypothetically have done just as well. I don't understand the case for Mayor Pete other than just your own surmisings.

We're not talking about right now, we're talking about a world without COVID. A world where Biden couldn't disappear from April until August, where he would have been traveling every day actually talking to people.

Biden was and is highly popular due to his association with Obama and his being an affable old white dude, like it or not. No one except Bernie ever really got any traction against Biden. It's true that there came a time when the other candidates closed ranks around Biden and that did sort of screw Bernie. But Biden made a strong showing in primaries prior to that. Mayor Pete's supposed greater mental sharpness doesn't really make up for the fact that he is not well-liked and not well-known.

Seriously, how well do you think "shoot 'em in the leg" plays with the most important of those "key Democratic voting constituencies" you referenced earlier, if his opponent wasn't so unabashedly evil?

Biden isn't highly popular though - his positives have just started to break 50% (against unabashed evil). He's just not hated.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/joe_biden_favorableunfavorable-6677.html
these are old but up through June

somewhere else on RCP I saw the more recent numbers that are cresting 50% favorable

I'd also suggest that Tara Reade's account might have landed with more impact had it not come the same week most of the country locked down.

mighta coulda. You can beat a dead horse all you want, but passive aggressive vote withholding is not going to move the democratic party a micrometer.

Okay? (pssst, I voted for Biden at lunch today - in a state where I don't think he's going to win)

You seem to really want something to be mad at or a gotcha but as above, yes, the idea of leveraging votes has to be organized and demand concessions. No idea who you think is arguing otherwise.

counterfactuals are unprovable, but I also think any of the primary candidates that are better at talking in full sentences than Biden would have done better than him, in that alternate timeline. I think a world where Biden's record and mental acuity were the focus of prolonged media scrutiny would be bad for him

sorry, one primary - Iowa