JVL’s rant at the end of YouTube stream yesterday was epic. He boils all the chum in our media ecosystem down to the most basic components.
1. If Trump wins it won’t be because “the people” didn’t know what they were voting for but because they did know and wanted it.
2. The system to choose the president is now, blatantly, anti-majoritarian now. It isn’t just once in a 100 year phenomenon but it is now a “feature” (bug) of the system.
3. We aren’t on the verge of authoritarianism, we were walking down the ramp to more authoritarianism.
4. Here is the most important point for center right people like me (also to center left): the Biden presidency was an absolute failure. It isn’t a failure because of Biden but because of us, the voters. I don’t want to argue about the actual facts of the Biden presidency (in my mind he has been the best president of my lifetime), but the THEORY of his presidency. I thought and I think the Biden admin thought, that if they went back to “normal” and Biden stayed out of the culture wars he could bring back sanity. By being the opposite of Trump he could show the voters that you can have a government that “mostly” worked. He, and I were wrong.
5. The system is going to need radical change. This is what is going to be tough for people like me who want to resist it but it is needed and it was needed yesterday.
All fair. To do that you have to pack the court. To do that you have to kill the filibuster. To do that you have to win the senate. To do that you have to win in red states. The problem is those dem senators are less likely to want to kill the filibuster. Depressing
RE: #4.. Biden was a natural next step for America. I think many Americans needed the return to sanity story and he was perfect for the time. Now I believe more Americans realize we need new approaches to secure the republic (note both sides could use this type of rhetoric).
At the end it reminds me of Bush 1: for all his experience, he didn't seem to pivot and show how to lead after the Cold War.
I don't know if this is America specific ( because we are a slow moving country) or human nature but we definitely make sure that horse is dead before looking ahead.
Honestly I don’t know what Biden could have done “better.” (Speaking only politically). A lot of people think and say and write “if only he would have sold it better”…or…”he needs to use the bully pulpit more”…blah blah blah
But that is the problem. The moment any dem goes hard on an issue it immediately because polarized. Look at Ukraine. What Biden is doing is a very Republican message and still because he wanted to do it…it becomes unpopular with half the country.
How do you fix anything if the moment it’s pushed spoken about by the president the answer from half the country is “fuck that.”
It is heartening to hear a center right person saying this. Hopefully Harris wins, the Dems get a trifecta, and enough centrists have come to similar conclusions so we can actually have a chance to try again.
Oh, I'm not sanguine about the chances of much of that which is why it is a shame to see this now rather than 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, or even 2023 when the Dem side of this race was taking shape. Still, another chance, however unlikely it is, won't matter if enough centrists can't get to where Migs has gotten so I at least wanted to give him props.
Yep. I just not sure that message wins because many like me haven’t gotten far enough to believe we need systematic change. If Harris losing doesn’t do it I’m not sure what will.
That’s what is even more depressing. I don’t think it will. Until there is an actual blow out election or Dems decide to actually play hardball I just don’t see it. I hope I’m wrong
"I thought and I think the Biden admin thought, that if they went back to “normal” and Biden stayed out of the culture wars he could bring back sanity. By being the opposite of Trump he could show the voters that you can have a government that “mostly” worked. He, and I were wrong." This has been the mentality of democrats since Michelle Obama's old mantra of "when they go low, we go high" around the time of Hillary's run. It did not work, it continues to not work, and they continue to mostly follow that playbook just as they continue to refuse to embrace a more populist stance as a party outside of the issue of abortion.
For me, Biden's 4 years was a failure on several fronts, but the single biggest point of failure was its inability to embrace populism at a time of *domestic* crisis around inflation, the short housing supply, and immigration. Instead, dems addressed things like domestic chip manufacturing, green energy spending, infrastructure spending, and Ukraine aid. Dems ignored the pressing priorities of voters and instead chased their own pet projects (I'm not including the botched Afghanistan withdrawal here because Trump had too big of a hand in that).
Literally building factories and roads. That’s about as populist as you can get. And you can complain all you want about the withdrawal, but it went about as well as it possibly could have. It’s amazing that for a country hellbent on defending capitalism, there is so much appetite for a government directed economy.
"Literally building factories and roads. That’s about as populist as you can get."
Not when the people are all shouting about inflation, the cost of living, housing, and immigration and then the admin turns around and spends hundreds of billions building roads and factories. In that case, measures that addressed inflation, housing, and immigration are popular and building factories and roads are an issue in policy priorities.
Agree on housing and especially immigration. But what could Biden have done to embrace populism on inflation? He certainly could have refrained from saying "the economy's great". But what could he actually DO about it?
I will also add that Biden's biggest mistake was to run again.
Refraining from saying the economy is great is a big step #1. He could've done temporary tax cuts for lower income brackets that would be tied to the inflation rate that could have helped with the increased costs. He could have put together a task force of mayors and governors in populous blue states to increase housing by slashing development red tape and eliminating local NIMBYism by moving housing development control from municipal localities to the state government.
But aside from policy, he could have done more to be a better communicator with the American people on inflation. Biden was said to be "the great empathizer" but I didn't see a lot of that supposed communications expertise on display during inflation. I mostly just saw finger-pointing at corporations for supposed price-gouging and that's about it. People wanted to be heard, consoled, and to have solutions provided--even if only temporary ones. They also need to understand how and why inflation was happening, because failing to do so allowed Trump & MAGA to just say it was because of Biden's policies at a time when Biden was quite on the issue. He needed to play political defense by defining the issue rather than having his opponents define the issue for him with Americans.
Fair. Not sure how much difference it would have made. I just don’t think saying it is what people want. They want it to be solved and when it isn’t they blame the president. Unfair but it is what happens.
I just don’t think people care as much as we would like to believe about saying whatever. I think they want it fixed and there were never anyway to get congress to pass immigration legislation. Unfortunate for sure. It was also a problem for Trump and Obama and bush 2 and Clinton.
That’s theory but no evidence that it’s true. They literally tried to pass a bill 7 months ago that gave almost everything the republicans want and they said no. Harris/biden have been messaging on it that they wanted to fix it. If your hypothetical was true then it would have worked. It hasn’t because the problem isn’t fixed.
Progressives don’t care that Biden tried to forgive their student debt. They are pissed he didn’t do it. I just don’t think there is much evidence that rhetorical statements make much a difference.
Again, where congress fails to act there are plenty of governors and mayors in blue cities and states that could be acting in unison when the federal government will not. You see this in the red states all the time. They can't get a national abortion ban, but when the Dobbs ruling comes down about 20-something red states suddenly put abortion restrictions in place didn't they? Where they couldn't get federal laws passed, they acted in unison at the state level. Dems can and should do the same thing when it comes to issues like housing.
Travis, so? They didn’t because it isn’t in their interest to do the things you want. Also immigration is a federal issue and can’t be solved at the state level.
If you think that even in blue states that they can just do anything they want and don’t have their own voters who vote on issues than I don’t know what to say. Housing is a fucking huge issue. Guess what? People who own homes vote at high levels and they generally like to restrict housing supply. You can’t just wave away politics, even at the state and local level. If what you wanted was popular locally it would be done locally.
"Housing is a fucking huge issue. Guess what? People who own homes vote at high levels and they generally like to restrict housing supply."
Yes, but if you pass legislature at the state level to move development decisions from localities to the state then you can bypass local NIMBYism entirely by taking the issue away from local councils. I'm not talking about "waving away politics," these are things that would need to be voted on and passed in state legislatures and or on state-level ballot initiatives, but you can at least get it going and present them as solutions to issues and sell them, just like you would on literally any other policy item. The GOP didn't just wave a magic wand and get abortion restrictions put into place at the state level either, they had to pass shit too and they did. Dems can and should do the same at the state level when it comes to issues like increasing the housing supply.
The same people who vote for mayor of la and sf are the same people who vote for the state legislators. I am so lost how you don’t see this. This isn’t hard.
Ah yes, the entire state of CA is comprised of just the people who live in LA/SF and who vote for mayor of LA/SF. Right, right, I forgot how small the state of California is.
Choi can’t be this dense on the subject. The reason that California is blue is because of the Bay Area and la. You do realize that that’s where all the population is right? You do realize how districts are drawn right? They are drawn based on population so California legislator is composed of the MOST politicians from the Bay Area and la. I used la and sf mayor race to make a point that the places you so hate also get represented.
I disagree. First he embraced populism. You can say he should have gone farther and I think that is fair. Remind me how the things you want actually happen in our system? Do you really think manchin or Sinema were going to green light your ideas? I do not.
The problem I have with your pov is that it treats the presidency as a dictator. You just assume that if he wanted it or said it a lot then it would have happen. Take housing. You can’t honestly argue that there is anyway a single republican would vote for what you want. You also can’t argue, honestly, that Sinema or manchin would have done what you recommended. I don’t disagree with what you want I disagree it was ever achievable
"Remind me how the things you want actually happen in our system? Do you really think manchin or Sinema were going to green light your ideas? I do not."
When things can't or won't move at the federal level, this is where the state and city level come in. You get a task force of governors and mayors together to get shit done at the state level when things won't move through congress. Then you put those efforts on display and call out GOP foot-dragging in congress to show that because congress can't get its act together, governors and mayors are stepping up to act where congress won't. I consider executive orders a selective means of last resort. There is nothing "dictatorial" about getting governors and mayors to act where congress won't.
Chips act, but American, infrastructure act, Medicare negotiation that drastically decreased pricing on 15 drugs, child tax credit, waving debt, raising taxes on people making more than 400k, etc.
Ahhh the do it at the state level. Ok so we are moving the goalposts. We were talking about Biden and populism not random governors and mayors and populism. And here again, you have to get it through their legislators and dive into their politics to see what can be accomplished. Once again, I’m asking what Biden should have done that is populist that could be accomplished?
I know what you want the government to do broadly. I’m asking you honestly to explain to me how you ACTUALLY make it happen.
The CHIPS Act was not populist, neither was the infrastructure act, and neither was student debt (the majority of the country are not diploma-holders with college debt, student debt was a "blue meat" for the progressive base issue). The Child Tax Credit and Medicare negotiations were populist issues, so I'll give him credit there--especially on insulin price caps.
We're not moving the goalposts by talking about governors and mayors, because Biden is the only one within the party who has the power to single-handily unify these mayors/governors with a WH round-table. Getting that round-table to happen is something he *could* have accomplished, but instead chose not to. This is exactly how you make it happen. Yes there are state legislatures, but within blue states with large populations like CA, IL, NY, etc. that's not exactly a huge lift when the party owns the governance structures there. Even in the states where they don't have outright majorities in the legislature, it's easier to micro-target GOP reps within those legislatures at the state level than it is to get movement from GOP reps at the state level where there's more pressure around partisanship and party unity on issues.
You can’t really believe that Biden can dictate to a governor and his legislators what legislation they should pass. You can’t honestly believe that. You also can’t honestly believe that even if this were possible, which it is not, it could only happen in deeply blue states. How the fuck does that help him?!?!? He already wins those states. Come on Travis. This is so dumb I don’t even know what to say about it.
I'm not telling him to "dictate," I'm talking about a roundtable meeting designating a task force to tackle an issue, all of which would have different methods of getting that done within each stakeholder's own territories, but you can certainly establish goals and crowd-source ideas that way and get movement at *some* level since you can't get it nationally. And then when that method breeds out some successes you sell it to the broader public. "Look what we're doing in state/city ____, we could be getting this done at the national level if it weren't for GOP resistance" etc., etc. You hold the GOP's feet to the fire on the "politics of no" by showing the national voting public what can be done at the national level in the absence of stone-walling. Isn't that what the states being "the laboratories of democracy" supposed to be?
Again, I'll point to the GOP on abortion restrictions. Not every state has the same restrictions as if they were "dictated" by Trump or whoever, but you have the party acting in a form of unison at the state level there when a national ban isn't going to happen. The same could be done by blue governors/mayors on housing through a roundtable organized by the Biden WH (or Harris WH if she wins).
First you have to explain how this helps him. You keep pretending that if some blue states do something on some issue that somehow leads to political benefit to Biden. Please somehow connect those 2 thoughts.
Second, when has process ever been viewed as a political benefit? Having some meetings somewhere leads to what?
Third, if what you want is so popular why isn’t it already being done?
Fourth, your using abortion? How has this made republicans more popular? It’s literally the exact opposite of popularism.
Fifth, abortion is a national issue. You know this. It’s been a national issue because of the Supreme Court in the 70s. It has been ever since. Please show me this popular issue that has been at the national level that states could do?
I know of only one issue that even gets close. Gun control. Even that doesn’t get done locally because the sc keeps rejecting laws of blue states and republicans actively oppose it.
1st) It demonstrates leadership. It shows initiative in the face of a crisis. You have the press covering him listening and asking questions among a circle of couches or a large roundtable in the WH with governors and mayors seated there giving inputs, etc. You have him doing press briefings talking about the issues and the solutions that will be forthcoming at the state level. It shows the public that Biden--and the party more broadly--are taking the issue seriously and doing something about in the face of a congress that refuses to act. This is a lot like when Gov Abbott started taking the Texas border into his own hands when the federal government did too little on border security, but instead you have a president leading this initiative and a whole lot more than just one governor involved.
2nd) Operation Warp Speed was a process that had political benefit, and it's to this day credited as one of the only productive things that came out of the Trump admin.
3rd) Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean others have thought of it or acted on it.
4th) I'm using the *example* of abortion as a unified state-level issue in absence of federal potential, I didn't say it was a popular example. You can do popular things using a model that was previously used to do unpopular things. If you want the inverse example then look at blue states passing abortion protection legislature that's ongoing as we speak. Look at the state-level marriage equality acts that were passed before the Obergfeld decision came down (in fact, these state-level passages forced that SCOTUS to take on the issue nationally in the absence of congress passing a national marriage equality bill).
5th) Some issues are national but cannot be passed as such, and in the absence of national possibilities states act. Again, see examples like marriage equality, slavery/abolition, segregation/desegregation, abortion access/restriction, etc. A lot of the time stuff has to happen at the state level en masse before it is forced to be addressed nationally.
1. That is some of the stupidest shit I have read and you know it. You’re just waving your hand that some council meeting makes him look like a leader. Come on Travis. You’re digging this grave deeper.
2. Operation warp speed? That wasn’t a fucking process. That was a program that passed in Congress that allocated 10b dollars to make a vaccine. Come on Travis just say you were wrong. Operation warp speed was a fucking federal legislation. You know, went through the congress and signed by the president. It’s literally the exact opposite of what you are arguing.
3. Also just a completely stupid argument. I actually have no idea what you are talking about. Now all of a sudden Biden is not the president but the governor of washington? Come on man. You are wrong. If your ideas were popular they would happen. It’s so fucking annoying. People don’t raise taxes like you want not because “oh I never thought about that” it’s because it isn’t popular. What you want Travis doesn’t happen because it’s the exact fucking opposite of popular.
4. Ahh an example that is exact oppositie of popularism to make a point of popularism. Got it. Makes a ton of sense.
I find a ton of what you write really interesting. I find that you do have a lot of good ideas. However this exchange off the rocker dumb. You just won’t admit which is maddening. You just keep moving goalposts.
Finally Travis the reason the things you want done are not done is because what you want isn’t popular. I’m sorry what you want isn’t popularism. I don’t get how you haven’t realized it yet.
I don't begrudge Biden for eschewing Populist rhetoric. Not at all. In my opinion, populism tends to be popular, but highly pernicious in most (? all) cases. One of the last things we need is the two major political parties subscribing to dangerous dogma.
The primary failure of Biden's Presidency was his inability to use the Bully Pulpit to dispell hideous disinformation from the opposition. He needed to be the Explainer in Chief. Never lie, but explain - loudly - how hollow (and dangerous) Trump's rhetoric and convictions were. He should have been on TV and social media 2-3 times per week shaming the R's who consented to Trump's sabotage of the immigration plan back in the Spring. That was a dispicable politcal calculation that regular, non-college voters could've grasped, if beat over the head with it. He never did. I suspect this was largely a product of senescence of the body, as opposed to opting for timidity, but whatever the case, it was routinely an issue.
The Obama folks have publicly said that (1) the bully pulpit not only doesn’t work because the pulpit doesn’t have much reach anymore and (2) it’s counterproductive because it causes half the country to hate whatever you are pitching.
Your second argument requires Biden to grab media attention. This isn’t a him problem. This is a dem problem. Why? Because dems can’t compete with Trump and the gop on media attention because for a good reason they aren’t crazy. Think about how little Trump would be covered if he acted like Romney. The issue is he lights himself on fire hourly.
I’ll give you Biden isn’t a great communicator. But look at Harris. She is a great communicator now and never ever gets coverage. Why? Because she isn’t a lightning rod for controversy.
The Dems need their own Trump. Or, to put it a little more palatable, a modern Teddy Roosevelt. We need a bully for a bully pulpit who isn't afraid to call people racists when they are, and who isn't afraid of oligarchs because they have their own money. But unlike Trump, someone who has actual beliefs and principles that they want to enact through policy. And someone who isnt afraid to piss off the center (of whom I count myself).
Honestly, the closest that comes to mind is JB Pritzker, but I don't know that even he is bully enough for what we need.
I don't know that we want more billionaires like Pritzker/Trump/Bloomberg running for office, but yea, a Teddy Roosevelt type would be nice. I could go for some trust-busting right about now.
If Harris loses this is exactly what Democrats will decide. And they may be correct. But I don’t know that we’re ready to understand what that would mean.
Unfortunately that won’t work with dems. It’s because of their voters. Republicans are a very homogeneous party (white, male). Dems is just too diffused to make a powerful leader.
The bully pulpit hasn’t worked in a long long time. Obama used it 3 times in his first term but his campaign team measured it and he didn’t use it ever again because (1) it didn’t work and (2) it actually caused more backlash.
I take issue with #1 - sure I guess some people know, but many are imbibing in a such a false info stream and fantasy land, they in fact don't know at all. On #2 -- this is no way to elect a president, not even close. Whatever is going on the campaign trial appears to have almost nothing to do with the day-to-day biz of being president. I think unfortunately #3 will largely agree in the history books because he failed to see tsunami for the waves sort of thing. alas. otherwise i think he's done a good if not very good day to day effort at it. It's hard to argue with #5... it could really hurt depending on how things go, or it could just be kamala with a scythe...
Trump is literally the most known man in America and the world. His name id and what he stands for is known by EVERYONE. what people chose to project onto him is definitely shaped by their media diet…but once again that is a choice.
I don’t think they are capable ……Then do we get to call them stupid? At some point people have to take responsibility for their choices. At this point if you don’t know what Trump is about, That is your own ignorance.
my question is -- do i have some kind of pt or some bs. i'm trying to sort out whether we have real democracy at work or some kind of distorted version. i claimed the latter -- whereas jvl seems to be saying 'they've seen it they want it." [aka it's rational] if it's the latter it would give the dems some justification if they needed it to well, do whatever is they need to do to not lose. even if it's real democracy at work -- can the people decide to ditch the republic? they couldn't in 1861 after all. that's precedent ...
I just don’t know if it’s that black or white. I just don’t think excusing grown adults for being too stupid is a worthwhile endeavor. Many people have many reasons for voting so at some level it’s always a generalization in describing “everyone.”
The facts are pretty clear though. Trump is the most known man in the world. Trump was president of all of us for 4 years. He began running for presidency 2 months after he lost. He is on tv, podcasts, radio all the time. He has spent 1b dollars driving his message. Hard to say given all that that people don’t “really” know who, or what he is
well for what its worth having either seen or read countless interviews w/trump voters and heard it from from a few personally. id say well none of them seem to know the real djt... i mean as real as the facts that have been widely dispersed otherwise go... they've just tuned all that out. somehow grasping on to this fantasy about him, and they refuse to let it go -- doesn't matter what occurs or is brought up [tried to fix it ... ] - going so far as to say cancel the paper they long read, refusing to read certain others (like usa today in a hotel because "it's evil" -- i mean usa today? that's about anodyne as u get)... ... and so on.
JVL’s rant at the end of YouTube stream yesterday was epic. He boils all the chum in our media ecosystem down to the most basic components.
1. If Trump wins it won’t be because “the people” didn’t know what they were voting for but because they did know and wanted it.
2. The system to choose the president is now, blatantly, anti-majoritarian now. It isn’t just once in a 100 year phenomenon but it is now a “feature” (bug) of the system.
3. We aren’t on the verge of authoritarianism, we were walking down the ramp to more authoritarianism.
4. Here is the most important point for center right people like me (also to center left): the Biden presidency was an absolute failure. It isn’t a failure because of Biden but because of us, the voters. I don’t want to argue about the actual facts of the Biden presidency (in my mind he has been the best president of my lifetime), but the THEORY of his presidency. I thought and I think the Biden admin thought, that if they went back to “normal” and Biden stayed out of the culture wars he could bring back sanity. By being the opposite of Trump he could show the voters that you can have a government that “mostly” worked. He, and I were wrong.
5. The system is going to need radical change. This is what is going to be tough for people like me who want to resist it but it is needed and it was needed yesterday.
We need to get rid of Citizens United and all the Super PACS.
All fair. To do that you have to pack the court. To do that you have to kill the filibuster. To do that you have to win the senate. To do that you have to win in red states. The problem is those dem senators are less likely to want to kill the filibuster. Depressing
RE: #4.. Biden was a natural next step for America. I think many Americans needed the return to sanity story and he was perfect for the time. Now I believe more Americans realize we need new approaches to secure the republic (note both sides could use this type of rhetoric).
At the end it reminds me of Bush 1: for all his experience, he didn't seem to pivot and show how to lead after the Cold War.
I don't know if this is America specific ( because we are a slow moving country) or human nature but we definitely make sure that horse is dead before looking ahead.
Honestly I don’t know what Biden could have done “better.” (Speaking only politically). A lot of people think and say and write “if only he would have sold it better”…or…”he needs to use the bully pulpit more”…blah blah blah
But that is the problem. The moment any dem goes hard on an issue it immediately because polarized. Look at Ukraine. What Biden is doing is a very Republican message and still because he wanted to do it…it becomes unpopular with half the country.
How do you fix anything if the moment it’s pushed spoken about by the president the answer from half the country is “fuck that.”
It is heartening to hear a center right person saying this. Hopefully Harris wins, the Dems get a trifecta, and enough centrists have come to similar conclusions so we can actually have a chance to try again.
A Dem win in the Senate is very unlikely.
Oh, I'm not sanguine about the chances of much of that which is why it is a shame to see this now rather than 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, or even 2023 when the Dem side of this race was taking shape. Still, another chance, however unlikely it is, won't matter if enough centrists can't get to where Migs has gotten so I at least wanted to give him props.
Yep. I just not sure that message wins because many like me haven’t gotten far enough to believe we need systematic change. If Harris losing doesn’t do it I’m not sure what will.
Understood.
That’s what is even more depressing. I don’t think it will. Until there is an actual blow out election or Dems decide to actually play hardball I just don’t see it. I hope I’m wrong
I fear your system will change but in a way none of us wants…
Yep. The hard part in negotiating a change to a system with a party that wants to burn it all down.
"I thought and I think the Biden admin thought, that if they went back to “normal” and Biden stayed out of the culture wars he could bring back sanity. By being the opposite of Trump he could show the voters that you can have a government that “mostly” worked. He, and I were wrong." This has been the mentality of democrats since Michelle Obama's old mantra of "when they go low, we go high" around the time of Hillary's run. It did not work, it continues to not work, and they continue to mostly follow that playbook just as they continue to refuse to embrace a more populist stance as a party outside of the issue of abortion.
For me, Biden's 4 years was a failure on several fronts, but the single biggest point of failure was its inability to embrace populism at a time of *domestic* crisis around inflation, the short housing supply, and immigration. Instead, dems addressed things like domestic chip manufacturing, green energy spending, infrastructure spending, and Ukraine aid. Dems ignored the pressing priorities of voters and instead chased their own pet projects (I'm not including the botched Afghanistan withdrawal here because Trump had too big of a hand in that).
Literally building factories and roads. That’s about as populist as you can get. And you can complain all you want about the withdrawal, but it went about as well as it possibly could have. It’s amazing that for a country hellbent on defending capitalism, there is so much appetite for a government directed economy.
"Literally building factories and roads. That’s about as populist as you can get."
Not when the people are all shouting about inflation, the cost of living, housing, and immigration and then the admin turns around and spends hundreds of billions building roads and factories. In that case, measures that addressed inflation, housing, and immigration are popular and building factories and roads are an issue in policy priorities.
Again, love to be about capitalism while secretly wanting a government directed economy.
Agree on housing and especially immigration. But what could Biden have done to embrace populism on inflation? He certainly could have refrained from saying "the economy's great". But what could he actually DO about it?
I will also add that Biden's biggest mistake was to run again.
Refraining from saying the economy is great is a big step #1. He could've done temporary tax cuts for lower income brackets that would be tied to the inflation rate that could have helped with the increased costs. He could have put together a task force of mayors and governors in populous blue states to increase housing by slashing development red tape and eliminating local NIMBYism by moving housing development control from municipal localities to the state government.
But aside from policy, he could have done more to be a better communicator with the American people on inflation. Biden was said to be "the great empathizer" but I didn't see a lot of that supposed communications expertise on display during inflation. I mostly just saw finger-pointing at corporations for supposed price-gouging and that's about it. People wanted to be heard, consoled, and to have solutions provided--even if only temporary ones. They also need to understand how and why inflation was happening, because failing to do so allowed Trump & MAGA to just say it was because of Biden's policies at a time when Biden was quite on the issue. He needed to play political defense by defining the issue rather than having his opponents define the issue for him with Americans.
So, better communicator is #1. Related failures were not deploying surrogates to compensate for that and to prepare Harris for the 2O24 race.
Re the housing crisis, the State of California is movig housing development control from the municipal localities to the state.
He couldn’t do anything on immigration or housing either. On housing, no way manchin would vote to do anything Harris is presenting.
On immigration, republicans killed the 2 bills he put on the table. There was nothing to do there either.
This isn’t unique to Biden. All presidents since bush have failed to do anything on immigration. It’s a black hole for political capital.
Biden could have made it clear that he stands for a secure southern border. Instead, he allowed Rs to claim Dems were for "open borders."
Fair. Not sure how much difference it would have made. I just don’t think saying it is what people want. They want it to be solved and when it isn’t they blame the president. Unfair but it is what happens.
I just don’t think people care as much as we would like to believe about saying whatever. I think they want it fixed and there were never anyway to get congress to pass immigration legislation. Unfortunate for sure. It was also a problem for Trump and Obama and bush 2 and Clinton.
The difference it would have made would have been to dilute the immigration issue, maybe enough to win the EC.
That’s theory but no evidence that it’s true. They literally tried to pass a bill 7 months ago that gave almost everything the republicans want and they said no. Harris/biden have been messaging on it that they wanted to fix it. If your hypothetical was true then it would have worked. It hasn’t because the problem isn’t fixed.
Progressives don’t care that Biden tried to forgive their student debt. They are pissed he didn’t do it. I just don’t think there is much evidence that rhetorical statements make much a difference.
Again, where congress fails to act there are plenty of governors and mayors in blue cities and states that could be acting in unison when the federal government will not. You see this in the red states all the time. They can't get a national abortion ban, but when the Dobbs ruling comes down about 20-something red states suddenly put abortion restrictions in place didn't they? Where they couldn't get federal laws passed, they acted in unison at the state level. Dems can and should do the same thing when it comes to issues like housing.
Travis, so? They didn’t because it isn’t in their interest to do the things you want. Also immigration is a federal issue and can’t be solved at the state level.
If you think that even in blue states that they can just do anything they want and don’t have their own voters who vote on issues than I don’t know what to say. Housing is a fucking huge issue. Guess what? People who own homes vote at high levels and they generally like to restrict housing supply. You can’t just wave away politics, even at the state and local level. If what you wanted was popular locally it would be done locally.
"Housing is a fucking huge issue. Guess what? People who own homes vote at high levels and they generally like to restrict housing supply."
Yes, but if you pass legislature at the state level to move development decisions from localities to the state then you can bypass local NIMBYism entirely by taking the issue away from local councils. I'm not talking about "waving away politics," these are things that would need to be voted on and passed in state legislatures and or on state-level ballot initiatives, but you can at least get it going and present them as solutions to issues and sell them, just like you would on literally any other policy item. The GOP didn't just wave a magic wand and get abortion restrictions put into place at the state level either, they had to pass shit too and they did. Dems can and should do the same at the state level when it comes to issues like increasing the housing supply.
The State of California, a Dem trifecta if there ever was one, has been moving housing supply authority out of localities.
I live here. It hasn’t made so much of a dent in housing supply.
The same people who vote for mayor of la and sf are the same people who vote for the state legislators. I am so lost how you don’t see this. This isn’t hard.
Ah yes, the entire state of CA is comprised of just the people who live in LA/SF and who vote for mayor of LA/SF. Right, right, I forgot how small the state of California is.
Choi can’t be this dense on the subject. The reason that California is blue is because of the Bay Area and la. You do realize that that’s where all the population is right? You do realize how districts are drawn right? They are drawn based on population so California legislator is composed of the MOST politicians from the Bay Area and la. I used la and sf mayor race to make a point that the places you so hate also get represented.
I disagree. First he embraced populism. You can say he should have gone farther and I think that is fair. Remind me how the things you want actually happen in our system? Do you really think manchin or Sinema were going to green light your ideas? I do not.
The problem I have with your pov is that it treats the presidency as a dictator. You just assume that if he wanted it or said it a lot then it would have happen. Take housing. You can’t honestly argue that there is anyway a single republican would vote for what you want. You also can’t argue, honestly, that Sinema or manchin would have done what you recommended. I don’t disagree with what you want I disagree it was ever achievable
"First he embraced populism"
And evidence of this is where exactly?
"Remind me how the things you want actually happen in our system? Do you really think manchin or Sinema were going to green light your ideas? I do not."
When things can't or won't move at the federal level, this is where the state and city level come in. You get a task force of governors and mayors together to get shit done at the state level when things won't move through congress. Then you put those efforts on display and call out GOP foot-dragging in congress to show that because congress can't get its act together, governors and mayors are stepping up to act where congress won't. I consider executive orders a selective means of last resort. There is nothing "dictatorial" about getting governors and mayors to act where congress won't.
“And evidence of this is where exactly?”
Chips act, but American, infrastructure act, Medicare negotiation that drastically decreased pricing on 15 drugs, child tax credit, waving debt, raising taxes on people making more than 400k, etc.
Ahhh the do it at the state level. Ok so we are moving the goalposts. We were talking about Biden and populism not random governors and mayors and populism. And here again, you have to get it through their legislators and dive into their politics to see what can be accomplished. Once again, I’m asking what Biden should have done that is populist that could be accomplished?
I know what you want the government to do broadly. I’m asking you honestly to explain to me how you ACTUALLY make it happen.
The CHIPS Act was not populist, neither was the infrastructure act, and neither was student debt (the majority of the country are not diploma-holders with college debt, student debt was a "blue meat" for the progressive base issue). The Child Tax Credit and Medicare negotiations were populist issues, so I'll give him credit there--especially on insulin price caps.
We're not moving the goalposts by talking about governors and mayors, because Biden is the only one within the party who has the power to single-handily unify these mayors/governors with a WH round-table. Getting that round-table to happen is something he *could* have accomplished, but instead chose not to. This is exactly how you make it happen. Yes there are state legislatures, but within blue states with large populations like CA, IL, NY, etc. that's not exactly a huge lift when the party owns the governance structures there. Even in the states where they don't have outright majorities in the legislature, it's easier to micro-target GOP reps within those legislatures at the state level than it is to get movement from GOP reps at the state level where there's more pressure around partisanship and party unity on issues.
You can’t really believe that Biden can dictate to a governor and his legislators what legislation they should pass. You can’t honestly believe that. You also can’t honestly believe that even if this were possible, which it is not, it could only happen in deeply blue states. How the fuck does that help him?!?!? He already wins those states. Come on Travis. This is so dumb I don’t even know what to say about it.
I'm not telling him to "dictate," I'm talking about a roundtable meeting designating a task force to tackle an issue, all of which would have different methods of getting that done within each stakeholder's own territories, but you can certainly establish goals and crowd-source ideas that way and get movement at *some* level since you can't get it nationally. And then when that method breeds out some successes you sell it to the broader public. "Look what we're doing in state/city ____, we could be getting this done at the national level if it weren't for GOP resistance" etc., etc. You hold the GOP's feet to the fire on the "politics of no" by showing the national voting public what can be done at the national level in the absence of stone-walling. Isn't that what the states being "the laboratories of democracy" supposed to be?
Again, I'll point to the GOP on abortion restrictions. Not every state has the same restrictions as if they were "dictated" by Trump or whoever, but you have the party acting in a form of unison at the state level there when a national ban isn't going to happen. The same could be done by blue governors/mayors on housing through a roundtable organized by the Biden WH (or Harris WH if she wins).
First you have to explain how this helps him. You keep pretending that if some blue states do something on some issue that somehow leads to political benefit to Biden. Please somehow connect those 2 thoughts.
Second, when has process ever been viewed as a political benefit? Having some meetings somewhere leads to what?
Third, if what you want is so popular why isn’t it already being done?
Fourth, your using abortion? How has this made republicans more popular? It’s literally the exact opposite of popularism.
Fifth, abortion is a national issue. You know this. It’s been a national issue because of the Supreme Court in the 70s. It has been ever since. Please show me this popular issue that has been at the national level that states could do?
I know of only one issue that even gets close. Gun control. Even that doesn’t get done locally because the sc keeps rejecting laws of blue states and republicans actively oppose it.
1st) It demonstrates leadership. It shows initiative in the face of a crisis. You have the press covering him listening and asking questions among a circle of couches or a large roundtable in the WH with governors and mayors seated there giving inputs, etc. You have him doing press briefings talking about the issues and the solutions that will be forthcoming at the state level. It shows the public that Biden--and the party more broadly--are taking the issue seriously and doing something about in the face of a congress that refuses to act. This is a lot like when Gov Abbott started taking the Texas border into his own hands when the federal government did too little on border security, but instead you have a president leading this initiative and a whole lot more than just one governor involved.
2nd) Operation Warp Speed was a process that had political benefit, and it's to this day credited as one of the only productive things that came out of the Trump admin.
3rd) Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean others have thought of it or acted on it.
4th) I'm using the *example* of abortion as a unified state-level issue in absence of federal potential, I didn't say it was a popular example. You can do popular things using a model that was previously used to do unpopular things. If you want the inverse example then look at blue states passing abortion protection legislature that's ongoing as we speak. Look at the state-level marriage equality acts that were passed before the Obergfeld decision came down (in fact, these state-level passages forced that SCOTUS to take on the issue nationally in the absence of congress passing a national marriage equality bill).
5th) Some issues are national but cannot be passed as such, and in the absence of national possibilities states act. Again, see examples like marriage equality, slavery/abolition, segregation/desegregation, abortion access/restriction, etc. A lot of the time stuff has to happen at the state level en masse before it is forced to be addressed nationally.
1. That is some of the stupidest shit I have read and you know it. You’re just waving your hand that some council meeting makes him look like a leader. Come on Travis. You’re digging this grave deeper.
2. Operation warp speed? That wasn’t a fucking process. That was a program that passed in Congress that allocated 10b dollars to make a vaccine. Come on Travis just say you were wrong. Operation warp speed was a fucking federal legislation. You know, went through the congress and signed by the president. It’s literally the exact opposite of what you are arguing.
3. Also just a completely stupid argument. I actually have no idea what you are talking about. Now all of a sudden Biden is not the president but the governor of washington? Come on man. You are wrong. If your ideas were popular they would happen. It’s so fucking annoying. People don’t raise taxes like you want not because “oh I never thought about that” it’s because it isn’t popular. What you want Travis doesn’t happen because it’s the exact fucking opposite of popular.
4. Ahh an example that is exact oppositie of popularism to make a point of popularism. Got it. Makes a ton of sense.
I find a ton of what you write really interesting. I find that you do have a lot of good ideas. However this exchange off the rocker dumb. You just won’t admit which is maddening. You just keep moving goalposts.
Finally Travis the reason the things you want done are not done is because what you want isn’t popular. I’m sorry what you want isn’t popularism. I don’t get how you haven’t realized it yet.
I don't begrudge Biden for eschewing Populist rhetoric. Not at all. In my opinion, populism tends to be popular, but highly pernicious in most (? all) cases. One of the last things we need is the two major political parties subscribing to dangerous dogma.
The primary failure of Biden's Presidency was his inability to use the Bully Pulpit to dispell hideous disinformation from the opposition. He needed to be the Explainer in Chief. Never lie, but explain - loudly - how hollow (and dangerous) Trump's rhetoric and convictions were. He should have been on TV and social media 2-3 times per week shaming the R's who consented to Trump's sabotage of the immigration plan back in the Spring. That was a dispicable politcal calculation that regular, non-college voters could've grasped, if beat over the head with it. He never did. I suspect this was largely a product of senescence of the body, as opposed to opting for timidity, but whatever the case, it was routinely an issue.
The Obama folks have publicly said that (1) the bully pulpit not only doesn’t work because the pulpit doesn’t have much reach anymore and (2) it’s counterproductive because it causes half the country to hate whatever you are pitching.
Your second argument requires Biden to grab media attention. This isn’t a him problem. This is a dem problem. Why? Because dems can’t compete with Trump and the gop on media attention because for a good reason they aren’t crazy. Think about how little Trump would be covered if he acted like Romney. The issue is he lights himself on fire hourly.
I’ll give you Biden isn’t a great communicator. But look at Harris. She is a great communicator now and never ever gets coverage. Why? Because she isn’t a lightning rod for controversy.
I agree In theory But I’m not certain in this social media world, (everybody lives in a silo) If it would’ve worked.
Yep. The pod save America guys talked about this actually. Obama used the “bully pulpit” 3 times in his first term. He stopped using it because his
Campaign team found (1) it was ineffective and (2) actually would backfire because it made something he wanted polarizing.
The Dems need their own Trump. Or, to put it a little more palatable, a modern Teddy Roosevelt. We need a bully for a bully pulpit who isn't afraid to call people racists when they are, and who isn't afraid of oligarchs because they have their own money. But unlike Trump, someone who has actual beliefs and principles that they want to enact through policy. And someone who isnt afraid to piss off the center (of whom I count myself).
Honestly, the closest that comes to mind is JB Pritzker, but I don't know that even he is bully enough for what we need.
I don't know that we want more billionaires like Pritzker/Trump/Bloomberg running for office, but yea, a Teddy Roosevelt type would be nice. I could go for some trust-busting right about now.
If Harris loses this is exactly what Democrats will decide. And they may be correct. But I don’t know that we’re ready to understand what that would mean.
Unfortunately that won’t work with dems. It’s because of their voters. Republicans are a very homogeneous party (white, male). Dems is just too diffused to make a powerful leader.
The bully pulpit hasn’t worked in a long long time. Obama used it 3 times in his first term but his campaign team measured it and he didn’t use it ever again because (1) it didn’t work and (2) it actually caused more backlash.
I take issue with #1 - sure I guess some people know, but many are imbibing in a such a false info stream and fantasy land, they in fact don't know at all. On #2 -- this is no way to elect a president, not even close. Whatever is going on the campaign trial appears to have almost nothing to do with the day-to-day biz of being president. I think unfortunately #3 will largely agree in the history books because he failed to see tsunami for the waves sort of thing. alas. otherwise i think he's done a good if not very good day to day effort at it. It's hard to argue with #5... it could really hurt depending on how things go, or it could just be kamala with a scythe...
RE #1, I agree with Sarah's modification of JVL's rant: 3O% of the voters want a tyrant. The other 17% don't understand what tyranny is.
Trump is literally the most known man in America and the world. His name id and what he stands for is known by EVERYONE. what people chose to project onto him is definitely shaped by their media diet…but once again that is a choice.
i dunno, i'm not sure they're capable
I don’t think they are capable ……Then do we get to call them stupid? At some point people have to take responsibility for their choices. At this point if you don’t know what Trump is about, That is your own ignorance.
I mean these are grown adults. They chose, even if it’s not objective, to stew in the media they choose (we do it too)
i dont think theyre rational actors... its not exactly a choice like that.
True. It’s more emotion…but that is how most people vote.
my question is -- do i have some kind of pt or some bs. i'm trying to sort out whether we have real democracy at work or some kind of distorted version. i claimed the latter -- whereas jvl seems to be saying 'they've seen it they want it." [aka it's rational] if it's the latter it would give the dems some justification if they needed it to well, do whatever is they need to do to not lose. even if it's real democracy at work -- can the people decide to ditch the republic? they couldn't in 1861 after all. that's precedent ...
I just don’t know if it’s that black or white. I just don’t think excusing grown adults for being too stupid is a worthwhile endeavor. Many people have many reasons for voting so at some level it’s always a generalization in describing “everyone.”
The facts are pretty clear though. Trump is the most known man in the world. Trump was president of all of us for 4 years. He began running for presidency 2 months after he lost. He is on tv, podcasts, radio all the time. He has spent 1b dollars driving his message. Hard to say given all that that people don’t “really” know who, or what he is
well for what its worth having either seen or read countless interviews w/trump voters and heard it from from a few personally. id say well none of them seem to know the real djt... i mean as real as the facts that have been widely dispersed otherwise go... they've just tuned all that out. somehow grasping on to this fantasy about him, and they refuse to let it go -- doesn't matter what occurs or is brought up [tried to fix it ... ] - going so far as to say cancel the paper they long read, refusing to read certain others (like usa today in a hotel because "it's evil" -- i mean usa today? that's about anodyne as u get)... ... and so on.
Don’t doubt any of what you said is true. It’s still a choice to not see it.
Sadly, you are 100% right Migs.