Biden/Harris Reflections and Prognostications

Anne Summers Opinion Piece Anne Summers is a prominent Australian feminist.

This article reviews some aspects of Harris' career that I missed. In particular I was unaware of her work with the platforms concerning so-called "revenge porn", a form of abuse. Instead of focusing only on the perpetrator directly, she went to the platforms to get something done.

I thought this paragraph was good:
Harris has argued that safety is a human right. "We need to reimagine what public safety looks like," she told Betts. "Are we looking at the fact that if you focus on issues like education and preventive things [such as affordable housing, job skills development and education], then you don’t have a system that’s reactive?" But when she started a re-entry program to try to keep men on drug charges out of prison, she was attacked: "You’re a DA. You’re supposed to putting people in jail, not letting them out," people told her.
Tagged:
«134

Comments

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Whereas from Queensland to the opposite: there was a newspaper report a couple of days ago reporting a general welcome to a programme teaching men not to abuse.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited November 2020
    I think they will both do well. Just how well will depend on the two Georgia Senator run-offs. Despite Joe Biden's reaching out, the GOP is still the implacable Trump Party and I don't expect this to change all that quickly, if at all. It appears that over 70 million voters like Trumpism.

    The GOP will only stop being Trumpish when it gets a lot of damage to its representation in Congress. If they lose control of the Senate that might be a start.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Whereas from Queensland to the opposite: there was a newspaper report a couple of days ago reporting a general welcome to a programme teaching men not to abuse.

    Well, people down under are upside-down, after all. It only stands to reason that it will express itself in behavioral differences. ;)
  • I've said elsewhere that Biden was a terrible, lowest common denominator candidate whose only benefit is that he wasn't Trump. There was no real swing away from Trump to Biden - both candidates increased their vote, and it was fortunate that Biden's vote was just sufficient to squeak in. If it wasn't for Harris, he would have lost.

    Trump promised change. Biden promised a return to the status quo. Not being the other guy simply isn't enough - the down-ballot voting was terrible for the Dems - he needed actual policy initiatives.

    We were in a gnat's whisker of another four years of Trump, and all I see are lot of very complacent centrists celebrating Biden's famous victory. The midterms are going to be a huge wake up call to them when the Reps take both House and Senate. Trumpism has grown, not gone away.
  • jedijudyjedijudy Heaven Host, 8th Day Host
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Biden promised a return to the status quo.
    ...
    Trumpism has grown, not gone away.

    I disagree with the first part and totally agree with the second part. The status quo from before I was born is that racism, misogyny, hate speech, religious suppression, and violence as a reaction to people thinking or saying or being different to white male supremacy, was acceptable and right.

    During the Obama administration, from observation in my tiny corner of this country, racists (including some extended family) grumbled more in private but weren't as vocal in public about their views. The views were always there, and your gentle jedi had a tough time dealing with them. During the Trump administration, I saw so many instances of blatant affirmations of hate speech of all kinds, that it just tortured my heart. Trump gave the haters complete permission to do and say what they felt deep in their guts was their right.

    Biden is going to have a hard row to hoe. But, I'm hoping he will be looking out for all the American people, which is so much more than Trump has done. Biden won't care if a state governor is Democrat or Republican; he will work with all. He's not going to withhold PPE from Republican states. He will not say that white supremacists are very fine people. He's not perfect by any means, but he will actually care about us more than Trump ever did.

    I live in hope that my daughter's generation, and my granddaughter's will not have the hatred of anyone different than them. It's way too late for my generation, but I see bright signs of love and acceptance in the coming generations. At least, I sincerely hope so.

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Trump promised change. Biden promised a return to the status quo. Not being the other guy simply isn't enough - the down-ballot voting was terrible for the Dems - he needed actual policy initiatives.
    Just curious -- what are these wonderful policy initiatives that would have pumped up Biden's vote while energizing the down-ballot voting?
  • I agree that the narrowness of the outcome is unsettling, but I put that down to the EC and the fact that it's, you know, America.

    Do you think there's good reason to think that a less centrist candidate would have been more successful? A lot of observers seem to think the progressive embrace of "socialism" and the violence during some of the summer protests were a net drag on the number of Democratic votes.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    I agree that the narrowness of the outcome is unsettling, but I put that down to the EC and the fact that it's, you know, America.

    Do you think there's good reason to think that a less centrist candidate would have been more successful? A lot of observers seem to think the progressive embrace of "socialism" and the violence during some of the summer protests were a net drag on the number of Democratic votes.

    I'm glad to note you put socialism in quotes there; I've commented before about how being worried about socialism in either of the main US parties seems a bit like worrying about a pacifist tendency within the SAS. It's a common UK joke to say that the Republican Party is a bit like our Conservative Party, while on the other hand the Democrats are a bit like... our Conservative Party.

    Given that, it's clear that the GOP now uses socialism as the bogeyman against the Democrats generally; one presumes it means any policy to the left of Attila the Hun. Actually having more left wing policies than that doesn't really seem to come into it. Ironically then it might actually come down to people's responses to the policies themselves, rather than whether they could be labelled as socialist or not, seeing as we're looking at a situation where the Right portrays a centrist like Biden as some kind of amalgam of Maduro, Castro and Pol Pot.
  • If candidates don't want the label of "socialist" to distract from what they think would otherwise be broadly popular policies, maybe they shouldn't be so eager to call themselves "socialists."
  • Dave W wrote: »

    Do you think there's good reason to think that a less centrist candidate would have been more successful? A lot of observers seem to think the progressive embrace of "socialism" and the violence during some of the summer protests were a net drag on the number of Democratic votes.

    I would just add that @Doc Tor's observation that the down-ballot Dems got clobbered seems to suggest that Never-Trump Republicans were critical to Biden's victory. And, given that more people voted for Biden than have ever voted for any other American politician, it seems odd to imply that vast hordes of pouting progressives sitting out the election were the real story here. I should hasten to add that I suspect that the reason that the vote was so high this year is at least in part due to the easy availability of mail-in ballots. Young people, for example, appear to have voted in greater numbers than in previous years, and I imagine that may be partly because those with less than burning passion for the process didn't have to wait for hours in polling lines.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Do you think there's good reason to think that a less centrist candidate would have been more successful? A lot of observers seem to think the progressive embrace of "socialism" and the violence during some of the summer protests were a net drag on the number of Democratic votes.

    Biden the man is pretty centrist and for compromise. The platform on which Biden/Harris ran, however, is more progressive than any Democratic presidential platform in recent years. Still doesn't put it anywhere near anything you might reasonably call "socialism" of course.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    If candidates don't want the label of "socialist" to distract from what they think would otherwise be broadly popular policies, maybe they shouldn't be so eager to call themselves "socialists."

    My point is they'll be so labelled anyway.
  • Something I've just read on the Guardian site is puzzling me. It said that McConnell could influence the selection of members of Biden's cabinet via a Senate veto on his choices. Is this so? Seems rather odd from over here.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    Penny S wrote: »
    Something I've just read on the Guardian site is puzzling me. It said that McConnell could influence the selection of members of Biden's cabinet via a Senate veto on his choices. Is this so? Seems rather odd from over here.

    Like other posts appointed by the executive, cabinet posts are subject to Senate approval (remember that Cabinet appointees don't need to hold elected office, or be politicians at all.) One might reasonably hope that the Senate would confine itself to vetoing people who were obviously unqualified, but "reasonable hope" and "Mitch McConnell" don't belong anywhere near each other.

    The most recent Cabinet appointee to be vetoed by the Senate was John Tower, who was nominated for Secretary of Defense by Bush Sr., and vetoed on grounds of drunkenness, womanizing, and corruption.

    More candidates have withdrawn when skeletons emerged in the approval process.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    jedijudy’s post tells a story those of us this side of the pond should heed. An openly progressive candidate would have been beaten. Without support from African Americans Biden would have been beaten.

    It’s also becoming clear that the management of the coronavirus had less of a negative imput then we might have expected. “It’s the economy, stupid”. The narrative that other people’s deaths are a necessary price to pay for opening up the economy seems to have worked quite well. At this stage.

    Joe looked safe to the waverers. He’s an ordinary Joe. I think that helped him.
  • Well, good luck to the pair of them. They're going to need it - but there is a lot of support world-wide for the new management, it seems.
  • I do fear that those who voted Trump out may have unrealistic expectations of having their wish list fulfilled. All in good time.

    As to @Dave W - Not very many were calling themselves "socialist". As for those who call the Democrats "radical leftists" and "socialists" it's as though they expect a Red Terror. But would welcome a White one.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    It’s almost as though memes from McCarthyism are still there.

    What puzzles me also is the apparent lack of awareness of, or interest in, the way other democracies do things. Perhaps that is the meme of isolationism.

    Trump has been very effective in plugging into this stuff for his own ends. I wonder what will happen to all this adulation when Melania walks out of the marriage?
  • tclune wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »

    Do you think there's good reason to think that a less centrist candidate would have been more successful? A lot of observers seem to think the progressive embrace of "socialism" and the violence during some of the summer protests were a net drag on the number of Democratic votes.

    I would just add that @Doc Tor's observation that the down-ballot Dems got clobbered seems to suggest that Never-Trump Republicans were critical to Biden's victory. And, given that more people voted for Biden than have ever voted for any other American politician, it seems odd to imply that vast hordes of pouting progressives sitting out the election were the real story here. I should hasten to add that I suspect that the reason that the vote was so high this year is at least in part due to the easy availability of mail-in ballots. Young people, for example, appear to have voted in greater numbers than in previous years, and I imagine that may be partly because those with less than burning passion for the process didn't have to wait for hours in polling lines.

    That is an astute observation. I understand from an AOC tweet that the recriminations have begun in the Democratic Party. AOC was defending the progressive movement against claims that Democrats lost their seats in the House because of BLM and the Green New Deal. I'm sorry but I have just started using Twitter and have not worked it out properly enough to post the tweet.

    She was also calling for more progressive voices in Cabinet, to nobody's surprise I am sure.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    jedijudy’s post tells a story those of us this side of the pond should heed. An openly progressive candidate would have been beaten. Without support from African Americans Biden would have been beaten.

    JJ's post doesn't say that, though. I certainly agree that putting Harris on the ticket saved the day, but there's only anecdotal evidence that someone more leftward of Biden would have fared worse - and some actual evidence that they may have fared better. Those who supported the Green New Deal and Medicare for All were thumpingly elected.

    Also, when I said status quo, I did mean back to the business-as-usual represented by the Bush-Clinton-Obama era. As much as we like to lionise Obama, a lot of his foreign policy was pretty sketchy, and more or less from the same playbook as his three predecessors.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    I agree that the narrowness of the outcome is unsettling, but I put that down to the EC and the fact that it's, you know, America.

    Do you think there's good reason to think that a less centrist candidate would have been more successful? A lot of observers seem to think the progressive embrace of "socialism" and the violence during some of the summer protests were a net drag on the number of Democratic votes.
    Yes. BLM nearly lost it for Biden.
  • [citation needed]
  • Then again maybe it won it for him.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    jedijudy’s post tells a story those of us this side of the pond should heed. An openly progressive candidate would have been beaten. Without support from African Americans Biden would have been beaten.

    JJ's post doesn't say that, though. I certainly agree that putting Harris on the ticket saved the day,
    Why? Biden got plenty of Black support in the primaries (e.g. South Carolina) - way more than the more leftist candidates who were still in the race. Is the idea that the choice of Harris for VP activated the Black vote in the general more than another candidate would have?
    but there's only anecdotal evidence that someone more leftward of Biden would have fared worse - and some actual evidence that they may have fared better. Those who supported the Green New Deal and Medicare for All were thumpingly elected.
    None of those people were running national races, though. Sure, Ayanna Pressley (my rep) won 87.3% - but she was running in Boston/Cambridge/Somerville against token opposition from an independent nobody ever heard of. Is there any evidence that progressives did better than centrists in marginal districts? (A 538 podcast cited NE-2 as a place where Biden won but the progressive Dem lost. Probably not because she wasn't progressive enough.)
    Also, when I said status quo, I did mean back to the business-as-usual represented by the Bush-Clinton-Obama era. As much as we like to lionise Obama, a lot of his foreign policy was pretty sketchy, and more or less from the same playbook as his three predecessors.
    It doesn't seem to me that foreign policy was a big part of what progressives were concerned about this cycle. Do you think Biden offers no progress on domestic policies?
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    JJ's post doesn't say that, though. I certainly agree that putting Harris on the ticket saved the day, but there's only anecdotal evidence that someone more leftward of Biden would have fared worse - and some actual evidence that they may have fared better. Those who supported the Green New Deal and Medicare for All were thumpingly elected.
    Yes, but where were they thumpingly elected? As best I can tell, it was primarily in urban, more left-leaning districts in states that would vote blue for president regardless. Without double-checking, I’m going to go out out on a limb and suggest that those who supported the Green New Deal and Medicare for All weren’t likely to do as well in, say, Georgia, Nevada or Arizona, or perhaps even in Pennsylvania, outside Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

    I would have been very surprised if someone noticeably left of Biden managed to carry the states needed to get to 270 electoral votes. That just doesn’t match my experience living here. I agree with @Barnabas62; I think a more progressive candidate would have meant a second-term for Trump.

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    [citation needed]

    I refer you to the post I quoted.
  • Well, that wasn't evidence, it was just the statement of an opinion, or at best a hypothesis.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Well, that wasn't evidence, it was just the statement of an opinion, or at best a hypothesis.
    Which I agreed with. Are you withdrawing it ?

  • I can't withdraw it, because I didn't assert it as my own opinion in the first place. I just said it's an opinion that I've heard offered. It seems at least plausible to me, but Doc Tor seem pretty sure that it's wrong, so I was trying to find out if he had reasons for thinking so that I might also find convincing.
  • Barnabas62 wrote: »
    What puzzles me also is the apparent lack of awareness of, or interest in, the way other democracies do things.

    Why would that matter? America is self-evidently better. I've been lectured by several Trump supporters about how the UK doesn't have Freedom, as if it was somehow self-evident that having Freedom also meant being happy to see people bankrupt because they got sick and had medical bills, because at least they are Free.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Yes, but where were they thumpingly elected? As best I can tell, it was primarily in urban, more left-leaning districts in states that would vote blue for president regardless. Without double-checking, I’m going to go out out on a limb and suggest that those who supported the Green New Deal and Medicare for All weren’t likely to do as well in, say, Georgia, Nevada or Arizona, or perhaps even in Pennsylvania, outside Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

    I'm going to agree with Nick Tamen and @Dave W here. Democrats struggled in pretty much all the seats they picked up in 2018 - either losing, or squeaking narrow wins. The evidence suggests that plenty of voters in these marginal districts voted for Biden, and for the local Republican.

    There's plenty of scope for getting more blue voters to turn out and vote - Georgia shows what can be done with effort - but it's a lot of boots-on-the-ground hard work getting people registered to vote, and then getting them to turn out and vote, rather than being progressive and expecting them to come.
  • I wonder too that there is much in common between the most progressive Democrats and the 'mainstream' African American community. Here's an article in which James Clyburn compared Defund the Police to the 1965 slogan Burn Baby Burn, which he said impeded the Civil Rights movement at the time.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    I don’t think it is reasonable to think about the size of Biden & Harris, without thinking about voter suppression.

    They won despite a massive effort to disenfranchise their voters, armed intimidation of voting queues and ballot counts in some places and efforts to delegitimise the Mail in ballot.

    If I were then my biggest priority would be to try to make voting easily accessible to every eligible elector.

    I think Biden’s presidency will be helped by the discovery of the Covid vaccine, which will bring in its wake an economic recovery - that he will get the credit for. Thus I think the mid terms will go better than you otherwise might expect.
  • Well, I hope so too. But am I right in understanding that voter registration is a state, not a federal matter?

    I understand the reluctance to over-analyse the results - Trump has gone, and certainly some of the never-Trumpers who voted Rep down ballot still voted for Biden, and there is a question as to whether they'd have done so if it hadn't been an old white guy with a record of not rocking the boat.

    But did that swing it for Biden? Because what seems to have done for Trump is simple demography. That young people who are much less likely to vote (but are much more likely to vote for 'progressive' policies) finally found their way to the polls.

    Trump's vote didn't collapse. The Reps made gains in the House, and may yet control the Senate. Without a vision, the people perish.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Trump's vote didn't collapse.

    Yes I think this is what makes me question the number of 'Republicans for Biden' who voted for Biden. Numbers of votes for both candidates were at record levels, on the other hand the Republican core vote was among groups that were more likely to vote anyway so in a race where turnout would matter ISTM the Republican vote would have less room to improve.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Well, I hope so too. But am I right in understanding that voter registration is a state, not a federal matter?

    I understand the reluctance to over-analyse the results - Trump has gone, and certainly some of the never-Trumpers who voted Rep down ballot still voted for Biden, and there is a question as to whether they'd have done so if it hadn't been an old white guy with a record of not rocking the boat.

    But did that swing it for Biden? Because what seems to have done for Trump is simple demography. That young people who are much less likely to vote (but are much more likely to vote for 'progressive' policies) finally found their way to the polls.

    Trump's vote didn't collapse. The Reps made gains in the House, and may yet control the Senate. Without a vision, the people perish.

    I have no reservation about analysing the results but I am concerned about wrong conclusions being drawn from limited data. At least wait for the counts to be finished. Let's see if the Post Office deliberately delaying ballots had a measurable effect. And also let's get to grips with why people vote for Trump. Many are racists but not all. Some are just sold the lie that Trump is good for them and a 'socialist' wouldn't be.

    This is complex and multifactorial. Conclusions cannot be sensibly drawn yet other than "I was right in what I said before and everything since then supports my preexisting conclusions..." which is clearly deeply flawed.

    Oh but here's the kicker: the Right unites to get power and get things done. (Case in point: GOP senators who hated Trump but united with him to keep their seats and get judges and tax cuts).

    The Left is amazingly skilled at letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. In politics that is always a losing formula.

    Politics aside, I am increasingly coming to think that Biden is the right man for this moment. Considered, sensible, will rebuild damaged institutions. Will not alienate half the country but also picked a radical running mate and will take bold, righteous decisions. I.e. I think he will appoint a very good Attorney General and then let the DOJ follow the evidence on Trump even if it risks looking political.

    YMMV, of course

    AFZ
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited November 2020
    The Left is amazingly skilled at letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. In politics that is always a losing formula.

    The history of the leftist and centre left parties in Western Europe and the US over the last 4 decades has been series of rightwards compromises (and outside FPTP eventual Pasokification). I am not sure that actual events fit the stereotype you lay out above.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Um. I hate to mention this but Trump can run again in '24. Just saying.

    Gulp. :fearful:

    (If someone already mentioned this up-thread, sorry.)
  • Lyda wrote: »
    Um. I hate to mention this but Trump can run again in '24. Just saying.

    He can, at which point he will be marginally older than Biden is now. I don't think he's got the endurance to do that.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Lyda wrote: »
    Um. I hate to mention this but Trump can run again in '24. Just saying.

    He can, at which point he will be marginally older than Biden is now. I don't think he's got the endurance to do that.

    He would probably run on pure spite and bile.
  • Some have speculated that Trump's physical and mental health issues will probably defeat him...if the jail sentence doesn't...
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    But did that swing it for Biden? Because what seems to have done for Trump is simple demography. That young people who are much less likely to vote (but are much more likely to vote for 'progressive' policies) finally found their way to the polls.
    If young progressive voters swung it for old white centrist Biden, why did other Democrats do so poorly? Did they not care about winning the Senate or House?
  • I've had a rummage through the figures. If it hadn't been for Jorgensen, Biden would have lost the key states he needed to win.

    So there's that...
  • Could you elaborate on your reasoning?
  • I recognise that name being mentioned earlier as a third-party candidate but how do you know which main party candidate had their votes split?
  • I recognise that name being mentioned earlier as a third-party candidate but how do you know which main party candidate had their votes split?

    You don't.

    Jorgensen was the Libertarian candidate. We had a brief discussion about whether her supporters would be likely to hate Trump more or less than they hate Biden. Quite possibly "real" Libertarians might hate Biden slightly less, but it's also possible that some of her support came from refugee Republicans.

    But when the third party vote is significantly bigger than the margin between the main candidates, you're kind of drawn to the conclusion that those people had the opportunity to influence the result, but chose to abstain.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I've had a rummage through the figures. If it hadn't been for Jorgensen, Biden would have lost the key states he needed to win.

    So there's that...

    Ummm.... What's your workings on this? So assuming ALL Jorgensen votes would be for Trump:

    Arizona - Biden lead currently 15,746 / Jorgensen tally 50,293 - Trump Win

    Georgia - Biden lead currently 12,566 / Jorgensen tally 62,009 - Trump Win

    Michigan - Biden lead currently 146,123 / Jorgensen tally 60,287 - Biden Win

    Minnesota - Biden lead currently 233,272 / Jorgensen tally 34,963 - Biden Win

    Nevada - Biden lead currently 36,247 / Jorgensen tally 13,899 - Biden Win

    Pennsylvania - Biden lead currently 47,353 / Jorgensen tally 77,731 - Trump Win

    Wisconsin - Biden lead currently 20,540 / Jorgensen tally 38,451 - Trump Win



    (Totals as of 20:00 GMT 10/11/20)

    Now, admittedly on those figures, Trump gets to 278 EVs. However, these are the running totals and it's quite likely that Biden's winning margin in Pennsylvania will exceed Jorgensen's tally when all the votes are counted. The same may well be true in other states as well. Thus whilst you may be right, it is too early to draw that conclusion.

    I am bemused slightly by people asserting things with confidence when the data is not yet complete. The gap between Trump's performance and the Republicans overall may be critical to understanding what's going on here: If the GOP has significantly outperformed Trump that would suggest that Trump lost because of Republican voters who didn't want him. However, until all the votes are counted in all the races, this pattern cannot be substantiated.

    We need to wait a bit longer to have the data to draw these conclusions. I am not saying you're wrong; I'm saying we don't know yet.

    AFZ
  • I mean, yes, but we could be waiting until January for the final results. So, I'm getting in a bit of slightly handwavy analysis before we've got bored and moved on to something else.

    Meanwhile, a colleague has called Biden's (current) vote share - 50.7% - 'stunning'. Personally, I think he's engaging in some desperate hyperbole to cover up the yawning gap between his expectations and reality.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I mean, yes, but we could be waiting until January for the final results. So, I'm getting in a bit of slightly handwavy analysis before we've got bored and moved on to something else.

    Meanwhile, a colleague has called Biden's (current) vote share - 50.7% - 'stunning'. Personally, I think he's engaging in some desperate hyperbole to cover up the yawning gap between his expectations and reality.

    I know what you mean, but as I said a little while back, I think drawing conclusions from partial data will lead to mistaken conclusions.

    AFZ
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    I mean, yes, but we could be waiting until January for the final results. So, I'm getting in a bit of slightly handwavy analysis before we've got bored and moved on to something else.
    Sure.

    It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear. And from our shores, we — you know, it could get worse before it gets better. It could maybe go away. We’ll see what happens. Nobody really knows.

Sign In or Register to comment.