Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[kaelleria]

Why the fuck would:

CT, NH, CA, NJ or Southern Maine (which is really just north Massachusetts with lobsters) ever go red?

That guy isn't just wrong. He's a totally new definition of "wrong."

In 1980 and 84 we did.... But that was Reagan against some very weak candidates.

[Fugus]

From what I can tell, once the race was called in favor of Biden, a few conservative democrats took the opportunity to bash the left wing of the party. Well quite a few. AOC responded forcefully as well as quickly. Quite a few people acted like AOC started the whole mess and asked Why is AOC attacking moderate democrats???

It looks like AOC won this round. Current articles go out of their way to mention timelines where the mainstream democrats absolutely and most definitely started it in the first place. The moderate democrats have stopped attacking the left. And the incoming Biden administration has gone out of their way to push $10k student loan relief and an extended UBI and lockdown (the UBI is so the economy can kind of limp along until the lockdown can be ended). Which is pretty left. The fact that a national lockdown is considered "left" reflects really bad on republicans.

On a practical note, if republicans get one of the Georgia Senate seats nothing liberal will happen anyways since McConnell will put a stop to them. But my take on it is that Biden voluntarily intervened in a way very favorable to the left. For me, this is about all I can really expect at this point. After all, we live in a country where well over 70 million people voted for Trump.

I am still hoping, even with the Senate, Biden along with Congress and the DOJ makes McConnells and the rest of the Republican's lives a living hell with investigations into everything they have done and into Kavanaugh's perjury and an ACTUAL investigation into the sexual assault claims and all the Republicans that went out of their way to lie and cover and protect Trump knowing he broke the law.

- - - Updated - - -

They should change it to "Refund the Police."

It's accurate (reallocating funding) and everyone loves getting refunds.

Nah, it shouldn't be that, it should be "Supplement Our Police" as we are supplementing them with departments and services to pick up where they perform poorly.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably too early to say, but if Marco Rubio keeps talking like this he'll be a challenge in 2024. (Amusing to hear dems infighting)

That would involve them losing support from their racist, xenophobic, and evangelical base. So only the merely uninformed would be left and for them to attract those people, they would have to abandon their entire platform to bring in working class people with an iota of education and critical thinking skills.

[Shadowferal]

That would involve them losing support from their racist, xenophobic, and evangelical base. So only the merely uninformed would be left and for them to attract those people, they would have to abandon their entire platform to bring in working class people with an iota of education and critical thinking skills.

You're underestimating the average voter.
"Red"states flipped for Biden...did the people there change from when they voted for Trump in '16?

[Zython]

“Defund” has an inherently negative connotation to it.

::shrug::

How about "Stop State-Sanctioned Murder"?

[Fugus]

You're underestimating the average voter.
"Red"states flipped for Biden...did the people there change from when they voted for Trump in '16?

They flipped because of the reaction to the virus and how Trump took the mask off on their policies and acted like what they really were doing. They had no issues with the policies or his actions to get them, or his cheating and screwing around, they actually enjoyed that. They just hated the public face he put on while doing it.

I don't think I am underestimating them at all. If they had an issue with the policies or the cheating or any of that, they wouldn't have voted for the Republicans who enabled and protected him while he did it.

[Thepersona]

It is a bad slogan.

Yeah. It's an awful slogan, mainly because Americans are extremely skittish.

[Feanoro]

Which brings us full circle to you still not getting the point. Remember, just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't valid. Just ask all the people who support Trump....

Oh I see. You think you're clever. Not clever enough to clearly express yourself, apparently, but that's not your fault, right? Your interpretation as written was nonsense. I explained my meaning, you could have the courtesy to do so in return, preferably without the condescension and sneering tone.

Let me stop you right there. That's not an accurate description of what racism is, which is why your corollary turned out false.

By all means, give me your definition. Realize though, it's been fashionable lately to use that word in absolutely absurd manners (I've seen "assigning homework is racist" expressed), almost a "get out of jail free" or "I win shut up card", so I hope you won't disappoint me by doing similar.

This is the problem with Trumpsters. When you wholeheartedly defend the man, and support him, then you are going to be held accountable for your choices in life. You support a lying racist, so don't blame others when they judge you for your choices in life.

Then since we're assuming each other's political standings, you won't protest when I judge you for supporting a lying (show me a politician who doesn't) pedophile in bed with China. Oh and bonus points, since racism bothers you (it should, but it should also be demonstrable beyond "racist because I say so"), go look on Youtube for Biden famously saying how we didn't need more N-words. I'm sure he's since shed crocodile tears and all is fine. Never mind he keeps voting for policies that hurt minorities, he's not saying mean things any more!

[Doctor Amadeus]

In theory.

Again the issue is this.

Hypothetical situation. Come January, Trump simply refuses to leave power.

The DoJ (which also ultimately controls the FBI) refuses to remove Trump, prosecute Trump or acknowledge Biden's status as President.

The DoD follows the example of the DoJ after everyone from the CIA to the DoD have been effectively purged.

So what now?

Biden forms a "shadow administration" but the different government departments refuse to recognize his authority at the top levels.

Congress can't do jack as the Senate won't table it.

So what now?

How do you propose to resolve this? How do you untangle this mess?

Because it's clear as shit that expecting the Republicans to fucking do the right thing is wasting your time.

Let's say you have a massive wave of protests... The DoJ let's loose its army of bagmen and simply just ignores the courts. Red state governors will gleefully call in the National Guard.

What is the command echelon of the military going to do? They have no real civil authority or legal path to intervene. A bunch might resign but others might get replaced by loons and some others might just do as they are told.

How do you propose to resolve this?

Let's not delude ourselves, I'm not Kokolums with his loony conspiracy theories. I don't think there would be a civil war. I think eventually people will just resign themselves to the state of affairs and carry on hoping this will eventually by miracle resolve itself.

Of course this is an absolute worst case scenario, but it is a plausible enough.

I really think the Democrats need to fucking get on it and head it off as quickly as possible as aggressively as possible.

Tell the population to get out and start protesting the Senate Republicans now to accept Biden as President elect.

Be on TV 24/7 telling people what's going down and what could go down. Indirectly tell our foreign allies that they should hint that they would refuse to work with an illegitimate administration. Etc.

Last time Biden was asked about this he just said that the Republicans will accept him as President, and I quote "They will". Have you been paying attention for the past 12 years?

It wont matter as of January 20th Once Biden is sworn in The FBI, the Secret Service and every and all departments report to him not Trump. He would be removed by force.

[eschatological]

In 1980 and 84 we did.... But that was Reagan against some very weak candidates.

They weren't weak.

They were just progressive, and this country isn't very progressive.

[Hinastorm]

I personally prefer "Rebuild the Police."

And of course, defunding them is the first step of that.

I've heard some suggesting changing it to "de-militarize" the police. I think it's better than defund, maybe not perfect.

I have to disagree with Endus on this one, even though I essentially agree with him/her on essentially everything.

" If you don't understand what it means, it's because you choose to avoid making any effort to learn, because you are prejudiced against any support for black civil rights."

While Endus is completely correct here, it doesn't matter. These are republicans we're talking about. They aren't going to make any effort to learn, in good faith, about any term or movement that was birthed by the left.

Of course as I type this, it dawns on me that it may not matter what we "name" anything, because the right wing disinformation machine will just twist it into whatever they think it needs to sound like anyway. This plays into "socialism" as well. We can stop using the word and come up with completely different ways of talking about it, but it won't matter.

Sigh.

[eschatological]

Well, I don't see how they can fight "Rebuild" cause it literally implies giving more money to the police (even if that's not the progressive goal).

I guess they could go "There is no systemic problem so why waste money rebuilding!?!?!?!" route, but......that's pretty weak.

[Kaleredar]

I've heard some suggesting changing it to "de-militarize" the police. I think it's better than defund, maybe not perfect.

I have to disagree with Endus on this one, even though I essentially agree with him/her on essentially everything.

" If you don't understand what it means, it's because you choose to avoid making any effort to learn, because you are prejudiced against any support for black civil rights."

While Endus is completely correct here, it doesn't matter. These are republicans we're talking about. They aren't going to make any effort to learn, in good faith, about any term or movement that was birthed by the left.

Of course as I type this, it dawns on me that it may not matter what we "name" anything, because the right wing disinformation machine will just twist it into whatever they think it needs to sound like anyway. This plays into "socialism" as well. We can stop using the word and come up with completely different ways of talking about it, but it won't matter.

Sigh.

Yeah. It's an awful slogan, mainly because Americans are extremely skittish.

In a sense, though, if your product doesn't sell because you marketed it poorly, do you blame the customer for not buying it? Or blame yourself for bad marketing? And regardless of what excuse is picked to make oneself feel better, you have to realize at the end of the day... your product didn't sell. You're the one missing out on getting what you want, here (which is the adoption of your idea,) not the customer.

Politics is trying to sell ideas. If the root of an idea is good, but sold poorly so it doesn't catch on, then... well, you failed to sell it. And it's far better use of time to brainstorm a good way to sell that idea than it is to wait around until people are "enlightened" enough to truly understand whatever branding you originally chose for it because you think the purity of your idea didn't necessitate you coming up with better marketing.

"Defund the police" is a misleading name. Most people do not make the three jumps in logic upon first hearing "defund the police" and arrive at its intended meaning of "reallocate funds normally given to police departments to create a wider variety of social programs designed to individually handle various services police are currently forced to do while being largely untrained to serve those positions..." No, they arrive at it meaning a blanket "stop giving money to the police" and assume that the plan begins and ends with that because that's what those three words they were given as a slogan most logically encapsulate. The majority of the people on the street are going to think it's the latter, rather than the former, and most people don't want the latter. Which is why you have the problem of adoption.

And people can sit around all day and argue "well the average voter/citizen should educate themselves about what the actual meaning of it is and..." blah blah blah blah, but like I said... all that's going to serve to do is make sure that people don't understand you. You're not actually going to get your idea up and off the ground, which is what actually matters. Not whether you changed something's name or not.

To your point, the motto "defund the police" is not some "inviolate, sacrosanct slogan straight from the mouth of God, not to be abridged or denigrated by balking to the baser public not yet fit to understand its meaning." It's three freakin' words picked as a slogan; three words that I posit are very misleading at their outset, which is precisely not what you want a slogan to be.

Finding some other name for an idea isn't "compromising your ideals," it's finding a better name. Which I argue "defund the police" sorely needs if people want it to go anywhere.

[Mormolyce]

By all means, give me your definition. Realize though, it's been fashionable lately to use that word in absolutely absurd manners (I've seen "assigning homework is racist" expressed), almost a "get out of jail free" or "I win shut up card", so I hope you won't disappoint me by doing similar.

Racism is a prejudice against a person based on their ethnicity, and/or a general belief in the intrinsic superiority of one ethnic group to another.

Basically, you're comparing judging people on the basis of their race to judging people on the basis of their ideology. One is based on your own choices, beliefs and statements, and the other isn't. Not the same thing at all.

[Fugus]

Have to agree that "Defund the Police" is one of the WORST possible names you could give it. Defund typically means to cut their funding which is bad enough without the part of where you are putting it. But these are Republicans, when you say "Defund the Police" they think of it in the same way they wanted to "Defund Obamacare" which is exactly the wrong thing because in their mind Defund means Abolish.

A better message would be "Supplement the Police" or "Increase Support for our Police" or something of that nature.

The Democrats honestly couldn't have their messaging much worse if they actually intended it to backfire.

Just like when Republican's refer to something as Socialism, just pivot to calling it "Americans for America" or something like that.

[Mormolyce]

Have a helpful comic to explain to right wingers how it would benefit the police as well:

I really do think that the specific wording is easily exploited to mislead people though. If you need an accompanying picture to explain it, it's too complex for the people right wingers target to understand.

[Waniou]

It wont matter as of January 20th Once Biden is sworn in The FBI, the Secret Service and every and all departments report to him not Trump. He would be removed by force.

On top of this, there's zero chance any nation except perhaps Russia and China (who have a vested interest in destabilising the USA) would acknowledge the illegitimate Trump regime.

[Kaleredar]

On top of this, there's zero chance any nation except perhaps Russia and China (who have a vested interest in destabilising the USA) would acknowledge the illegitimate Trump regime.

Except they know that Biden is the legitimate president at that point too... and if they want to maintain even the illusion of positive relations with the US and by extension the rest of the western world to whom they're financially entwined, they're not going to prop up Trump "for the lolz."

[Flower Milk]

I really do think that the specific wording is easily exploited to mislead people though. If you need an accompanying picture to explain it, it's too complex for the people right wingers target to understand.

No less than 5 years ago right wingers (and even some moderate Democrats) said that Black Lives Matter was confusing to them because "why can't all lives matter". Look at it now, I guess it was just a bad slogan because it had to be explained, right?

[Magical Mudcrab]

Except they know that Biden is the legitimate president at that point too... and if they want to maintain even the illusion of positive relations with the US and by extension the rest of the western world to whom they're financially entwined, they're not going to prop up Trump "for the lolz."

I just don't understand why the Americans don't just march on the Whitehouse and pull a Mussolini on Trump and his staff. Genuinely, every single one of their actions since the election results have been announced are at least signaling an intent to do longstanding harm to the country, and at worst signal an intent to attempt treason.

[Kaleredar]

No less than 5 years ago right wingers (and even some moderate Democrats) said that Black Lives Matter was confusing to them because "why can't all lives matter". Look at it now, I guess it was just a bad slogan because it had to be explained, right?

Black Lives Matter is in a better place than it was five years ago, I'd argue in large part due to many celebrities, media outlets, and so forth supporting the movement quite publicly in recent months. However that's not to say that people still don't completely misinterpret the meaning of the slogan.

But the reason "Black Lives Matter" is a better slogan than "Defund the Police" is a simple manner of what each slogan, taken by itself, is positing. Simply look at the inverse of each sentiment; the notion that each sentiment is implicitly trying to contend with.

The inverse of "Black lives matter" is not "all lives matter..." someone claiming the inverse would be saying "Black lives don't matter," which obviously most people do not agree with. Which is why that slogan was created in the first place... because they felt that black lives were not valued. It is instilling the proper human value in the lives of black people that they feel is being ignored.

The most logical inverse of "Defund the Police" is... well, "fund the police." You will find very few people who disagree with the simple notion that the police should be funded. The slogan makes no statement as to the degree of funding, where the funding is going, what the funding the police aren't getting is going to do, etc, etc. That grey area is why the slogan fails.

That people can misconstrue something as simple and fairly straightforward as "Black Lives Matter" shouldn't be a rallying cry to stick to a much worse slogan like "defund the police" and assume that people will get it, it should actually teach you how damn spot-on you actually need to be in your messaging.