Sinekein wrote:"Green New Deal" is a campaign slogan, like Trump's "Law and Order" or "Make America Great Again". You can put many things behind it, from a couple of mild ecological decisions like not fracking in the middle of a National Park to taking a strong Luddite approach to development. Biden had to compromise to get the nomination because...isn't that what primaries are supposed to be? You fight within your party to get the most popular platform, but once you do, you make amends and try to please the largest possible base of voters. So far that is what Biden is trying to do; of course he cannot please everyone 100% because if that was the case there would not be more than one candidate to the primaries, but he can try to appeal to as many voters as possible. That is what he has done so far.
In 2016, Clinton mostly ignored the Sanders base and arrogantly decided she did not need them to win, which bit her in the ass. Polls kept saying the GOP candidate was a clown and that he could not win, so she decided that she would stay with her base alone. And Trump too did zero compromise, except he led the right-wing party in which people are way more likely to fall in line by default, so his was less of an issue. Fact remains however that primaries are supposed to pick a candidate for a party, not to decide that this candidate is the only voice of truth, it's not a cult situation. Biden is doing what countless candidates have done before him: satisfying one aisle of his party without alienating the other. He's done politics for 40 years, so obviously he would be a classic candidate.
The Green New Deal isn't a slogan, it's a specific bill. It was put in writing, submitted before Congress and voted on. Thus, it has a very specific meaning with a very specific set of predictable results. That's why it's controversial.
There's many approaches to the nomination process. For my entire life until this election, the pattern has been that the pool of candidates (especially in years with no incumbent President) have their battle of ideas throughout the primaries. One of them becomes the clear winner, then before the convention a lot of horse trading and deals are made to get the rest of the party onboard with you, then the convention is the big event to unite the party around this individual because this is the individual that just won a series of elections. In earlier elections, concessions to other primary candidates were often things like getting that person to fill a cabinet position. Taking
half of someone else's platform is probably not unprecedented, but it is rare. And more importantly, no one has ever won an election by doing that.
Sinekein wrote:For the first point, I am not sure it is that big of an issue. Again, it would be in a normal government with a normal president that does not constantly calls for media attention. But the last four years have had their political guidelines directed by the whims of the President, making it almost impossible - even for his party - to calmly focus and work on significant reforms. You could do it under "No Drama Obama", because aside from State visits or a couple of meaningful speeches, the President let Congress work; if Congress decided not to do what it was elected for, then voters would be right to complain. But during Trump's presidency there always was something big going on to turn people's attention away. Admittedly, not always his fault, but Covid is an example of a crisis that is not his responsibility but that he still managed disastrously, antagonizing yet again many people along the way (while a pandemic is a catastrophe, the kind of event that is supposed to be a golden opportunity for heads of state to build bridges and appeal to as many people as possible...).
For the second, well the lack of appearances is due mostly to the Dems avoiding public events not to spread Covid, since Biden is old - and Sanders even moreso. Sanders probably is not super happy with Biden's nomination, and it gives him a good excuse not to have to feign enthusiasm; still, I think Sanders' relationship with Biden is better than with Clinton who once again pretty much decided from the get go that she would easily win and seemed offended that he put up a fight. Biden did not dominate the polls like she did, so he is more humble in victory; also I don't think B & S had an head-to-head debate where words people regret could be exchanged. Bottom line: Sanders has not appeared publicly, but neither did most of the Dem politicians, and so far being careful with the pandemic is looking like the wisest strategy considering that 3 GOP Senators already are positive, not to mention Trump himself.
And again, even if BLM & demonstrators are not super happy with Biden, well, Trump is clearly and repeatedly siding with the police that's teargassing and hitting them. A vote of approbation is nice, but does not count for more than a vote of contestation, and repeated police violence that Trump endorses is probably giving many Sanders sympathizers a reason to vote against Trump - for Biden. Of course they don't register at BLM rallies because that's not the point, but it does not mean that those people are not registering at all. Admittedly, I don't know anything about numbers or process here, but the lack of numbers makes me think that "they are (not) registering" claims come down to a gut feeling more than anything else.
What would you say the pace of significant reforms is? In 2008 President Obama had the presidency and both houses of Congress. The only significant reform he passed was Obamacare and the Stimulus, and then lost the House in 2010. From there, his ability to effect significant reforms ended until the end of his Presidency. Most of President Trump's reforms have been focused on deregulation and loosening government controls on businesses to allow them to grow and flourish. That can mostly be accomplished with executive powers and it was. As for legislation, he managed to introduce tax cuts and replacement trade deals, the latter of which are started by the Executive and passed on to Congress. His other signature reform was the Border Wall, which was blocked by people in his party he couldn't win over in the primaries. This admittedly is a downside to being a strong personality running against the establishment in his own party. But given that construction is progressing on the project, it would seem to me he's accomplishing his goals.
You don't need public appearances, necessarily. I'm trying to think of big announcements, proclamations, press conferences, ads, or even regular supporting tweets. "I'm <Elected Official> and I urge you to vote for <Candidate>" is usually a regular part of campaign tours. When a candidate visits a state, they usually have a meeting with the popular elected officials in their party that person gets downticket votes. That or the Governor of that state endorses that candidate, opening a speech by reminding people how important it is that the party agenda is passed. That sort of thing gives elections their lifeblood, so that voters in their state and local jurisdiction can see that this too affects them and this isn't some elaborate show that comes on TV every four years. It's been a while since I've heard "And Govenor/Senator/Representative So-And-So was also at the Biden event..." or "<Local Official> was at <location> stumping for Biden." The only people I can think of regularly supporting Vice President Biden are Senator Chuck Schumer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Which is fine, they're the people doing the most visible legislative legwork for their party on the national stage, but isn't there anyone else?
That's my point about disengaging from the political process. Compare and contrast Occupy Wall Street with the Tea Party. Occupy Wall Street was a large left wing protest movement that gained national attention from 2011 to 2012. They gained worldwide attention, fame, and notoriety, and even got a few rules changed at various financial institutions. However, I can't point to any real political effect they had. They fielded no candidates, affected no legislation, and won no elections. They mostly popularized the concept of the Progressive Stack and served as the blueprint for the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. The Tea Party meanwhile was a large right wing protest movement that gained national attention from about 2006 to 2010. They fielded candidates, won elections, are now woven into the fabric of the Republican party, and it can be said with some justice that they paved the way for the 2016 Election. I say all of that to say this: when during an election year at a large political protest movement you don't see a lot of people saying "We're against X, register to vote against Y and vote for Z", it would not indicate an incoming meaningful effect on said election. Which is
really odd for something politicians up for election are loudly supporting.
Sinekein wrote:The issues with Romney's TR were not of the same magnitude. Romney did pay a couple of million dollars of taxes. Also, obviously, he released his tax returns by himself, while Trump is doing everything in his power not to, which kind of makes it look like he has something to hide (like being a professional tax dodger).
Johnson had a spike in personal popularity that never translated to support for his party; on the opposite, his management of the Covid crisis has led to a continuous drop in support for the Tories. Yes, people had sympathy for his personal issues, but it did not mean they thought better of him as a leader. More importantly, Johnson was somewhat apologetic when he became ill and admitted to some mistakes on top of vowing to stay in better shape; I seriously doubt Trump will decide now to become apologetic after failing to admit to a single mistake in nearly 4 years. Right now,
Johnson's popularity is at a record low, so sympathy only goes so far too.
Maybe you're right and he'll manage to turn the situation to his advantage, but I don't think he is in a strong position right now. And since these are the US elections, we might be bickering about tons and tons of causes and consequences while in the end everything that matters is what people of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Arizona and Pennsylvania are thinking. So far Trump is polling lower there than he was four years ago at the same time, so aside from improving his results in the popular vote, he has to ensure he improves in those States too. Which might be hard when you're quarantined for a week and only 30 days remain.
That's one perspective. Another is that President Trump's base is immune to chaos because they see a pattern: establishment starts looking for dirt, then finds that President Trump was hiding the fact that he was doing nothing illegal. The Establishment has to reconcile Watergate level hype with minimal payoff and that they've been repeating that for his entire presidency. Political careers for federal prosecutors (like the President's council, Rudy Giuliani) are made on big cases. Somewhere out there is a prosecutor chomping at the bit to try a case exactly like this, for exactly the same reason we remember the names Woodward and Bernstein and how they were
immortalized in film for breaking the Watergate Scandal. There doesn't seem to be such a person who can actually bring a lawsuit to bear, however, so I don't think it'll have lasting implications.
Johnson's fall in the polls was after a month out. The election is less than a month away. Thus, I can make the assumption that this will help Trump's electoral chances. That and from what little I know of British politics, while the his government has gotten Britain out of the European Union, they're not publicly doing a lot else for the electorate that put them in power.
Sinekein wrote:Well, Biden has not shown his senility so far - and he's not the one in the hospital atm - and Covid has hit the economy very hard, so Trump's slogan falls kind of flat. Had Trump been very cautious and warned since the very beginning that it would be a difficult situation with the pandemic, I figure the voters would be more forgiving, but he chose to downplay it until the US were hit extremely hard (and by all accounts, still are).
I also think you are overstating a bit how much Trump's election was in response to Obama himself. Trump led a movement that was against "the system", which means Obama, Clinton, Bush, etc... but I'm not sure he was seen as the worst part of this system - his 8 year presidency was very low on scandals since he did not start a war on dubious grounds and avoided banging interns in the Oval Office (as far as we know). If Trump's mandate had been a continuous triumph, then it would seem stupid to go for nostalgia, but it was not exactly that, and that last year might be the worst of all. Reminding people that there was a time where the president was calm, cool and collected in those times? Sounds like a sensible plan.
There's always more someone could've done in a crisis. That being said, I find this line of argumentation odd. The first big national mention of the coronavirus was at the State of the Union address in February, where he justified his travel ban to China from a week before. Around that same time the
Mayor of Florence started "Hug a Chinese" day and
Speaker Pelosi invited people to visit Chinatown. These and other examples from the time the major political concern was that this kind of action could be perceived as baseless racism. Taking this action does not indicate the man was asleep at the wheel. I started a new job in March, leaving my previous job at a supermarket deli the day before the plastic wrap came out and the buffet table went down. After a couple weeks of training, we got to that lovely week where toilet paper and rice became hot commodities. That happened because of that major narrative shift when the Imperial College of London put out
this report on the estimates for coronavirus deaths and they were touted as the best numbers in the world. These were the justifications for the worldwide lockdowns. Page 11 of that report lists the worst case for North America over eight months as 2.98 million dead. Best case for three month lockdown over that period is around 92,000 dead and the medium case is 520,000 dead.
The current death toll for North America is around 315,000 dead. The eight month mark from when that report was published ends around Election Day, so it's safe to say that the policies enacted back then had the intended effect.
This bears repeating. When toilet paper and rice was flying off store shelves and masks were sold out everywhere, we were told about
three million people would die. I was getting fully prepared to at some point watch someone die in front of me.
This isn't ideal, and there's no circumstance where the death of over two hundred thousand Americans can be construed as "good news", but I can say the government did what it set out to do with the information they were given at the time.
After that came the economic damage. I'm currently in North Dakota. We locked down for about a month or so and opened back up. Since a large portion of our economy has to do with oil
those weeks where there was a negative price for oil was brutal, but by now we've recovered to having a lean, efficient economic engine. This is a model a lot of red states have followed and subsequently have earned low unemployment numbers compared to their neighboring blue states. As a side note, before all of this, if California was it's own country it'd be the seventh largest economy in the world. Right now it's under some of the most strigent lockdowns in the country. If the number of California and Washington licence plates I've seen is any indication, the longest lasting effects of the lockdowns are when they finally reopened.
Comparing two Presidential adminstrations is a matter of perspective. I try to remain objective in political debates, so I'm not going to get into the subjectiveness of how these things are viewed. I will say this: Secretary Clinton's pitch to become President was that she was basically four more years of Obama. The majority of American states voted against that. Trying this exact pitch again is not something I expect to go well.
