• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Mulligan

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,505
What part of they tend to back incumbents do we not understand.

They backed AOC and the other Squad too. Literally fighting for fighting's sake.

It's understandable that the party always backs its incumbents, but constantly backing incumbents shows that the main goal of the party is to maintain power. The main goal should be to listen to its constituents and create effective policies for those constituents.

Endorsing a primary challenger should not be taboo and should actually be encouraged if the party is truly interested in listening to its constituents; particularly oppressed constituents who have recently been turned into marketing materials for the Democratic and corporate establishment.
 

Wraith

Member
Jun 28, 2018
8,892

Weijia Jiang @weijia

NEW: @GovMikeDeWine was supposed to greet the President on the tarmac today, but that's not happening now because he just tested positive for COVID-19.

11:36 AM · Aug 6, 2020
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,099
Arkansas, USA
It's understandable that the party always backs its incumbents, but constantly backing incumbents shows that the main goal of the party is to maintain power. The main goal should be to listen to its constituents and create effective policies for those constituents.

Endorsing a primary challenger should not be taboo and should actually be encouraged if the party is truly interested in listening to its constituents; particularly oppressed constituents who have recently been turned into marketing materials for the Democratic and corporate establishment.

How can you listen to your constituents and create effective public policy if you're not in power/office? You're putting the cart before the horse here.
 

ChippyTurtle

Banned
Oct 13, 2018
4,773
It's understandable that the party always backs its incumbents, but constantly backing incumbents shows that the main goal of the party is to maintain power. The main goal should be to listen to its constituents and create effective policies for those constituents.

Endorsing a primary challenger should not be taboo and should actually be encouraged if the party is truly interested in listening to its constituents; particularly oppressed constituents who have recently been turned into marketing materials for the Democratic and corporate establishment.

its a big tent party. ridiculous. constituents is very vague and walks all over the nuance of the people each member of Congress needs to sway.
 

Snake

Member
Oct 25, 2017
265
Political parties in all parliamentary bodies act in a way to maximize their ability to marshall their members votes, thereby preserving their fundamental status as a political force. Therefore they do not say vote for us today, but tomorrow we're just going to kick you out for the first alternative who shows up. This is extremely basic.
 

Erpy

Member
May 31, 2018
3,002
If we get an actual *repudiation* of Trump, vs he loses a close election, it will do wonders for our near-term relationships with foreign nations.

A close win for Biden won't convince the rest of the world that we won't elect another nutcase in four years and will leave them hesitant to work with the US globally. It's part of my 'plausible best case' scenario.

I'm gonna be a Negative Nancy for a bit and note that things are not that simple. Sure, allied foreign nations will be rooting for Biden and will welcome his overtures, but privately they'll remain deeply reluctant.

The truth is that for quite some time, European diplomats have considered the United States as a country with a split personality. They remember Bill Clinton signing the Kyoto treaty only for Dubya to withdraw from it. They remember the goodwill they gave the US after 9/11 only for Bush to squander it with Iraq. They remember feeling elated when Obama won, only to get Trump 8 years later. They remember how much Republicans hated the Paris Agreement and the Iran deal even while Obama was still in office.

Foreign allies know that the GOP won't be going anywhere and will eventually get back into power when the political pendulum inevitably swings back. For all foreign allies know, Biden's reconciliation attempts/Apology Tour Mark II(tm) is just the US reverting to its Doctor Jekyll persona, but they'll be a whole lot more interested in seeing how the GOP's probable post-Trump civil war will pan out, because that gives them a better idea on whether the US can be trusted in the long run than anything a smooth-talking Joe Biden might tell them.
 

Mulligan

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,505
How can you listen to your constituents and create effective public policy if you're not in power/office? You're putting the cart before the horse here.

Most of the reps that get proper primary challengers come from safe districts. The party is not going to lose a safe district over a more popular challenger.

My bad about being vague. I was writing this at lunch. I was speaking about constituents on a district level.
 
Oct 30, 2017
2,365
I'll be honest, I don't think I'd trust a vaccine approved by Trump's FDA that popped up before the election. Hell, I'm not sure I'd even trust a treatment approved by Trump's FDA at all. Biden's? Yes. I think I'd wait for that, or for the EU to approve something.
 

SmokeMaxX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,337
It's understandable that the party always backs its incumbents, but constantly backing incumbents shows that the main goal of the party is to maintain power. The main goal should be to listen to its constituents and create effective policies for those constituents.

Endorsing a primary challenger should not be taboo and should actually be encouraged if the party is truly interested in listening to its constituents; particularly oppressed constituents who have recently been turned into marketing materials for the Democratic and corporate establishment.
The constituents voted for the incumbents in the first place. If the constituents wanted their voice to be represented by the primary challenger, they'd vote for the primary challenger. You're arguing for the party to literally ignore their voters.
 

LegendofJoe

Member
Oct 28, 2017
12,099
Arkansas, USA
Most of the reps that get proper primary challengers come from safe districts. The party is not going to lose a safe district over a more popular challenger.

My bad about being vague. I was writing this at lunch. I was speaking about constituents on a district level.

I agree that there shouldn't be much concern about primary challenges in safe districts. I think that's why despite incumbents almost always backing other incumbents they won't lose sleep over a colleague losing. It will keep them on their toes if they're in a similar position, but there isn't anything wrong with that. Politicans getting too comfortable and taking victories for granted will eventually lead to subpar performance.
 

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
60,381
Trump seems very robotic of late.

He keeps trying to throw things to wall to make sure it sticks out of desperation.

-Racist tweets to win the suburbs, which he's basically lost completely
-Bragging about the NASDAQ which has no bearing on normal folks affected by the virus
-Mentioning the 2A, like it's under any real threat
-Just trying to conjure a ACA replacement in under 2 weeks, which is laughable when the GOP doesn't even have the House.
-Completely still ignoring COVID-19 with no real federal plan still.

He's flailing like a madman.
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,053
It's understandable that the party always backs its incumbents, but constantly backing incumbents shows that the main goal of the party is to maintain power. The main goal should be to listen to its constituents and create effective policies for those constituents.

Endorsing a primary challenger should not be taboo and should actually be encouraged if the party is truly interested in listening to its constituents; particularly oppressed constituents who have recently been turned into marketing materials for the Democratic and corporate establishment.

The only (or almost only) leverage anybody in a party has on anybody else in the party is the ability to help that person get elected. If people start backing challengers the entire system falls apart into factionalism.
 
Last edited:

DrROBschiz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,499
Trump seems very robotic of late.

He keeps trying to throw things to wall to make sure it sticks out of desperation.

-Racist tweets to win the suburbs, which he's basically lost completely
-Bragging about the NASDAQ which has no bearing on normal folks affected by the virus
-Mentioning the 2A, like it's under any real threat
-Just trying to conjure a ACA replacement in under 2 weeks, which is laughable when the GOP doesn't even have the House.
-Completely still ignoring COVID-19 with no real federal plan still.

He's flailing like a madman.

Still not enough

It needs to get so much worse

Outside of the pressure he still has yet to bear any real consequences for his various malfeasances. I am hoping that if he loses it will only be the first of many things that await him
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,090
I'll be honest, I don't think I'd trust a vaccine approved by Trump's FDA that popped up before the election. Hell, I'm not sure I'd even trust a treatment approved by Trump's FDA at all. Biden's? Yes. I think I'd wait for that, or for the EU to approve something.
I'll trust one that gets approved in countries like Germany, New Zealand, Australia.
 

Aaron

I’m seeing double here!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,077
Minneapolis
Most of the reps that get proper primary challengers come from safe districts. The party is not going to lose a safe district over a more popular challenger.

My bad about being vague. I was writing this at lunch. I was speaking about constituents on a district level.
Leadership makes a point of endorsing incumbents (even in safe districts) because it keeps them in line. That's it. That's the primary concern of leadership (who are usually in safe districts themselves). It's transactional as all hell, yes, but it's not a bad standard to apply across the board. Trying to assign some kind of ideological purity test to it is foolish considering, as pointed out, she has no problem endorsing members like Omar and Tlaib who have no problem publicly dishing it out against leadership.

I'm also not entirely convinced that Pelosi's endorsements specifically have much say in the outcome of an election, it's not like she was out in Missouri's 1st hustling for votes herself. If voters want to remove a lousy incumbent, they can do so in spite of leadership, as we've already seen with Engel and Lipinski.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,644
It's understandable that the party always backs its incumbents, but constantly backing incumbents shows that the main goal of the party is to maintain power. The main goal should be to listen to its constituents and create effective policies for those constituents.

Endorsing a primary challenger should not be taboo and should actually be encouraged if the party is truly interested in listening to its constituents; particularly oppressed constituents who have recently been turned into marketing materials for the Democratic and corporate establishment.
I understand the concern that a party with a generally standing rule to protect incumbents over primary challengers can end up becoming a very insulated body and disconnected from the will of its voters. But at the same I don't think it's a bad thing to protect your own members, even in deep blue districts where there's no risk of losing the seat, either. For one thing, it cuts across both ways -- while it was frustrating that Pelosi backed Cuellar, it was good that she also backed Rashida Tlaib! That's a frustrating headwind when you're trying to get in through the door, but once you're in, that's a valuable source of support to have at your back.

But the other thing about that is, Congress isn't a legislating AI; its a body that works based on personal relationships forged between members, and when you've worked with someone on really challenging shit for years or decades, and they've supported your bills and you've supported theirs, is it that surprising or even necessarily bad that those people will tend to back each other? Look at how AOC endorsed Bush in 2018 but stayed silent in 2020 because she and Clay work together on a committee. Some might spin that as AOC already being compromised by the machine, but I think it's just the reality of how, in Congress, power is derived from relationships, and endorsing one of your colleagues' primary challengers is kind of a big betrayal that will only hurt that relationship and, by extension, your own ability to get things done. And in this particular case, it's not as if Clay was some centrist Blue Dog; he was an advocate of the Green New Deal and M4A, so he is ideologically aligned with the AOCs of the party already (that said, I think his role in his state's gerrymander 10 years ago is alone worth his ouster).

In any event, listening to your constituents and acting on their behalf ultimately comes down to the person who represents that district and their challenger(s). Who are Pelosi or AOC or whomever to say what is or isn't in the best interests of the constituents of a district they don't live in, much less represent? Their endorsements are who about they want to work with, not who is the most effective spokesperson for a district that isn't their own. That ultimately comes down to the voters and is why guys like Crowley, Engel, Capuano, and Clay were all voted out.


Trump seems very robotic of late.

He keeps trying to throw things to wall to make sure it sticks out of desperation.

-Racist tweets to win the suburbs, which he's basically lost completely
-Bragging about the NASDAQ which has no bearing on normal folks affected by the virus
-Mentioning the 2A, like it's under any real threat
-Just trying to conjure a ACA replacement in under 2 weeks, which is laughable when the GOP doesn't even have the House.
-Completely still ignoring COVID-19 with no real federal plan still.

He's flailing like a madman.
He's powerless and it's driving him crazy and probably, in his own way, depressed.
 

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
60,381
\
I understand the concern that a party only concerned with protecting its incumbents can end up becoming very insulated, but at the same I don't think it's a bad thing that to protect your own members, even in deep blue districts where there's no risk of losing the seat, either. For one thing, it cuts across both ways -- while it was frustrating that Pelosi backed Cuellar, it was good that she also backed Rashida Tlaib! That's a frustrating headwind when you're trying to get in through the door, but once you're in, that's a valuable source of support to have at your back.

But the other thing about that is, Congress isn't a legislating AI; its a body that works based on personal relationships forged between members, and when you've worked with someone on really challenging shit for years or decades, and they've supported your bills and you've supported theirs, is it that surprising or even necessarily bad that those people will tend to back incumbents? Look at how AOC endorsed Bush in 2018 but stayed silent in 2020 because she and Clay work together on a committee. Some might spin that as AOC already being compromised by the machine, but I think it's just the reality of, in Congress, power is derived from relationships, and endorsing one of your colleagues' primary challengers is kind of a big betrayal that will only hurt that relationship and, by extension, your own ability to get things done. And in this particular case, it's not as if Clay was some centrist Blue Dog; he was an advocate of the Green New Deal and M4A, so he is ideologically aligned with the left wing as it is (that said, I think his role in his state's gerrymander 10 years ago is alone worth his ouster).

In any event, listening to your constituents and acting on their behalf ultimately comes down to the person who represents that district and their challenger(s). Who are Pelosi or AOC or whomever to say what is or isn't in the best interests of the constituents of a district they don't live in, much less represent? Their endorsements are who about they want to work with, not who is the most effective spokesperson for a district that isn't their own. That ultimately comes down to the voters and is why guys like Crowley, Engel, Capuano, and Clay were all voted out.



He's powerless and it's driving him crazy and probably, in his own way, depressed.
MAGA was pretty brilliant when you think about it. I remember his campaign. There were some talking points of taking on Wall Street, bringing back Glass-Steagal, and so on.

But he's a typical conservative--tax cuts mostly for the rich and corporation--so he's flailing with the culture war stuff. He still hasn't clarified any policy at all. It's just WWE style shenanigans.
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
28,090
MAGA was pretty brilliant when you think about it.
Of course he stole that.

220px-Let%27s_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg
 

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
60,381
Of course he stole that.

220px-Let%27s_Make_America_Great_Again_button.jpeg
Just the messaging. I do think sometimes liberals don't give this guy credit enough. No he's no 4D chess master lol. But he does have strength in this area. Even Noam Chomsky has commented about it and he's been a keen political observer for decades now.
 

Slayven

Never read a comic in his life
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
93,326
Trump seems very robotic of late.

He keeps trying to throw things to wall to make sure it sticks out of desperation.

-Racist tweets to win the suburbs, which he's basically lost completely
-Bragging about the NASDAQ which has no bearing on normal folks affected by the virus
-Mentioning the 2A, like it's under any real threat
-Just trying to conjure a ACA replacement in under 2 weeks, which is laughable when the GOP doesn't even have the House.
-Completely still ignoring COVID-19 with no real federal plan still.

He's flailing like a madman.
Constant foot in mouth whenever a mic is in his face
 

Kusagari

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,519
Leadership makes a point of endorsing incumbents (even in safe districts) because it keeps them in line. That's it. That's the primary concern of leadership (who are usually in safe districts themselves). It's transactional as all hell, yes, but it's not a bad standard to apply across the board. Trying to assign some kind of ideological purity test to it is foolish considering, as pointed out, she has no problem endorsing members like Omar and Tlaib who have no problem publicly dishing it out against leadership.

I'm also not entirely convinced that Pelosi's endorsements specifically have much say in the outcome of an election, it's not like she was out in Missouri's 1st hustling for votes herself. If voters want to remove a lousy incumbent, they can do so in spite of leadership, as we've already seen with Engel and Lipinski.

I don't think the average voter has any clue who Pelosi or AOC endorsed. The main strength of outsiders getting endorsements seems to be fueling their own fundraising. I know Bush talked about how much she raised after Bernie endorsed.
 

Bronlonius

Member
Oct 29, 2017
438
Kanye doesn't even bother me- the edgelords who vote for him were the ones voting for Harambe and Deez Nuts. I know it's being bankrolled by the GOP but it's just a waste of money. Kanye is no more serious than Vermin Supreme. He has legitimate psychiatric problems and will be incapable of doing any type of campaigning.

Trump barely won swing states by just a few thousand votes. Now imagine the same dumb fucksticks voting for Kanye instead of Biden and we're in the same boat as 2106, with Trump eking out another win. Edgelords or not, any vote that takes away from Biden helps Trump win, then we're all proper fucked.
 

GoldenEye 007

Roll Tide, Y'all!
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,833
Texas
Trump barely won swing states by just a few thousand votes. Now imagine the same dumb fucksticks voting for Kanye instead of Biden and we're in the same boat as 2106, with Trump eking out another win. Edgelords or not, any vote that takes away from Biden helps Trump win, then we're all proper fucked.
Someone actually willing to vote for someone like Kanye was never going to vote for Biden.
 

infamous5445

Member
Dec 3, 2019
951
Trump barely won swing states by just a few thousand votes. Now imagine the same dumb fucksticks voting for Kanye instead of Biden and we're in the same boat as 2106, with Trump eking out another win. Edgelords or not, any vote that takes away from Biden helps Trump win, then we're all proper fucked.
This logic is flawed once you try to come up with a reason why these dumb fucksticks were planning on voting for Biden in the first place.
 

DTC

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,588
Please pick Whitmer. I don't like Warren/Kamala. Whitmer has done well as governor of Michigan.
 

Royalan

I can say DEI; you can't.
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
12,000
If, after all this, Biden doesn't pick a Black woman?

Well, hope his campaign is ready for the cleanup.
 

RolandGunner

Member
Oct 30, 2017
8,534
Another poll has the South Carolina senate race tied. Trump is up five so presumably most undecided voters are for him.

Also McConnell only up five on McGrath.

poll.qu.edu

QU Poll Release Detail

Kentucky, South Carolina, And Maine Senate Races Are All Close, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; 2020 Presidential Race: Trump Up In KY, SC, Trails In ME

Edit: Pulling away a popular governor from Michigan would be insane. Whitmer can do far more for the party and state there than in the VP role.
 

IggyChooChoo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,230
Just the messaging. I do think sometimes liberals don't give this guy credit enough. No he's no 4D chess master lol. But he does have strength in this area. Even Noam Chomsky has commented about it and he's been a keen political observer for decades now.
I'll give him credit for having certain feral bullying carnival entertainment skills. The way he belittled other Republicans in debates could be funny. He certainly is an accomplished liar from the Costanza "it's not a lie if you believe it" school.

But weren't most/all of his slogans developed by Cambridge Analytica and intended for Ted Cruz? Did Trump even pick any of his messaging? The red hat was him, maybe some of his off-the-cuff debate one-liners, I guess?
 

entremet

You wouldn't toast a NES cartridge
Member
Oct 26, 2017
60,381
I'll give him credit for having certain feral bullying carnival entertainment skills. The way he belittled other Republicans in debates could be funny. He certainly is an accomplished liar from the Costanza "it's not a lie if you believe it" school.

But weren't most/all of his slogans developed by Cambridge Analytica and intended for Ted Cruz? Did Trump even pick any of his messaging? The red hat was him, maybe some of his off-the-cuff debate one-liners, I guess?
Oh, I know he didn't author the campaign, but he definitely sold it. Also, I'm very aware he used nativism and racist imagery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.