Can Democrats make America great again? And if so, how?

[stevenkesslar]

That long post above was mostly meant to focus on where voters are at.  And whether, as Brownstein and many others assert, we have a deeply divided electorate that is going to remain deeply divided. 

I agree with Brownstein, obviously.  It's the "coalition of transformation" versus the "coalition of restoration".  I would not advise holding your breath for a truce.  Let alone peace treaties.  Like they did for much of the 20th century before Reagan, mostly White Republicans will soon lament how they are losing the noble war to save America.

That said, part of the point of my posts today is this.  Is there any reason to think that anything the Democrats can do will win any of these people over?  Is it even worth trying?  And if it is worth trying, how?

I find it interesting that @lookin and I more or less agree about 95 % of the way down the road on this discussion on authoritarianism.  I'm arguing tendencies to follow authoritarian leaders like President Toxic are layered right in with this discussion about identity politics and the economy.  We agree about many of the causes, the fear mongering, and the fact that these followers won't go away.  Then at the end of the road, @lookin and I take sharp turns and I think go in exactly opposite directions.  @lookin, ever the optimist, keeps looking for ways to win them over.  I now feel more strongly than ever that Trumpism simply needs to be crushed.  Now, in 2020.  To quote John Dean, "they understand defeat".  Period.  That doesn't mean they go away.  But it does mean they have to be defeated.

Even if you take my more pessimistic view, in the post above I mentioned that Pew says about 5 % of 2016 President Toxic supporters voted for a Democratic House candidate in 2018.  We know that was one factor in making Nancy Pelosi House Speaker.  It could also be a factor in 2020 in making Joe Biden President.  So even if it is just at the margin, this is not entirely set in concerete.

I think what's most important to me is that authoritarianism seems to rear its ugly head the most in periods of economic tumult - like in Hitler's Germany.  So even if we can't stop authoritarian followers from being authoritarian followers, history suggests that we can tone them down.  And a lot of toning it down has to do with the economy, stupid.  I think we all have the picture that if blue-collar communities in Bucks County, PA feel resentment about their "decades-long decline", that resentment has a basis in reality.  Maybe if they weren't in decline, they wouldn't be as worried as they are about immigrants.  Maybe they'd be less likely to be seduced by the fact-free, immigrant-bashing, and panic-stricken alternative reality offered to them by President Toxic.

Right now, the only thing I feel certain about regarding 2021 is one number: 50.  Even if Biden wins, which I think is likely, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can be counted to throw the country under the bus and focus on obstruction.  Just like he did in 2009.  He's already promised to be The Grim Reaper.  And I'm sure he'll deliver on that - if he's able.  So we need at least 50 Senators.  And they need to get rid of the filibuster.  If we're being honest, I'd rather just say that the Republicans spent a decade obstructing and fear mongering.  It eventually resulted in its logical conclusion: President Toxic's America.  So let's just cut all the bullshit about compromise, okay?  The Tea Party/Trump Republicans have zero interest in it.  Now Democrats have gotten the memo, and are in exactly the same place.  We need 50 votes.

The question I feel functionally schizophrenic about is whether a President Joe Biden is exactly the right man for the moment, exactly the wrong man for the moment, or somewhere in between?

The theory of Biden being the right man is that he's Joe Unity and Joe Decency.  And, in addition, he's Working Class Joe.  If there's anyone who can pull these older and White working class Trumpians back, it's that Joe.  And there is some evidence - both from the actual results in 2020 primaries and the general election polling - that Working Class Joe is doing his magic.  I still feel his victory on Super Tuesday in states where he had zero money and zero organization is inexplicable.  Working class voters and disgruntled Republicans were a part of that.  Now that he actually has more money than President Toxic, can he pound more nails in President Toxic's coffin and seduce more of Obama's lost coalition back?

Joe Biden Has a Long History of Giving Republicans Exactly What They Want

That lefty article from Jacobin was written back in the early days of 2020 B.C.  (Before COVID).  At the time, it looked like there was a good chance that Bernie could be the Democratic nominee.  It's one of the best articles I've read that documents in detail after detail everything that has been wrong about Joe Biden for the last half century, as both Senator and Vice President.   The article is very long and very well written.  To oversimplify, it makes a pretty good case that Biden has been a sort of Republican lap dog.  Many of his biggest legislative victories were ones that advanced core Republican goals - law and order, Clarence Thomas, the Iraq War - and not Democratic ones.  His particular skill as Vice President was being the pawn Mitch McConnell could use to thwart the will of a much tougher Harry Reid.

Mostly when I just reread this article, it reminded me why I wanted Warren to be nominated.  And why I voted for Bernie in the primary.  Either Bernie or Elizabeth would have brought deep convictions about a new course for America to The Presidency.  Bernie's problem, to me, is that he does view democratic socialism as better than capitalism.  That may work in 20 years.  It didn't work in 2020.  What I particularly liked about Warren is that she started as a Main Street capitalist Republican.  And then she simply noticed how it chewed up and spit out millions of decent, hardworking Americans.  I thought someone grounded in a reality like that, and with her brains and will, could be a particularly effective President in charting a new course.

My head and heart are split right down the middle on this.  I want to think that some of President Toxic's followers really are decent people, who mostly believe it's the economy, stupid.  So a President Warren could have been the person that refocused the economy (and tax code) away from predatory lenders.  And from capitalists who really do want cheaper labor somewhere else, and really don't give a shit about factory workers in Pennsylvania. 

On the other hand, I find it easy to believe that after 4 years of daily tweets, almost all Trumpians are so rock solid now that they would view President Warren as, at best, a shrill bitch with bad ideas.  And at worst a perpetually lying, cheating Pocahontas.  The polls, and my personal experience with Trumpians, is that the latter is probably closer to the truth.

Part of what is interesting about the article above is this.  You could give it to Steve Bannon.  He could throw out most of the facts, and add in some right-wing buzz words and red meat.  And it would make a great article in Breitbart, as well.  This is where the left wing and the right wing meet.  You can easily portray Biden as the pawn of the bureaucratic Deep State, or the Silicon Valley Establishment  (thus, Vice President Harris) or any number of other conspiracies.  (But not Q Anon.  Trump has a lock on that.)

So as much as part of me really wishes that Biden could bring a big chunk of Trumpians back to the Democratic tent, or get them interested in unity and compromise, I just don't believe that's an option.  In my mind, this is a recipe for a mostly unsuccessful Biden Presidency.  His instinct, even as of today, may be to negotiate and compromise with the McConnells of the Senate.  Which mostly means he'll be thwarted, just like in 2009.  I think he gets much of the credit for flipping Arlen Spector into being a Democratic, at least nominally.  But the idea that Vice President Biden would schmooze deals out of a bipartisan Senate never held up.  Is there any reason to think President Biden will do better?

‘They made a really big mistake’: Biden confronts a regret of the Obama years

The former vice president surrounds himself with a cadre of left-leaning economic advisers, a reflection of a policy approach seen as more progressive than during the last recession.

This recent Politico article is an excellent rebuttal to the Jacobin article above.  And I'm torn.  These articles, to liberal me, accurately paint versions of the worst case scenario for a Biden Presidency, and the best case scenario.  Which one will it be?  Who knows.  At this point, like probably everyone who thinks of President Toxic as a massive failure, I mostly care about just having a President Biden, period.  

After watching what Biden has done this year, I'm a little less persuaded by the first article I posted, and a little more hopeful that Politico is right in their reporting.  A big chunk of Biden's success so far in 2020 is simply that he had the wind at his back.  But there is a political skill in knowing you have the wind at your back.  And knowing how to use it to move you along.  I think that is part of the story of Super Tuesday.  In other words, I think Biden is in his own way as good a manipulator as McConnell is.  That's part of what I feel I've watched in 2020.  What I also feel I've watched is that Biden is like most effective and enduring politicians.  The # 2 most important rule is he likes to win.  The # 1 most important rule is he likes to win in ways that get him re-elected.  He is not the worst coalition builder in America, for sure.

So the best case scenario for a Biden Presidency and beyond is that Biden is fully aware that this is not 2009.  His buddy John McCain is no longer in the Senate.  And Republicans like McCain that compromised and made pals with Democrats like Biden have long been viewed as "losers" or RINOs. 

The best case scenario is that Biden also knows how he survived politically from about 1970 to 2020.  So he ought to be able to project out to 2030 or 2040.  Meaning, unlike President Toxic, realize that the majority politics of the coming era is not what worked when he was a young man racing into what we now know to be the Reagan Era.  Perhaps the Chinese fortune somebody left on my desk as a prank in my 20's is right:  "In youth and beauty, wisdom is rare."  Sorry, Joe.  You're neither young, nor beautiful.  Hopefully that means you've gained some wisdom.

Part of my point in posting these articles is that I think this will be the framework in which we learn whether a President Biden can build a majority coalition that includes at least some people who once voted for Donald Trump.  Like Alan Lichtman, I fundamentally believe what matters to most voters is governing.  Not campaign tricks or political rhetoric. 

If there's a way Biden can win over former Trump voters, it will probably be much like Reagan solidified his coalition with "Reagan Democrats" after he won in 1980.  A lot of Reagan's appeal was the "culture war" stuff:  abortion, guns, race, and (say it ain't so!) just below the surface racism.  Even the Never Trump Republicans will now admit to the racism that was always there.  For Biden to do the same thing as Reagan, it will have to be on the economy.  And he will have to produce results for the have nots and working class - on fundamentals like jobs and health care and a fairer economy.

Biden will also have to make America safer and less racist for Blacks and Hispanics and Asians and LGBTQ folks, and any other minority.  We know from the Pew poll I posted above that older Whites who lean toward Trump don't particularly give a shit about Black Lives Matter or gender identity.  Biden may be able to ride COVID to The White House by getting some of President Toxic's older voters from 2016 to vote for him in 2020.  But even if he manages to do that, he'll have to cement it when he wins.  Again, hopefully he has learned a lesson from 2009 and no longer views Mitch McConnell as anything but an obstructionist who will try to stop Biden from succeeding.

The reality is that the vast majority of Republicans will never vote for Biden, Harris, or almost any Democrat.  They may be a free market conservative who doesn't even like Trump.  But they do know President Toxic is the path to free markets, tax cuts, less regulation, and more conservative judges.  They may be racists or gun nuts that do feel like the America they love (not to mention the Second Amendment) is gradually slipping away.  Even if they lose President Toxic, they will always have their AR-15s and endless rounds of ammo.  They deserve at least that, right?  Biden won't win any of those voters, no matter how moderate he is.  My sense is he doesn't even seem to be trying right now.

The encouraging thing Politico is saying is that Biden, for his own political survival and success, is now likely to surround himself with a lot of the people a President Warren would have surrounded herself with.  Including Elizabeth Warren herself.  As a liberal and Warren fanboy, I'm biased.  But if we're going to get a small but meaningful chunk of former President Toxic supporters - especially the Obama/Obama/Trump ones - to jump from the Trump trench to the Biden one, I think this is going to be the way to do it. 

Biden is going to have to prove that he can deliver some kind of economic transformation that makes a meaningful difference in their lives.  If they are ever going to join the coalition of transformation, it will have to be because it's the economy, stupid.  And Biden will have to produce things that they see as meaningful economic results.

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, AdamSmith said:

There is a shorter ( LOL  ) summation of your reply:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Piketty#Research

All true.  

But part of my point is exactly the opposite.  If most people thought Thomas Piketty was right (Jimmy Carter does!)  Bernie Sanders would be the Democratic nominee, poised to win in a landslide.  And many of President Toxic's supporters, who are not economically better off even though they feel they are, would not be President Toxic supporters.

Piketty's research explains a lot about what Brownstein labels "the coalition of transformation".  It explains why for a while it looked like Bernie Sanders, of all people, might be the Democratic nominee.

It does not explain why people who are no better off, and are actually probably measurably worse off under President Toxic, still view him as the defender of their economic interests.  And the guy that fuels their resentments.  But never in a way that produces panic, of course!  

[AdamSmith]

22 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

All true.  

But part of my point is exactly the opposite.  If most people thought Thomas Piketty was right (Jimmy Carter does!)  Bernie Sanders would be the Democratic nominee, poised to win in a landslide.  And many of President Toxic's supporters, who are not economically better off even though they feel they are, would not be President Toxic supporters.

Piketty's research explains a lot about what Brownstein labels "the coalition of transformation".  It explains why for a while it looked like Bernie Sanders, of all people, might be the Democratic nominee.

It does not explain why people who are no better off, and are actually probably measurably worse off under President Toxic, still view him as the defender of their economic interests.  And the guy that fuels their resentments.  But never in a way that produces panic, of course!  

Agree entirely. P. is an egghead whose insights will take a long time to become broadly obvious, not by vox populi reading him but through just observing lived reality.

[stevenkesslar]

On 9/15/2020 at 2:01 PM, lookin said:

I think the Democrats need to put forward a government modeled after that of Konrad Adenauer, one that can de-Trump America, one that makes life better for even the most down-and-out Americans and one that can, through skilled diplomacy, return our country to a place of influence - rather than "domination" - in the world.  Germany's authoritarian followers didn't disappear overnight and neither will ours.  So, as long as they're with us, I think they need to become part of the solution and not part of the problem.

So this final post in a series  (I saved them up over several days because of the log in problems) is looking right at you, @lookin.  I'll make some comments on Adenauer.  And then invite you to meet some Trump supporters and comment on how you would persuade them to see Trump as the problem, rather than the solution.

Konrad Adenauer

Thanks for giving me a reason to learn just enough about Konrad to be mostly ignorant.  That long Wikipedia piece did leave me feeling that my snap judgment when I read your post is correct.  Which is to say, Adenauer was a lot more like President Toxic than like Biden.  At least if we are talking about authoritarian traits.

First, Adenauer was an authoritarian leader.  You can make a good argument that Nazi Germany was so extreme that the only way to get from an evil authoritarian like Hitler to a Social Democrat like Willy Brandt was through a long period of benevolent authoritarian rule by a leader like Adenauer.  President Toxic, fortunately, is no Hitler.  At least not yet.  I'm all for skipping the Adenauer phase and going directly to Brandt.

Wikipedia says this about Adenauer:  "As chancellor, Adenauer tended to make most major decisions himself, treating his ministers as mere extensions of his authority."  Sounds more like President Toxic than Biden to me.

Important to your basic point, Adenauer's political success was based on directing people's fear to an outsider.  As Wikipedia explained, at one point Adenauer tried to label Willy Brandt as the outsider.  As a sort of pre-Trump birther, Adenauer said Brandt was not fit for office due to his "illegitimate birth".  That didn't work out well for Konnie.  What did work much better, and was grounded in Stalin's reality, was fear of Marxism.  That was what Adenauer used to unify post-WWII Germany.  Marxism was the bogeyman.  He also used it to tether West Germany to the West.

It's fair to say that given a choice between demonizing Nazis or Marxists, Adenauer chose Marxists.  I can see why.  By the 1950's, the Soviet Union and it's satellite power of East Germany were the real threat.  The Nazis may have been worse, but they were yesterday's bogeyman.  So Adenauer granted amnesty to hundreds of thousands of Nazis, thousands of whom sounded like truly murderous sadists.  Not even President Toxic has done that.  Again, it does make sense to me that Adenauer was being shrewd.  Had he sounded like a pawn of the UK or the US, it may have been harder for him to unify Germany and ally it with the US and the UK.

There is one similarity here that may apply to a President Biden.  If there is an outsider for Biden to focus authoritarian followers on, it's China.  And to some degree Putin and Russia.  President Toxic will of course try, and fail, to portray Biden as "China Joe".  Biden seems to already be offering hints about "Made In America" initiatives that show he understands that the days of shipping factories to China are over.  And the days of building new factories based on new technologies in the US may be here.  Until he wins, it's all rhetoric.  So what he tries to do, and whether it works, is for us to learn in the next four years.

My worst fear is that Biden could be the new FDR, in the sense that we are headed to World War, whether we like it or not.  I'm not arguing that Biden would do that.  Or that China wants it.  The more realistic scary idea to me is four more years of President Toxic.  To paraphrase Jared Kushner, quoting the Cheshire Cat, if you don't have any clue where you're going, any path will get you there.  Meaning President Toxic is the kind of bad leader who could take us down the path to war with China.  Not because it is his goal.  But because he doesn't have any goal.  So war with China could just be where he ended up.  Apparently Gen. Tillis was so worried about President Toxic inadvertently starting a war with Krazy Kim that he slept with his pants on.

My picture of how Biden could use China as his scapegoat would be like JFK and the Space Race with the USSR.  It's a better comparison, because the looming threats with China do mostly have to do with technologies. 

As Vice President, it's a fact that Biden presided over a period that restored at least several hundred thousand factory jobs to states like Michigan and Wisconsin.  (Again, for whatever reason, Pennsylvania has done nothing but lose factory jobs for 30 years.)  President Toxic has not done that.  So there is some basis in reality for Biden saying he's going to double down what he did as Vice President and focus on creating middle class jobs.

That's a good transition to the final thing I will say about Adenauer.  It's the one way in which I hope Biden is a lot like him:  the German "Wirtschaftswunder".  Like Adenauer, Biden will have to rebuild a country after a national nightmare.  For Biden, it will be the second time around on that.  I'm going to keep insisting that these discussions about authoritarianism, identity politics, and the economy are all part of the same complex picture, looked at from different perspectives.  It worked for Adenauer to direct factory workers who were good followers to go to work and rebuild an economy, always with a fearful eye on the Marxists and Soviets.  So it could work for Biden to direct factory workers who are good followers to go rebuild the US economy - which President Toxic did not do.  President Toxic did tell people to fear China, on the days of the week that he wasn't slathering praise on Xi.  So Biden, who is at least a more talented and competent politician than President Toxic, ought to be able to do better than Trump.  And maybe as good as Adenauer.  We'll see.

Trump Rally Goers On Why They Took The Risk To Attend Nevada Campaign Events

So that is a nice profile piece about a handful of President Toxic's supporters who attended the Nevada rallies. @lookin.  The things they say about why they are there, and why they support Trump, ring true to me.  That's based on what I read in polls.  And what I have hear talking to individuals who support President Toxic.   

I'll make one caveat.  I've heard some really racist thinking from Republicans I'd known for over a decade.  Especially after Trump legitimized saying those kinds of things.  Like about how the Obamas are the biggest racists in America.  Especially Michelle, who really does look like a horse.  So this is not the type of event where people are going to say those kinds of things - at least to a reporter.  So I take this article as a legitimate and accurate expression of the sunny side of Trumpism.  There's a dark side, that this piece does not really talk about.

So here's my question, @lookin   You're saying we should consider persuading Trump followers that "Trump is leading them day-after-day toward death and destruction."  What part of what they are saying suggests they are even remotely open to believing such a thing?  How would you take in what they are saying and turn it around to convince them that President Toxic is, as I have called him, The Angel Of Death?  Clearly, 200,000 dead Americans hasn't persuaded them.  So what will?

I'll tell you some thoughts I have from reading this article.  I look forward to hearing yours.

First, I think the reporters did a good job just letting people speak.  Whether intentional or not, they started off by profiling a Black, a Hispanic family, and a drag queen.  Maybe they are pro-Trump reporters and they wanted to implicitly say that these Trump people are not racists or bigots.  Or maybe they are just profiling the different types of people that were there.  My point, which I think you'll agree with, is these are not obviously bad people with obviously bad motivations.  

Second, one of their motivations probably is that they tend to be authoritarian followers.  There's little snippets of that throughout.  The Hispanic guy pictured above says he likes President Toxic because he will "speak out loud" and stand up to the "status quo".

Third, there is this almost surreal sense of threat about how America will be lost forever if Joe Biden wins.  These are interesting words coming out of the mouth of a Mexican American Dad:  ""If Joe Biden wins this election, this country, no one's going to come here no more. No one's going to sacrifice and go through great lengths to be here anymore."  

So let me just make sure.  We're talking about President Toxic, who puts kids that look exactly like your kids in cages?  And you're saying that if Joe Biden is elected, Mexicans won't want to come to the US any more?  Huh?

Fourth, the sense of living in some other reality is pervasive.  I've had conversations with Trump supporters who speak like this.  If I want to be polite, I say things like, "Well, I'm glad you feel that way."  They are not stupid, and they take it for what it is:  a subtle dig.  Because I don't trust them enough to try actual debate with actual facts.

Here's a perfect example, relating to the key factual issue right now:  the fact that 200,000 people died after President Toxic completely botched leading us through an ongoing national crisis.

Quote

“I think he is handling it quite well. Masks are being handed out. I feel like we have less corona than other countries around here,” she said. 

Again, I'd tend to be polite and say, "I'm glad you feel that way."  Then again, I might say, "Really?  Have you heard of a country called Canada?  They hadddd zero deaths one day this week.  And we have like 1,000 deaths a day.  What do you make of that?"

Again, all of that rests on the flimsy assumption that actual debate, based on actual facts, means something.  It's not clear to me that it does.

There's also the argument that just because Trump is the President of the United States doesn't mean he has to do anything.  Because, actually, when you think about it, he can't do anything.  This is what Governors do.  Trump made that clear right away.  Which is what makes him such a great President.  So you have "idiots" like Governor Sisolak who do do these stupid things, like tell us we shouldn't have thousands gathered in a tight crowd indoors just because it's a great way to catch or spread Coronavirus.  What a fucking idiot!  So you can see how great leaders like President Trump have to tolerate the real idiots like Sisolak.  Why blame that on  President Toxic?

I wish I could say I'm making this shit up.  But that is what these people are saying.

Fifth, this type of Trump supporter is not the George Will or Ronald Reagan principled conservative.   Those people don't come to these rallies.  They may tolerate President Toxic, and vote for him, because they like the tax cuts and don't like government regulations.  But this is not a crowd of free market conservatives.  

If there's anything free market about them, it's red meat conservatism.  Nobody can tell me how many guns I can own.  Or that I have to wear a god damn mask.

To go back to my themes, here's the way I see it.

95 % of these people, if not more, will stick with President Toxic and his remnant of a party after he loses.  If you think you can persuade them differently, I'd like to hear how.

The Hispanic Dad pictured above actually said he lost his job due to COVID-19.  He voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012.  But he doesn't blame President Toxic, because he says the unemployment rate was going down before COVID-19 hit.  (As it was under Obama/Biden once the Great Recession ended, of course.)

So if Biden gets the economy back on track and this guy has a new job and is doing better than ever in 2024, will he then vote for Biden?  My view is that if there is a way to win guys like him back, that's the way. 

Debating the facts about COVID-19, or whether there is a country called Canada. just ain't gonna cut it with these folks, I think.  You and I agree that President Toxic has already led them to death and destruction and economic pain.  But they don't see it that way.

[lookin]

On 9/16/2020 at 7:55 PM, stevenkesslar said:

So here's my question, @lookin   You're saying we should consider persuading Trump followers that "Trump is leading them day-after-day toward death and destruction."  What part of what they are saying suggests they are even remotely open to believing such a thing?  How would you take in what they are saying and turn it around to convince them that President Toxic is, as I have called him, The Angel Of Death?  Clearly, 200,000 dead Americans hasn't persuaded them.  So what will?

Good gosh, @stevenkesslar, I wasn't sure I'd even finish reading your post before the election let alone conjure up a way to reach authoritarian followers by then.  

I recall that you're a long-time political operative so I know you appreciate the importance of data as opposed to just slinging opinions.  And I'm sure you'd join me in looking over the psychographic research on Trump's followers so that we'd understand what their fears actually are.

However, in the absence of hard data, I wouldn't give up on Covid-19 just yet.  Of all the things Trump followers should be fearing, that one bubbles to the top for me.  And it's also one where I don't think the Democratic messaging has been nearly as simple as it needs to be in order to break through to single-issue thinkers.

For example, I haven't heard too many folks mention that our "war-time president" is halfway to losing as many U. S. citizens as we lost in World War II.  With another thousand lives being lost each day, he most likely will - through his lack of leadership - hit the 400,000 lost lives mark by April Fool's day.  And the 200,000 deaths we've recorded so far are more than our World War II allies and enemies have reached when all their Covid-19 death totals are combined.  If you ask me, that's something to be afraid of!

If his authoritarian followers can grasp one more fact, it would be that he's already tried taking away their health insurance so that those who survive, along with their pre-existing conditions, will be on the hook for health problems that may last a lifetime.

And, if they can comprehend one more thing to be fearful of, it would be the damage he's already done to Medicare and Social Security which rely on payroll taxes and well-paid jobs, both of which he has undercut.

I've never felt comfortable setting out, as Trump has, to instill fear as a political strategy.  But, if anyone needs the raw material to do so, it's there in abundance.

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, lookin said:

For example, I haven't heard too many folks mention that our "war-time president" is halfway to losing as many U. S. citizens as we lost in World War II.  With another thousand lives being lost each day, he most likely will - through his lack of leadership - hit the 400,000 lost lives mark by April Fool's day.  And the 200,000 deaths we've recorded so far are more than our World War II allies and enemies have reached when all their Covid-19 death totals are combined.  If you ask me, that's something to be afraid of!

If this is what you mean by getting President Toxic's followers to fear him, I agree.  I would characterize it as pulling away at the edges of of his loyal cadre of authoritarian followers. 

It's never been stated quite this clearly.  But I think the goal of the Lincoln Project types is to pull away maybe 5 % of them, not 50 % of them.  5 % of even a relatively small slice of the electorate can make a huge difference in a swing state.  If Republicans are 30 % of all voters, and 60 % of them are the "Trump Republicans" who 99 % support Trump, that's 18 % of the electorate.  5 % of them is about 1 % of the electorate.  That was the difference between winning and losing in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin in 2016.

That said, I think the 5 % of the Republican Party the Lincoln Project types are going for are mostly those in the 40 % who see themselves as "party" Republicans.  About 1 in 3 of them view Trump unfavorably.  Up to half of them disagree with President Toxic on important matters like race.  What's keeping them glued more than anything is their view that Trump is good for the economy, in traditional Republican (low tax/cut regulation) terms.  It's the "he's a great businessman" thing tied to traditional Reagan free market conservatism.  To say it differently, I think the Lincoln Project has mostly conceded that the "Trump Republicans" are 99 % loyal to Trump, and will stick with him.  And while we don't know this for a fact, my guess is that slice is where the test for authoritarian followers would be going off the charts.

I agree with all your points about messaging, and COVID-19.  Except for one critical one.  Everyone knows that 200,000 Americans have died on President Toxic's watch.  Yet when Joe Biden tells that to those Trump Republicans who are 99 % loyal to Trump, what it mostly tells them is that Joe Biden is senile and weak.  When the Lincoln Project says it, they say, "Well, they were RINOs all along.  Good riddance!"  Meanwhile, the Lincoln Project ex-lifelong Republicans says their former friends who are now President Toxic loyalists are "unrecognizable".

Pelosi got off a real zinger today, which I really liked.  She said President Toxic wants to rush through an appointment to replace RBG because he cares more about killing Obamacare than ending the COVID-19 pandemic.  She is relentless in these messages that tie it back to health care, safety, economic security, and the things people most care about.  Like their lives, and the lives and health of their loved ones.  That message worked very well in 2018.  Except in states like Missouri and Indiana, where Trumpism and old White men with guns still roam free from the Marxists.  That said, my guess is that the "Trump Republicans" who are 99 % loyal to Trump won't even hear those words.  Let alone think about them.  Because they are coming out of Nancy Pelosi's mouth.  Arguably, she's even worse than your typical Black suburb killer.

In your first post on this subject you gave an example that was extreme, but that I thought was a perfect illustration of the problem.  It was about the Nazi soldiers who shot and killed other Nazi soldiers for being disloyal.  Even after Hitler was dead and the war was lost.  There's not many better examples of extreme loyalty to the wrong cause.   As I mentioned already, my gut feeling is that reflects a deep psychological need to try to prove that my cause was the right one.  I know that over 30 years later there were still ex-Nazis running around Bavaria who still thought Hitler was right all along.

The Nazi example is a good one, I think, because it goes to Dean's verbatim quote I'll keep repeating.  "They understand defeat."  The best de-nazification program was simply for Hitler to lose.  It might be better to say some understand defeat.  In the case of President Toxic, he's already paving the way for this message:  "We won.  The only reason Biden will be President is fraud and cheating and a rigged election."  Of the 60 % of Republicans that are 99 % loyal to President Toxic, my guess is that the vast majority will agree with him.  Do the math on that one.  If 3 in 4 "Trump Republicans" stay loyal to him in defeat, it means the Republican Party is split just about 50/50 between party loyalists who like the John Kasich and Mitt Romney types, and Trump loyalists.  Team Toxic will perhaps think that Donald Trump, Jr. will win the 2024 rematch.  I'm happy this is their problem to figure out.

I think another word that belongs in this discussion is shock.  In this case, I'm actually basing this on one of those Myers Briggs type personality tests I took once with all my-coworkers.  A concept I remember is that the "D" or "dominant" typology often ends up being the leader.  Usually they will dominate followers.  Sometimes it takes a shock to actually get through to them.  I think that describes both President Toxic, and the impact he has on his followers.  Mostly, I think this is just common sense.  If you listen to what they say, his followers feel Trump has "healed" and "unified" the party.  Everyone else in America is like, "huh?"  The people waiting in line without masks to see him in Nevada tell reporters of course President Toxic will win.  How could he lose?  Look at everyone here today.  Everyone else in America goes, "Huh?"  My point is that if you stipulate that Biden is going to win 55/45, which is possible at the extreme best case scenario for Democrats, I think, that is going to come as a massive shock to President Toxic's followers.   This is where you might argue Democrats who are smart will have messages ready for those shocked voters.  Messages other than, "Fuck you, loser."  If you made an argument like that, I'd agree with you.

I was looking through this Georgia poll today and it has some good news and bad news relevant to your point. 

The good news is that the Senate race in Georgia (Ossoff/Perdue) is a toss up.  My hunch is that this RBG fight might elect Ossoff.  Just like the 2018 Justice Rapist battle  helped elect Sinema in Arizona, I think.  In 2018, Indepedents in Arizona opposed Justice Rapist's confirmation 50/37.  McSally was for it, and Sinema was against it.   Who knows why Sinema won.  But she needed to win the Independents.  And at the margin the Justice Rapist fight probably helped her.  Just like it hurt Claire McCaskill in a much more red state like Missouri.  So if we are talking about the White college graduates Ossoff needs to win, my gut feeling is that everything that's about to play out about abortion and McConnell's venal hypocrisy and his contempt for any notion of unity or bipartisanship may help Ossoff win.   The same White college graduates are the ones who would buy your (or Pelosi's) message on how President Toxic is endangering their health by trying to kill Obamacare even as he ignores COVID-19.  (I think that Arizona poll also means Kelly now is even more likely to beat McSally in Arizona, if this plays out in roughly the same hyperpartisan way as 2018.)

Here's the bad news.  This fresh poll says that Georgians believe President Toxic will do slightly better (41 % to 40 %) than Biden in handling COVID-19.    It's a statistical tie.  But in the other state in that poll, Minnesota, Biden is viewed as being the better one to end the pandemic, 48 to 35.  So how is it possible that in Georgia, after everything that has happened, people see President Toxic as being more capable of ending the pandemic than Biden?  We both like facts, and on this one we are ignorant.  My strong guess is that if we gave them the test that 41 % who say President Toxic will do better on COVID-19 is where most of the authoritarian followers are clustered.  ("My leader doesn't wear a mask.  I trust my leader.")   So if the argument is that the reality of what I see as Trump's murderous incompetence will persuade people, that persuasion has its limits. 

If Ossoff wins, it will be because of the highly educated suburban Independents.  Not the rural "poorly educated" who Trump loves.  Many of those Whites in rural Georgia are also probably lifelong racists, I suspect. 

I think the concept of "Trump identity politics" is probably a good one to think about.  The reason I like the concept is that it merges the economy, culture wars, and this stuff about authoritarianism.  I buy the idea that "Trump Republicans" are 99 % loyal because there is an identity they've built around Trump.  He is a business man.  He'll make the economy right.  He will take care of any crisis like COVID-19 better than anyone else.  I am certainly NOT a racist.  You're the racist.  But I do agree with Trump that these Black Lives Matter Marxists and racists, and all their violence and rioting, is completely out of control.  What is wrong with a young White guy with an AR-15 trying to defend our property rights?  And, no, that has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with how White men with guns and nooses used to protect their right to own Blacks as property.  Stop bringing up all that slavery shit, okay?  I don't own slaves.  

I think that's in the ballpark of how many of them think.  And, no.  They don't want to go to college.  College makes you liberal and Gay.  Who needs more of that?    Give me a gun and a job and a Make America Great Again cap.  I'll be happy.

The potential de-toxification target to me is that Mexican American family in the picture I posted a few posts above.  I'll post this article in another thread as well, but the Latinos most likely to support President Toxic are younger men.  If they live in Florida and fled Communism in Latin America, they are much more likely to buy President Toxic's rhetoric on socialism.  Some Latinos argue that Latino men in particular are attracted to authoritarian leaders (caudillos) and Trump taps into that.    The guy in the picture above is an Obama/Obama/Trump/Trump voter.  He won't be persuaded on COVID-19 because his whole family is waiting in line to see President Toxic, without masks on.  When President Toxic loses, he'll be disappointed.  It may or may not come as a shock.

My guess is that the way to pry a guy like him loose is this:  it's the economy, stupid.  If he voted for Obama twice, and he's Latino, he's probably not a flaming racist.  He may be attracted to authoritarian leaders.  He says he likes Trump because he is strong, and good for jobs.   If Biden does right by the economy and millions of factory jobs come back or are created in new industries, that's something that would likely move the needle with a voter like him. 

Arguably, the main way Ike and JFK and Johnson scratched the authoritarian follower itch was the Cold War.  It DID NOT require McCarthyism, which Ike happily referred to as "McCarthy-was-ism" after the poor dear asshole was discredited.  In LBJ's case, it of course slipped into the Viet Nam War.  Fast forward to W. and Iraq.  To me, that's the type of fear mongering we want to avoid.

It is interesting that President Toxic won in 2016 and is running now as the guy who thinks George W. Bush DID NOT keep us safe on 9/11.  Trump will make it sound like the Iraq War, which he was against from Day One (liar!), was obviously Joe Biden's idea all along.  My point is that I think Democrats should, and will, steal from Trump's playbook.  On the jobs thread I started, Biden was using similar China language, which bordered on Wellstone populism, back in 2007 in New Hampshire.  He was saying no one will take on China because  powerful US corporations are making tons of money for fat cat US stock holders by shipping both jobs and products to China.  I think that is a populist message whose time has come.

I'm not proposing World War III with China.  The opposite.  I actually do worry that President Toxic, if allowed to follow all his worst and dumbest impulses, could start a war with China or North Korea.  (According to Woodward, Gen. Mattis would agree with me.)  I'm proposing where the polls show the majority of Americans are at.  They view China as, at best, a frenemy.  Yes, we have to work with them on climate change.  No, their system is not going to evolve to be like US democratic capitalism.  Yes, it is important that the US win the technology race.  In part because we want to have a middle class, and rebuild it where we lost it.  Some version of that is what I suspect Biden will try to focus people on.  Instead of Make America Great Again, it will be Make It In America.

One possible positive outcome is that Biden and Harris can now say to Silicon Valley and Hollywood millionaire movie stars and even probably most Wall Street fat cats that if we keep ignoring these people in Scranton, and Millennials, who have a legitimate bitch with 21st century capitalism, we are inviting Trump II, or worse.  I started that jobs thread because I think a message of economic populism, which in part casts a fearful eye on China, is a way out of the mess we are in.

[tassojunior]

@stevenkesslar

and this is how you get Americans to vote against their own interests; divide them by identity politics, political correctness, cancel culture, race, religion, sex, etc. Man does it work well in the US !

How about a 1-issue candidate or a referendum simply based on everyone gets a $2000/mo check for life paid for by a tax on Wall Street and bank transactions and on people making over $1 Billion a year of a % necessary to fund it. It would win over 70% easily and would get equal (probably unanimous) support in Black ghettos, Latino barrios and Trump trailer parks.

and that is why the corporate media has to convince people other issues divide them and are more important. The corporate media manufactures consent among the people for the oligarchy by convincing them what issues are important.  

Edited September 21, 2020 by tassojunior

[tassojunior]

4 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

One possible positive outcome is that Biden and Harris can now say to Silicon Valley and Hollywood millionaire movie stars and even probably most Wall Street fat cats that if we keep ignoring these people in Scranton, and Millennials, who have a legitimate bitch with 21st century capitalism, we are inviting Trump II, or worse.  I started that jobs thread because I think a message of economic populism, which in part casts a fearful eye on China, is a way out of the mess we are in.

Emhoff is owned by and owns a lot of Silicon Valley and Hollywood. I expect a Harris administration just to add Facebook and Google  to the Wall Street owners of the country (with heavy Chinese influence). It's the Chinese Century now and China usually is #1 for a thousand years at a time. 

They made it pretty clear that if Bernie or Tulsi or Yang were the Democratic nominee, Biden and Harris would have voted for Trump. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by tassojunior

[stevenkesslar]

On 9/20/2020 at 8:33 PM, tassojunior said:

and this is how you get Americans to vote against their own interests; divide them by identity politics, political correctness, cancel culture, race, religion, sex, etc. Man does it work well in the US !

How about a 1-issue candidate or a referendum simply based on everyone gets a $2000/mo check for life paid for by a tax on Wall Street and bank transactions and on people making over $1 Billion a year of a % necessary to fund it. It would win over 70% easily and would get equal (probably unanimous) support in Black ghettos, Latino barrios and Trump trailer parks.

and that is why the corporate media has to convince people other issues divide them and are more important. The corporate media manufactures consent among the people for the oligarchy by convincing them what issues are important.  

What's charming about you is that you are perfectly willing to let ideology trump facts.  On some issues, every time.  We all do it.  But you do it better than most..

How do you explain Andrew Yang?  People had a perfect opportunity to vote for him.  I'd argue he was more than a one issue candidate.  He sounded smart about lots of things - like technology, and climate change.  Yet he got nowhere.

How do you explain Bernie Sanders?  He ran strong races twice, and ended up second twice.  So it's not like people were incapable of hearing what he was saying.  Millennials liked him twice in a row precisely because they heard what he was saying.  On the other hand, I think there was a tidal wave against him on Super Tuesday because people heard what he was saying.  In most states, that included a majority or plurality of union members.    So if the idea is we are basing it on class or income or work or unions, people had that option.  They did not choose it.

The single biggest thing I liked about Bernie 2016 is he brought the class war to a higher level.  Two elections in a row all these ideas like economic justice and income inequality and wealth taxes were popular.  But we learned in both Bernie 2020 and Warren 2020 it was close, but not quite.  The single biggest thing I liked about Bernie 2020 WAS his Latino identity politics.  He listened to Latino organizers, who said these people are unorganized and ambivalent and you need to go out and organize them based on their IDENTITY.  You need to have picnics where you get the family to come and you have the high school mariachi band play.  The parents come because the kids are in the band and they are curious.  They will mostly like what you have to say.  If you say it in Spanish they will like it even more.  That's how he won Nevada and did way better in Texas than in 2016, if you look at how many voted for him.

How do you explain Black Lives Matter?  That just happened spontaneously.  On the face of it, I think probably 90 % of Blacks agree with the basic goals and statement of the problem.  President Toxic got some conservative Blacks to offer an alternative vision.  But most Blacks are with Black Lives Matter.  I would argue that the movement for economic justice is part of that.  They are talking about both Black Lives and Black paychecks.  I think Whites and Hispanics support it in part because they have had some of the same economic problems, as well.  But it is identity politics.  And the media certainly did not manipulate Blacks to feel the way they feel.

I think you are not giving voters enough credit.  The implication of your statement is that the media leads people around like sheep.  There are good examples of that.  Fox News news is a massive propaganda machine.  And the mainstream media is made up of elites who generally think Bernie and some of his ideas go too far.  But lots of affluent liberals and progressives also sent lots of money to Bernie.  

I'm still waiting for your list of who our country's owners are.  Is it 10 people?  100 people?  I mean, I live here.  Don't I have the right to know?