USA Democratic party 2020 candidates and primaries thread

[athanaric]

With disastrous effects for the Eurozone, for EU (Russia, Brexit etc) and for German stability. But all those disasters that Merkel's no-term-limit has averted aside:
The German voters could have decided to get rid of her if they didn't want her. Now that she's losing her popularity because of immigration policies, she steps aside. It was not term limits, it's politics that sent her away when the people have shown that her time is up and her place in the politics would hurt her party.

More disastrous than unfettered mass immigration during Merkel's reign, which incidentally is one of the main reasons Brexit is actually happening?

Besides, I have another example: how would you like three terms of Trump?

There are fanatics among any political cleavage.

Of course, but these particular fanatics run our countries. They come from the most powerful segments of society and usually from ethnic majorities, and have declared war on the lower classes. I think this is a good introduction into their way of thinking:
https://quillette.com/2019/11/16/tho...status-update/

It so happens the Left in the US has been demonstrably preferable to the GOP for the last decade and counting due to the comparative lack thereof. Were it not for Trumpists, this dynamic would actually be shifting in the other direction again more recently. Obama himself described it best:

Obama's epiphany aside, I'd actually argue that you wouldn't have gotten Trump (or rather, the particular policies he's been pushing) without the extremism on the "left" spreading throughout society, see above.

[Ludicus]

Nope. Separation of powers is the cornerstone of good government

We have a parliamentary democracy with real separation of powers with checks and balances.There is separation and interdependence of powers; executive, legislative and judiciary.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Executive power is shared by a president and prime minister. The president is popularly elected to a five-year term as head of state. A president may serve a maximum of two consecutive terms in office. The president appoints and dismisses the prime minister and can veto legislation passed by the legislature. The president sets election dates, directs foreign policy, and serves as commander in chief of the armed forces.
The person who is appointed prime minister is usually the leader of the political party with the most seats in the parliament. The prime minister leads the government, which is composed of a cabinet of about 15 ministers. The prime minister and cabinet formulate government policy, draw up the budget, and supervise public administration. The prime minister and cabinet are responsible to the parliament for the content of public policy.
Legislative power is vested in a unicameral (single-chamber) parliament, the 230-member Assembly of the Republic. Members of the assembly, called deputies, are directly elected under a system of proportional representation and serve four-year terms. The assembly makes the laws and approves the budget. The assembly can override a presidential veto by a two-thirds vote.
The judicial system is headed by the Supreme Court, the highest court of appeals in the land. The Supreme Court is composed of a president and 29 judges who are appointed for life.

In the US, American presidents are elected, but they enjoy powers a king would envy. In doubt ask George Mason, who declined to sign the US Constitution in 1787. He said U.S. presidents would be "elected monarchs." Here, Mason's Objections to the Constitution, September 17,Gerry, Mason, and Randolph Decline to Sign the Constitution ...

...This government will commence in a moderate aristocracy; it is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarchy, or a corrupt oppressive aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other.

------
Let's face the facts, Biden is the Hillary Clinton of 2020. ("I’m for Barack", he says- but Barack is isn't the presidential candidate). The repeated use of his childish motto is ridiculous and inexcusable.
Joe Biden's Hillary Clinton Problem - The Atlantic

Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton differ in many ways. But beneath each candidate’s marquee scandal lies the same core defect: insularity.

Furthermore, a lot of Americans vote with racist and fanatical religious feelings.
Besides all this, Capital loves Trump. Two-thirds of top executives say Trump will be reelected in 2020. In doubt, ask Moody's analytics. Read my lips, Sanders is the only candidate who could beat Trump. Warren, the "safe alternative", will surely lose. The day after the elections don't come crying to me.

[Cyclops]

...
Obama's epiphany aside, I'd actually argue that you wouldn't have gotten Trump (or rather, the particular policies he's been pushing) without the extremism on the "left" spreading throughout society, see above.

Trump was elected because the US presidential election system is a Byzantine mess, the Democrats ran a talentless political dynast and the Russians ran a smart cheap interference campaign.

By world standards the US is a right wing country, not that racist compared to most other places, and the political system is dominated by rich families and corporations. Its a robust system that has survived having presidents who were senile (Reagan), amiable halfwits (Bush II), slimy shysters (Clinton, W), and arrogant incompetents (Trump). So it can probably survive another term of Trump, although that would harm US international relations because the Orange Frat Boy is a bust at diplomacy. The US could elect a senile Biden and he'd dodder through, you could probably even get Bernie in the Oval Office and Congress would keep him in line.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Of course, but these particular fanatics run our countries.

If you’re referring to the blanket amnesty/deportation moratorium crowd, that’s a very recent phenomenon in the US; hence Biden, who was a very popular VP a minute ago, being castigated for failing to toe the new line. It’s due to Trump’s own extremism on immigration, which in turn empowers the opposite extreme. The question is whether that opposite extreme will outlast Trump’s presidency and begin to affect policy in the long term. It will depend on the ability of the next administration to unify the country and return to normalcy.

Obama's epiphany aside, I'd actually argue that you wouldn't have gotten Trump (or rather, the particular policies he's been pushing) without the extremism on the "left" spreading throughout society, see above.

“If MLK hadn’t caused a fuss, whites would’t have gotten angry.”

In reality:

The campaign leading to the 2016 US presidential election included a number of unconventional forms of campaign rhetoric. In earlier analyses, it was claimed that the Trump victory could be seen as a form of protest voting. This article analyzes the determi- nants of voters’ choices to investigate the validity of this claim. Based on a sample of the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, our analyses suggest that a Trump vote cannot be explained by a lack of trust in politics or low levels of satisfaction with democracy, as would be assumed given the extant literature on protest voting. However, indicators of racist resentment and anti-immigrant sentiments proved to be important determinants of a Trump vote—even when controlling for more traditional vote-choice determinants. Despite ongoing discussion about the empirical validity of racist resentment and anti-immigrant sentiments, both concepts proved to be roughly equally powerful in explaining a Trump vote.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/servi...iments-div.pdf

We have a parliamentary democracy with real separation of powers with checks and balances.There is separation and interdependence of powers; executive, legislative and judiciary.

I’m not sure how a parliamentary system with the addition of a presidential executive is functionally different from the US federal system, apart from the unicameral legislature. The Prime Minister is basically Speaker of the House under such an arrangement, correct? I also don’t understand how separation of powers under this arrangement is more “real” compared to the US. Are you taking issue with the concept of the US Senate?

In the US, American presidents are elected, but they enjoy powers a king would envy.

How so?

In doubt ask George Mason, who declined to sign the US Constitution in 1787. He said U.S. presidents would be "elected monarchs." Here, Mason's Objections to the Constitution, September 17,Gerry, Mason, and Randolph Decline to Sign the Constitution ...

The anti-federalists were worried a centralized government under a constitutional republic would erode individual rights and sovereignty - namely, the right to own slaves. Thankfully, they were right about that. We hear this echoed today in the “states’ rights” arguments of the far right against federal gun laws and anti-discrimination protections for racial minorities, homosexuals, women, etc. Not the best reference point.

Let's face the facts, Biden is the Hillary Clinton of 2020. ("I’m for Barack", he says- but Barack is isn't the presidential candidate). The repeated use of his childish motto is ridiculous and inexcusable.
Joe Biden's Hillary Clinton Problem - The Atlantic

Furthermore, a lot of Americans vote with racist and fanatical religious feelings.
Besides all this, Capital loves Trump. Two-thirds of top executives say Trump will be reelected in 2020. In doubt, ask Moody's analytics. Read my lips, Sanders is the only candidate who could beat Trump. Warren, the "safe alternative", will surely lose. The day after the elections don't come crying to me.

How does this relate to parliament vs federalism?

[alhoon]

More disastrous than unfettered mass immigration during Merkel's reign, which incidentally is one of the main reasons Brexit is actually happening?

Besides, I have another example: how would you like three terms of Trump?

Not at all but:
- Trump may not even get a 2nd term.
- If he gets a 2nd term, he may well not finish it. The scandals never end.
- He would be too old and tired for a 3rd term.
- Without the 2 terms we would be discussing whether Obama's 3rd term would be his last, not about Trump.
- Middle East would be much much tamer since it was possible that Bill Clinton's would have a 3rd term (although it's unlikely) and that would have prevented the crap that Bush 2 did in Iraq.

But the most important part is:
- if the USA (population density adjusted) voters wanted a 3rd Trump presidency, so be it. They would have only themselves to blame for the #### storm that would follow.


On the leftwings dominating the agenda of the Democratic party primaries: I agree that this played an important role in why Trump is president and the main reason he has a solid chance to be re-elected:
Because the vast majority of democrat candidates are tooooo hard to the left for the USA's voterbase sensibilities. They kinda have to be, because the far-leftwings, few as they are, participate in the early stages. So starting hard to the left means a candidate has a better chance to get the nomination but it would bite them in the butt in the general.

[Ludicus]

I’m not sure how a parliamentary system ...is functionally different

I said, "US needs a parliamentary system...". You replied, "Nope. Separation of powers is the cornerstone of good government"
Perhaps I misunderstood what you said, but the separation of powers in the US isn't necessary better than in European countries with a parliamentary system of government.
Parliamentary War Powers

In our survey of 25 European democracies and their involvement in the 2003 Iraq intervention, we found strong evidence of the relevance of parliamentary war powers. The evaluation of our survey demonstrates that, in fact, high parliamentary war powers are associated with weak degrees of war involvement.
Nonetheless a general conclusion can be drawn from this survey: parliamentary war powers make a difference. If citizens estimate warfare as too risky and costly, powerful parliaments can transfer these motivations into political decision-making and can constitute a powerful institutional brake to government’s security policymaking. This is just the way Kant had imagined the democratic peace.

----
Let's take a look at the US Executive/Presidential powers. The executive in the US has too much power -I mean, immunity and war powers. Very recently- according to the Federal Judge Jackson, I quote, "absolute testimonial immunity for senior-level White House aides appears to be a fiction that has been fastidiously maintained over time through the force of sheer repetition in (Office of Legal Counsel) opinions, and through accommodations that have permitted its proponents to avoid having the proposition tested in the crucible of litigation".

In fact she is right, but she also forgot to add that the question of whether a sitting president is entitled to testimonial immunity is an open one. Is there a limit to executive privilege? it is increasingly more clear that the heaven is the limit to executive/president's war powers. the President can "respond forcefully to prevent serious national security threats"- whatever that's supposed to mean... it's not conveniently clear, and it is conveniently ambiguous, in my opinion (1)

On a side note, Trump says he's the "Protector of the Presidents". As Thomas Jefferson wrote, "the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground". As someone has already stated, from the Reagan administration onwards, American presidents have come to use their control of federal agencies as kings once used their crowns.
Imperial presidency has long history - Government Executive

Executive powers have expanded over the past six decades, and are likely to continue on that path.

(1) War declarations were declared by Congress in the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II. What about US military intervention abroad?
In the US, the 1973 War Powers Resolution requires the President to consult with and report to Congress on the use of forces and ultimately gain their authorization.
But successive presidents have questioned this power, seeing it in their role as Commander in Chief. In Libya for example, Obama sent the U.S. military into combat without Congress'blessing. Obama told Congress that he was acting "pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as commander in chief and chief executive."

To sum up, choose the right answer. Is there a correct answer? if not, the executive can behave like a little king,

1. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and as such should ultimately decide when and where to deploy the United States military.
2. Congress has the constitutional power to declare war and as such should ultimately decide when and where to deploy the United States military.

-----

How does this relate to parliament vs federalism?

It does not relate in any way to parliament vs federalism. It's about showing candidate's chances of beating Trump in 2020, from my point of view.
--

Because the vast majority of democrat candidates are tooooo hard to the left for the USA's voterbase sensibilities

You are completely right, but things are changing-for the better. Sanders enjoys the most support among young voters, and the future belongs to the young of this world.

[Cope]

If you’re referring to the blanket amnesty/deportation moratorium crowd, that’s a very recent phenomenon in the US; hence Biden, who was a very popular VP a minute ago, being castigated for failing to toe the new line. It’s due to Trump’s own extremism on immigration, which in turn empowers the opposite extreme. The question is whether that opposite extreme will outlast Trump’s presidency and begin to affect policy in the long term. It will depend on the ability of the next administration to unify the country and return to normalcy.

Liberal support for migrant societies and borderless polities has very little to do with Trump. Leftwing activists (who tend to take their cues from the Europeans) have, for a variety of reasons, been promoting these ideas for decades. The "blanket amnesty" message - which is just one element of a broader social justice agenda - started to enter the mainstream discourse during Pres. Obama's 2d. term, in large part thanks to the reach and influence, particularly among young people, of digital platforms/spaces.

The spread of left wing radicalism (particularly as it relates to identity politics) after 2012 is not only a partial explanation for Trump's popularity among conservatives, it is also a partial explanation for Clinton's unfavourable ratings among liberals. This is a key reason why he won and she lost. It's unlikely that the leftist influence over the Democratic Party/vote is suddenly going to evaporate post-Trump: among the activist base, there is as much a visceral loathing for neocons. and corporate Democrats as there is for Trump.

“If MLK hadn’t caused a fuss, whites would’t have gotten angry.”

I. Reasoning that concern over migratory policy is the moral equivalent of rejecting the Civil Rights Movement is precisely what leads people to believing that border controls ought to be abolished out right. The fact is that the foreign born population has increased four-fold since 1970 (to > 40 million) and it was inevitable that leaders promoting a national conservative agenda were going to gain in popularity as a result. Similar trends had already been experienced in other parts of the democratic world long before Trump's election.

II. What your source refers to as "racial resentment" is better described as racial in-group bias - a neurological/psychological characteristic which is far more pronounced among nonwhite Americans than white Americans . The existence of this trait doesn't disprove athanaric's theory that there is a correlation between a heightened sense of ethnocentrism among white conservative voters and the growth of left wing radicalism (which is known for attempting to weaponize ethnocentrism among nonwhites).

[Ludicus]

Fresh news,CNN Poll: Biden leads nationally

On health care, 28% say Sanders... would best handle the issue.
Sanders leads the way more clearly on handling the climate crisis: 27% favor his approach,
Sanders (66%), Biden (64%) and Warren (61%) are all closely clustered on being able to bring needed change,
Sanders' strength is being seen as honest and trustworthy. Nearly 9 in 10 potential Democratic voters (89%) call Sanders honest and trustworthy,

---
And yet, the psychology of irrational fear explains the reason why "Biden holds 28% support among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who are registered to vote, followed by Sanders at 17%"
----
Psss ep1c_fail , from a scientific point of view, there’s no scientific basis for race -it's a made-up label. The concept of race is not grounded in genetics.There is more diversity in Africa than on all other continents combined. As Adam Rutherford, a geneticist, clear explains,

Apart from the fact that white isn't a culture/race, chanting "we won't be replaced by Jews" (who are mostly white) doesn't make much sense"
The birth of scientific racism coincided with the age of exploration, exploitation, and plunder. As Europeans built empires, the subjugation and othering of people in invaded countries was facilitated and justified with new and pseudoscientific taxonomies of humans, almost exclusively based on pigmentation. These ideas were propagated by some of the most influential thinkers in modern history. For all their achievements in philosophy and spreading goodwill to all men, some of these figures were themselves profoundly racist – even for their time – including Immanuel Kant, and that great voice of Enlightenment thinking, François-Marie Voltaire. Their voices echo loudly into the present.
Now, in the age of personal genetic genealogy, race science is once again part of the public discourse, and real genetics is being misrepresented and co-opted by white supremacists.

[Cope]

Psss ep1c_fail , from a scientific point of view, there’s no scientific basis for race -it's a made-up label. The concept of race is not grounded in genetics.There is more diversity in Africa than on all other continents combined. As Adam Rutherford, a geneticist, clear explains

My point has nothing to do with the validity of race realism as a scientific theory.

[Ludicus]

left wing..which is known for attempting to weaponize ethnocentrism among nonwhites.

Really? the left weaponizes ethnocentrism among nonwhites? are you confused? Maybe you should have written "the right weaponizes ethnocentrism".
I presume you agree with Edward Dutton, Edward Dutton - RationalWiki a white supremacist, racist and pseudoscientist, author of "Racial differences in Ethnocentrism". The alt right racist explores the "genetic of ethnocentrism".
He says,
"Those who advocate Multiculturalism seem to have lost an important instinct towards group — and thus genetic — preservation. Once a society, as a whole, espouses Multiculturalism as a dominant ideology then the society is acting against its own genetic interests and will ultimately destroy itself"
Do you agree with him when he says, in his (racist) book,

"Why are some races more ethnocentric than others?" and "Why are Europeans currently so low in ethnocentrism?"

I presume you agree with him when he says,

Europe is increasingly allowing into its borders people who are extremely high in ethnocentrism as predicted by their high levels of religiousness, low median age, their practice of cousin marriage, low average intelligence, and (likely) low mutational load. We have noted that the ethnocentric strategy will, eventually, tend to dominate all other strategies in the battle for group survival. Alternate strategies can also work, such as the development of large and highly inventive coalitions, but these cannot last if they promote ideologies which are actively to the detriment of their genetic interests, as it happening with Political Correctness, which actively promotes an effective destruction of European people.

[Cope]

Really? the left weaponizes ethnocentrism among nonwhites? are you confused? Maybe you should have written "the right weaponizes ethnocentrism".
I presume you agree with Edward Dutton, Edward Dutton - RationalWiki a white supremacist, racist and pseudoscientist, author of "Racial differences in Ethnocentrism". The alt right racist explores the "genetic of ethnocentrism".
He says,
"Those who advocate Multiculturalism seem to have lost an important instinct towards group — and thus genetic — preservation. Once a society, as a whole, espouses Multiculturalism as a dominant ideology then the society is acting against its own genetic interests and will ultimately destroy itself"
Do you agree with him when he says, in his (racist) book,

I presume you agree with him when he says,

In a flagrant attempt to misrepresent my argument, you specifically cropped my comment to exclude the word "radicalism". Observing that left wing radicals have sought to encourage ethnocentrism among nonwhites doesn't imply - let alone necessitate - the idea that right wing radicals haven't sought to encourage ethnocentrism among whites.

Don't waste my time with this tin-pot propagandist drivel.

[Lord Thesaurian]

@Ludicus: we are getting off topic here, so I spoilered our conversation.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I said, "US needs a parliamentary system...". You replied, "Nope. Separation of powers is the cornerstone of good government"
Perhaps I misunderstood what you said,

Or, perhaps I misunderstood what you said. To make the argument that the US should have a parliamentary system instead of what we have is to say the majority political party in the legislature should select the executive directly, per the standard definition:

A parliamentary system or parliamentary democracy is a system of democratic governance of a state(or subordinate entity) where the executive derives its democratic legitimacy from its ability to command the confidence of the legislature, typically a parliament, and is also held accountable to that parliament. In a parliamentary system, the head of state is usually a person distinct from the head of government. This is in contrast to a presidential system, where the head of state often is also the head of government and, most importantly, the executive does not derive its democratic legitimacy from the legislature.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system

So, by definition, a standard parliamentary system inherently has less/fewer separation of powers than the US system, if only because the executive and legislative branches are intertwined as opposed to being held separate as a check against each other's power. When you mentioned the addition of a popularly elected president to the parliamentary model, I asked you to clarify what you mean by claiming that particular modified parliamentary system has “better” separation of powers.

but the separation of powers in the US isn't necessary better than in European countries with a parliamentary system of government.
Parliamentary War Powers

I don’t see how that study relates to the claim that a parliamentary system provides better separation of powers than the US system. Congress’ war powers would qualify as a 2 - “Strong” on the author’s scale: “Prior parliamentary approval required for government decisions relating to use of military force but exceptions for specific cases (foreign troops on national territory, minor deployments, arrangements with international organisations); parliament can investigate and debate use of military force.”

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of each of the House and Senate, overriding the veto of the bill from President Nixon.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001 and any "associated forces". The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. In December 2016, the Office of the President published a brief interpreting the AUMF as providing Congressional authorization for the use of force against al-Qaeda and other militant groups.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auth...nst_Terrorists

To argue that the presidency in the US has become too powerful over time has nothing to do with parliament vs federalism, nor does the parliamentary system itself inherently address or remediate the issues you’ve raised with modern US policy and history. I also don’t see the indication that US presidents have monarchical powers “a king would envy.”

Liberal support for migrant societies and borderless polities has very little to do with Trump. Leftwing activists (who tend to take their cues from the Europeans) have, for a variety of reasons, been promoting these ideas for decades. The "blanket amnesty" message - which is just one element of a broader social justice agenda - started to enter the mainstream discourse during Pres. Obama's 2d. term, in large part thanks to the reach and influence, particularly among young people, of digital platforms/spaces.

The spread of left wing radicalism (particularly as it relates to identity politics) after 2012 is not only a partial explanation for Trump's popularity among conservatives, it is also a partial explanation for Clinton's unfavourable ratings among liberals. This is a key reason why he won and she lost. It's unlikely that the leftist influence over the Democratic Party/vote is suddenly going to evaporate post-Trump: among the activist base, there is as much a visceral loathing for neocons. and corporate Democrats as there is for Trump.

The “liberals made me do it” excuse for voting for Trump is primarily based on slippery slope arguments and isn’t supported by actual data from 2016. Based on what we’ve all lived through the last three years, coupled with the likely Democratic nominees, it won’t fly in 2020 either. Obama’s immigration policy was politically moderate, logically reasonable, and demonstrably effective. In terms of immigration enforcement, his administration deported far more illegal/criminal immigrants during the first three years than has the Trump Admin. It’s not even close. There is no reasonable basis to claim any of Obama’s policies “pushed” any cleavage of voters to elect Trump due to any actual extremism on Obama’s part.

People who pushed for blanket amnesty during the Obama years didn’t get it, nor anything close. The Trump Admin is seeking to reduce and deter both legal and illegal immigration as a whole for ideological and political reasons. The latter case is categorically different from a conservative policy-based approach to immigration enforcement, and naturally creates more room in the public discourse for the opposite ideological extreme. As John Kelly aptly said, “empty barrels make the most noise.”

I. Reasoning that concern over migratory policy is the moral equivalent of rejecting the Civil Rights Movement is precisely what leads people to believing that border controls ought to be abolished out right.

The actual argument I addressed was:

I'd actually argue that you wouldn't have gotten Trump (or rather, the particular policies he's been pushing) without the extremism on the "left" spreading throughout society

The same logic was used to denigrate the “leftist extremism” of civil rights, and to excuse the vitriolic and extreme response by white conservatives, hence my reference to MLK.

The fact is that the foreign born population has increased four-fold since 1970 (to > 40 million) and it was inevitable that leaders promoting a national conservative agenda were going to gain in popularity as a result. Similar trends had already been experienced in other parts of the democratic world long before Trump's election.

What does the foreign born population have to do with illegal or criminal immigrants? Categorical resentment against immigrants is prejudicial and politically unacceptable.

II. What your source refers to as "racial resentment" is better described as racial in-group bias - a neurological/psychological characteristic which is far more pronounced among nonwhite Americans than white Americans . The existence of this trait doesn't disprove athanaric's theory that there is a correlation between a heightened sense of ethnocentrism among white conservative voters and the growth of left wing radicalism (which is known for attempting to weaponize ethnocentrism among nonwhites).

The claim was that voters were “pushed” to choose Trump by left wing extremism. The study indicates what actually pushed them statistically speaking, and there are any number of others which have come to similar conclusions. Choosing Trump due to “racial in group bias” is not choosing Trump due to “extremism on the left spreading throughout society.”

[Heathen Hammer]

Trump owes most of his success to American left pushing towards extreme, and given the current promises of Dem candidates, he is likely to succeed in 2020 as well. Good luck with promises to confiscate all firearms or free healthcare for illegal aliens in general elections lol.

[Ludicus]

@Ludicus: we are getting off topic here, so I spoilered our conversation.
[spoiler]

Right, we are wildly off topic, aren't we?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In my opinion, there is a direct relationship between the Presidentialist design and the abuse of Presidential power. In a parliamentary system, in which the executive is formed out of the legislative assembly, the executive/ prime- minister is permanently scrutinized and controlled by the legislature. Furthermore, Parliamentary systems may offer advantages over presidential systems. Are Parliamentary Systems Better? - Boston University

This means that the persistent institutional conflicts that characterize political life in all democracies—e.g., between legislature and executive, between backbenchers and party leaders, among parties, among diverse agencies, between national and sub-national governments, among subnational governments, and among diverse constituencies—may be easier to solve in a parliamentary system than in a presidential system. This, in turn, should help to account for the higher quality of governance observed in parliamentary systems across many policy areas.

Let's focus on the subject of this discussion. It's Sanders against the world: 2/3 of the Democratic Party, Obama and Wall Street. In the end, Trump will win again. Obama privately said he would speak up to stop Sanders: report
-------
According to the Intercept, Hunter Biden Invested in Chinese Surveillance Technology

Human Rights Watch released a troubling report about a phone application made by the Chinese government. The app provides law enforcement with easy, daily access to data detailing the religious activity, blood type, and even the amount of electricity used by ethnic minority Muslims living in the western province of Xinjiang.

-----
Right on the spot, so to speak. Sorry, but Democrats need to talk about Hunter Biden - Vox

Democrats are afraid to talk about Hunter Biden. Trump won’t be.
In 2016, Bernie Sanders famously refused to attack Clinton’s emails in the debates. “The American people are sick and tired about hearing about your damn emails,” he said to applause. The result was that rather than Democrats realizing how damaging that story was — and how ineffective Clinton was at putting it to rest — during the primary, they found that out in the general election.

[Cope]

The “liberals made me do it” excuse for voting for Trump is primarily based on slippery slope arguments and isn’t supported by actual data from 2016.

No one is claiming that liberals "made" anyone do anything; the argument being made is that Trump's election was a reaction - at least in part - to the growth of left wing radicalism.

Based on what we’ve all lived through the last three years, coupled with the likely Democratic nominees, it won’t fly in 2020 either.

I don't think Trump voters very much care whether their reasoning satisfies you.

Obama’s immigration policy was politically moderate, logically reasonable, and demonstrably effective. In terms of immigration enforcement, his administration deported far more illegal/criminal immigrants during the first three years than has the Trump Admin. It’s not even close. There is no reasonable basis to claim any of Obama’s policies “pushed” any cleavage of voters to elect Trump due to any actual extremism on Obama’s part.

No one has claimed that Trump's popularity or the spread of left wing zealotry was a consequence of "Obama's policies" or that there was any "extremism" on the President's part. We know that had Pres. Obama been in a position to run again he almost certainly would have won reelection.

People who pushed for blanket amnesty during the Obama years didn’t get it, nor anything close. The Trump Admin is seeking to reduce and deter both legal and illegal immigration as a whole for ideological and political reasons. The latter case is categorically different from a conservative policy-based approach to immigration enforcement, and naturally creates more room in the public discourse for the opposite ideological extreme. As John Kelly aptly said, “empty barrels make the most noise.”

I'm not contesting that the left overreacted to Trump: I'm claiming that Trump's popularity was, at least in part, itself a reaction to the growth of dogmatic progressivism which mainstream conservatives were either unable or unwilling to challenge.

The same logic was used to denigrate the “leftist extremism” of civil rights, and to excuse the vitriolic and extreme response by white conservatives, hence my reference to MLK.

The fact that white nationalists complained about the "leftist extremism" of MLK's platform doesn't mean that opposition to contemporary expressions of left wing radicalism can automatically be dismissed without question. If that were true, we could safely ignore your complaints about Biden being "castigated for failing to toe the new line".

What does the foreign born population have to do with illegal or criminal immigrants? Categorical resentment against immigrants is prejudicial and politically unacceptable.

Opposition to migration isn't so much about "criminal immigrants" as it is about demographic change and, in the context of the 2008 crisis, increased competition in labor market. The extent to which "categorical resentment" against migrant communities motivated Trump voters is unknown to me: the study you provided uses a flimsy, progressive standard for determining "racial resentment" which tries to pass off lower degrees of concern about racism among its respondents as being indicative of racially resentful behavior.

The claim was that voters were “pushed” to choose Trump by left wing extremism. The study indicates what actually pushed them statistically speaking, and there are any number of others which have come to similar conclusions. Choosing Trump due to “racial in group bias” is not choosing Trump due to “extremism on the left spreading throughout society.”

In the same way that the alt-right inspires solidarity among nonwhites, so too do left-wing radicals encourage a hardening of racial in-group bias among whites (particularly conservative, Christian whites). That doesn't mean that racial biases were constructed by left wing zealots, but it does suggest that they were aggravated by them during the last election cycle. There's a reason why race-relations fell off a cliff at the beginning of Obama's 2d. term, and it has nothing to do with Trump.

[Prodromos]

Democrats are making big gains in the suburbs. Here's why that may not be enough to beat Trump

The continued migration of highly college-educated suburbs away from Republicans in the Trump era is welcome news for Democrats. The Kentucky and Louisiana results are a continuation of midterm gains for Democrats in places like the suburbs of Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Charleston and Oklahoma City.

However, robust turnout in more rural parts of Kentucky and Louisiana is a silver lining for Trump. More critically, Democratic gains among suburban college-educated whites — and relative stagnation among other voters — could actually widen Trump's advantage in the Electoral College relative to the popular vote.

Of the dozen states where college graduates make up over 40 percent of all eligible white voters — California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Virginia — none are likely to be decisive in the race for the Electoral College.

In other words, unless Democrats are able to retain support among other groups in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, they risk further adding to their vote-wasting problem in 2020, which could allow Trump to win re-election while losing the popular vote by 5 million or possibly more.

I guess they just need to talk some more about socialism and trans kids. That should do it.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Right, we are wildly off topic, aren't we?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In my opinion, there is a direct relationship between the Presidentialist design and the abuse of Presidential power. In a parliamentary system, in which the executive is formed out of the legislative assembly, the executive/ prime- minister is permanently scrutinized and controlled by the legislature. Furthermore, Parliamentary systems may offer advantages over presidential systems. Are Parliamentary Systems Better? - Boston University

Yes, but it’s a worthy discussion in any case.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Perhaps we must agree to disagree. From the paper:

In the process of governing, separate powers advocates see accountability arising from the diffusion of authority among multiple independent bodies, who are thereby able to effectively monitor, and if necessary block, each others’ actions. For them, the process of accountability is continuous—exercised through multiple bodies, each “checking and balancing” the other
(Laffont & Meleu 2001; Persson, Roland & Tabellini 1997). Advocates of parliamentarism, on the other hand, see accountability arising from the concentration of authority in a single set of hands (the ruling party or coalition and its leadership). For them, accountability is a retrospective process of reward or punishment by which principals (voters) exact accountability from agents (elected officials).


https://www.bu.edu/sthacker/files/20...ems-Better.pdf

I wouldn’t trust Congress to monitor and punish their own chosen executive (for the same reason the GOP Senate will not punish Trump), so I’ll stick with the active checks and balances as opposed to the streamlined ability to reward or punish the executive after the fact.

No one is claiming that liberals "made" anyone do anything; the argument being made is that Trump's election was a reaction - at least in part - to the growth of left wing radicalism.

I don't think Trump voters very much care whether their reasoning satisfies you.

No one has claimed that Trump's popularity or the spread of left wing zealotry was a consequence of "Obama's policies" or that there was any "extremism" on the President's part. We know that had Pres. Obama been in a position to run again he almost certainly would have won reelection.


I'm not contesting that the left overreacted to Trump: I'm claiming that Trump's popularity was, at least in part, itself a reaction to the growth of dogmatic progressivism which mainstream conservatives were either unable or unwilling to challenge.


The fact that white nationalists complained about the "leftist extremism" of MLK's platform doesn't mean that opposition to contemporary expressions of left wing radicalism can automatically be dismissed without question. If that were true, we could safely ignore your complaints about Biden being "castigated for failing to toe the new line".

I responded to the following claim:

Obama's epiphany aside, I'd actually argue that you wouldn't have gotten Trump (or rather, the particular policies he's been pushing) without the extremism on the "left" spreading throughout society, see above.

You can certainly cosign that claim to whatever degree you wish, but it’s not a factual one, per the available data. If the “activists” who shouted down Biden get their wish for blanket amnesty, you might eventually have an example of “radical left wing extremism” being unchallenged by conservatives and pushing voters to embrace Trumpism. That will not apply to 2016 or 2020.

Opposition to migration isn't so much about "criminal immigrants" as it is about demographic change and, in the context of the 2008 crisis, increased competition in labor market. The extent to which "categorical resentment" against migrant communities motivated Trump voters is unknown to me: the study you provided uses a flimsy, progressive standard for determining "racial resentment" which tries to pass off lower degrees of concern about racism among its respondents as being indicative of racially resentful behavior.

What racial demographic change are you referring to? How does that cause opposition to immigration in a way that conflicts with the study whose methodology/findings you’ve rejected based solely on your personal opinion?

In the same way that the alt-right inspires solidarity among nonwhites,

It does? What is this solidarity you speak of? How has it manifested in national political policy or proposals?

so too do left-wing radicals encourage a hardening of racial in-group bias among whites (particular conservative, Christian whites). That doesn't mean that racial biases were constructed by left wing zealots, but it does suggest that they were aggravated by them during the last election cycle.

Who and what are these “left wing radicals” and policies which have “aggravated” White Christian conservatives into voting for Trump? How does the latter connect to demographic change causing opposition to immigration?

There's a reason why race-relations fell off a cliff at the beginning of Obama's 2d. term, and it has nothing to do with Trump.

What reason is that?

[Cope]

You can certainly cosign that claim to whatever degree you wish, but it’s not a factual one, per the available data. If the “activists” who shouted down Biden get their wish for blanket amnesty, you might eventually have an example of “radical left wing extremism” being unchallenged by conservatives and pushing voters to embrace Trumpism. That will not apply to 2016 or 2020.

It is factual to state that views among Democratic voters had been lurching significantly leftward long before Trump. This includes a remarkable liberalization in attitudes toward migration, which, at its extreme end, contains calls for "blanket amnesty" for undocumented migrants.

Liberalization of the Democratic voters:



Commentary by Pew:

The ideological consolidation nationwide has happened on both the left and the right of the political spectrum, but the long-term shift among Democrats stands out as particularly noteworthy. The share of Democrats who are liberal on all or most value dimensions has nearly doubled from just 30% in 1994 to 56% today. The share who are consistently liberal has quadrupled from just 5% to 23% over the past 20 years...

And although immigration attitudes have shifted in a liberal direction among both Democrats and Republicans, a partisan gap has emerged where none was evident 20 years ago. In 1994, 64% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats viewed immigrants as a burden on the country; today 46% of Republicans but just 27% of Democrats say this.

It is also worth noting that radicals don't actually have to attain institutional control in order to provoke a reaction: they need only create the illusion that their proposals/threats are credible. At the time of the 2016 election, concerns about migratory trends among conservatives were not only borne out by the long term data, they were also being aggravated the European Union's very visible open-border policies (both internally and externally). These policies provided living examples of how established authorities in peer societies (which were often cited by leftists as being more ideal) could adopt extremist positions.

What racial demographic change are you referring to?

The decline of the non-Hispanic white majority.

How does that cause opposition to immigration in a way that conflicts with the study whose methodology/findings you’ve rejected based solely on your personal opinion?

I didn't "reject" the entire study: I claimed that the methodology it used to determine "racial resentment" was highly questionable. Even the authors acknowledged the "ongoing discussion about the empirical validity of racist resentment and anti-immigrant sentiments" in the abstract.

From p. 530:

In addition, we controlled for respondents’ racist resentment. Racial-resentment scales tend to assess to what extent respondents minimize the occurrence of racist prejudice, downplaying the need for various forms of affirmative action...We used this measure and included a sum-scale of respondents’ answers to three questions: “I am angry that racism exists”; “White people in the US have certain advantages because of the color of their skin”; and “Racial problems in the US are rare, isolated situations.” Respondents indicated on a 5-point scale (from strongly disagree to strongly agree) the extent to which they agreed with these statements. We coded answers to these questions such that higher values signified more-racist resentment.

The study categorized respondents who disagreed with typical progressive axioms on the impact and scope of race in the US as being "racially resentful". This is an inaccurate characterization of the findings.

It does? What is this solidarity you speak of? How has it manifested in national political policy or proposals?

Opposition to white nationalism (alt-right) is much stronger among non-whites (particularly African Americans) than it is among whites.



This is a trend which can be inferred (to some extent) by projections of the 2016 election result when controlling for race.



In terms of policy proposals, you can look at Booker's plan to establish of an office to combat white nationalism, Buttigieg's $1 bn. funding pledge to counteract supremacist violence or Harris' "red flag" firearm suggestions. You might also consider Biden's immediate reference to Charlottesville in his campaign launch video as an attempt to build a coalition of voters in opposition to the alt-right.

Who and what are these “left wing radicals” and policies which have “aggravated” White Christian conservatives into voting for Trump? How does the latter connect to demographic change causing opposition to immigration?

There's a decent piece in the Atlantic about the rise of activism in the Democratic Party post 2010:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It [the resurgence of activism] began with Occupy, which was fueled by young people devastated by the financial crisis. Then, in 2012, undocumented immigrants launched hunger strikes at Barack Obama’s reelection-campaign offices and fast-food workers went on strike for a $15 minimum wage. The acquittal of George Zimmerman in the killing of Trayvon Martin in 2013 launched Black Lives Matter. In 2016, America saw the largest American Indian protests in a century and one of the largest prison strikes ever.

The movements were too distant from the political process to pressure Obama the way their predecessors had pressured Roosevelt and Johnson. But they revealed the energy to his left. And in Obama’s shadow, a new Democratic Party—reminiscent of Roosevelt in its willingness to embrace class conflict and reminiscent of Johnson in the scope of its Big Government ambition—began taking shape.

In 2015, lacking a large staff or much institutional support from the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders leaned on the organizing networks Occupy had built. “Our fingers are all over this,” declared one Occupy veteran turned Sanders organizer. After an initially rocky relationship with Black Lives Matter activists, Sanders embraced much of the group’s agenda and language. His campaign became a funnel through which the activist left entered the Democratic Party’s mainstream. And the process has only accelerated since the election of Donald Trump.

The issue isn't so much about specific policies (the legalization of homosexual marriage notwithstanding) as it is about the effect of left wing activism on cultural narratives. The rapid emergence, promotion and influence of progressive/post-modernist theories about "white privilege", gender roles, the traditional family, policing and sexual orientation (to name but a few) were interpreted by religious conservatives as an existential challenge to established hierarchies and social structures. This feeling was aggravated by the growth of "cancel-culture" and "purity tests" which sought to shame people for promoting traditional views.

A University of Pennsylvania study explains the impact this had on the election in terms of "perceived status threat":

How is it that the same American public that elected an African American to two terms as US President subsequently elected a president known to have publicly made what many consider to be racist and sexist statements? A possible explanation is dominant group status threat. When members of a dominant group feel threatened, several well established reactions help these groups regain a sense of dominance and wellbeing. First, perceived threat makes status quo, hierarchical social and political arrangements more attractive (18). Thus, conservatism surges along with a nostalgia for the stable hierarchies of the past. Perceived threat also triggers defense of the dominant in-group, a greater emphasis on the importance of conformity to group norms, and increased out-group negativity (19, 20). It is psychologically valuable to see one’s self as part of a dominant group; therefore, when group members feel threatened, this prompts defensive reactions. It is precisely this form of group threat that may have motivated Trump supporters (21).

It went on explain why this is "connect[ed] to demographic" change:

For the first time since Europeans arrived in this country, white Americans are being told that they will soon be a minority race (22). The declining white share of the national population is unlikely to change white Americans’ status as the most economically well-off racial group, but symbolically, it threatens some whites’ sense of dominance over social and political priorities. Furthermore, when confronted with evidence of racial progress, whites feel threatened and experience lower levels of self-worth relative to a control group...

The overall consistency of these two sets of findings from two independent surveys lends strong support to the conclusion that the 2016 election was not about economic hardship. Instead, it was about dominant groups that felt threatened by change and a candidate who took advantage of that trend by positioning himself closer than his opponent to Americans’ positions on status threat-related issues.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It is factual to state that views among Democratic voters had been lurching significantly leftward long before Trump. This includes a remarkable liberalization in attitudes toward migration, which, at its extreme end, contains calls for "blanket amnesty" for undocumented migrants.
Liberalization of the Democratic voters:

Commentary by Pew:

I don’t disagree that the Democratic base has moved to the left, as have voters in general. What I’m looking for is the connection to the “radical left wing extremism” that has allegedly pushed White Christian conservatives to embrace Trump, per the initial claim. As I said, there are extremes in any political cleavage. For example, I identify as a conservative, but I consider conservatives who believe the “foreign born population” to be a “status threat to whites” for ideological reasons as extremist as liberals who believe in blanket amnesty, if not more so in light of history. The existence of the latter is not exculpatory to the former.

It is also worth noting that radicals don't actually have to attain institutional control in order to provoke a reaction: they need only create the illusion that their proposals/threats are credible. At the time of the 2016 election, concerns about migratory trends among conservatives were not only borne out by the long term data, they were also being aggravated the European Union's very visible open-border policies (both internally and externally). These policies provided living examples of how established authorities in peer societies (which were often cited by leftists as being more ideal) could adopt extremist positions.

This is a slippery slope argument. I don’t disagree with the idea that White Christian conservatives fear mongered a slippery slope argument based on perceived threats to white majority status, or that this is why statistically they voted for Trump. Extreme ideology and policies actually happening under the Trump Admin, backed by his voters/supporters, cannot logically be caused by the conceptual existence of extreme policy and ideology within the left side of the spectrum, which is what the initial claim was. Hillary Clinton is not a left wing extremist, nor were her policy positions, any more than were Obama’s.

I didn't "reject" the entire study: I claimed that the methodology it used to determine "racial resentment" was highly questionable. Even the authors acknowledged the "ongoing discussion about the empirical validity of racist resentment and anti-immigrant sentiments" in the abstract.

From p. 530:

The study categorized respondents who disagreed with typical progressive axioms on the impact and scope of race in the US as being "racially resentful". This is an inaccurate characterization.

I don’t object to your semantic preference for the term “white in-group bias.” I’m not sure how that indicates any aspect of the study to be based on “flimsy progressive standards.”

Opposition to white nationalism (alt-right) is much stronger among non-whites (particularly African Americans) than it is among whites.


This is a trend which can be inferred (to some extent) by projections of the 2016 election result when controlling for race.

Why is opposition to right wing extremism an example of left wing extremism? As for African Americans, it’s hardly surprising they are strongly opposed to the alt-right, given the latter’s beliefs about African Americans and people of color, let alone historical experience.

In terms of policy proposals, you can look at Booker's plan to establish of an office to combat white nationalism, Buttigieg's $1 bn. funding pledge to counteract supremacist violence or Harris' "red flag" firearm suggestions. You might also consider Biden's immediate reference to Charlottesville in his campaign launch video as an attempt to build a coalition of voters in opposition to the alt-right.

Why is opposing white nationalism and considering it a domestic terrorist threat an example of left wing extremism? The FBI, for example, has been battling white nationalist/supremacist extremism for decades. The DHS considers it a domestic terror threat equivalent to Islamic terrorism.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...olence/598501/

There's a decent piece in the Atlantic about the rise of activism in the Democratic Party post 2010:

The issue isn't so much about specific policies (the legalization of homosexual marriage notwithstanding) as it is about the effect of left wing activism on cultural narratives. The rapid emergence, promotion and influence of progressive/post-modernist theories about "white privilege", gender roles, the traditional family, policing and sexual orientation (to name but a few) were interpreted by religious conservatives as an existential challenge to established hierarchies and social structures. This feeling was aggravated by the growth of "cancel-culture" and "purity tests" which sought to shame people for promoting traditional views.

Why is legalizing gay marriage extremist? Why is seeking to reduce police violence extremist? Why is protecting people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation extremist? More slippery slope arguments? The fact that certain extremists find those things to be extremist does not make them so. These are all issues that were addressed under the Obama Admin, which we’ve just established was politically and ideologically moderate. Obama himself, as the patron saint of the American Left, cautioned against the more reflexive fringe group think aspects of “woke” culture therein.

A University of Pennsylvania study explains the impact this had on the election in terms of "perceived status threat":

It went on explain why this is "connect[ed] to demographic" change:

So far you’ve made the case that the White Christian conservatives who became Trump voters were motivated by white identity politics and the perceived status threat to the historical white racial majority in the US posed by immigrants. What I’m not seeing is actual evidence that “left wing extremism” pushed said voters to behave this way, nor anything that conflicts with the findings of or terminology used by the study you initially took issue with. Based on what you’ve laid out, I’d be curious to see where exactly you depart from the traditional left wing narrative that Trump support is motivated by white racial resentment, or as you put it, white in-group bias.

[alhoon]

@Epic Fail:
" Opposition to white nationalism (alt-right) is much stronger among non-whites (particularly African Americans) than it is among whites. "
Of course it is but... in the early 21st century, 47% of voters consider White nationalism a critical threat!!!!

When half your electorate considers White Nationalism a critical threat, then you have a problem with White Nationalist. Sure, some of this people are overeacting but... 47% of your voters consider White Nationalism a CRITICAL THREAT. They can't all be idiots, especially considering that just 19% don't consider it a threat.
I don't think you can get to such numbers (70% considering it an important or critical threat) because of Media scares. No, to get such numbers, it means that White Nationalists are widespread and visible. The guy down the street looks at his neighbors and sees white nationalists.