4 ms·

We are already long past the point of no return. He is the manifestation of a popular will. Even if he vanished tomorrow, those voters will remain. They will n

We are already long past the point of no return. He is the manifestation of a popular will. Even if he vanished tomorrow, those voters will remain. They will not be daunted by an electoral setback. They control the Supreme Court, and will for decades. They control a majority of state legislatures -- which control how voting and districting work. We've been past the point of no return since 2016. If you still had hope then, it should have died the same day Ruth Bader Ginsburg did. At this point it's all just telling ourselves fairy stories. It gets monotonically worse from here, and there is no longer anything we can do about it.

mptest 2y ago
[flagged]
- stephen_g 2y ago
  It's an issue we're seeing all around the West - previously centre-left parties unfortunately were cowed into supporting 'soft-neoliberalism' over the last 30-40 years, and now that's shown to not improve the living standards of the many (but works amazingly for the wealthy), voters are looking for anything that looks different than the status-quo. Unfortunately that plus a bit of culture war drives them into the populist right. Obviously that's a worse choice (at best it's just corrupt crony-capitalism under a veneer of caring about the little guy, at worst outright fascism) but we all have to admit that parties like the Democrats (and Labor in the UK and Australia, etc.) haven't had policy platforms to make changes that really and substantially help the struggling working-class for decades. It's hard for us to see, because most people commenting on hacker news are in the professional class and the status-quo works quite well for us.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > that plus a bit of culture war drives them into the populist right And the establishment refusing to run new candidates. If there is a single person to blame for Trump 2.0, it’s Biden.
    - CapricornNoble 2y ago
      How the Democrats went from having an excited and involved Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard in 2016, to pushing to re-elect a cognitively-impaired 80 year old in 2024 would make for an interesting expose, that's for sure.
  - ipsento606 2y ago
    > now that's shown to not improve the living standards of the many Inflation-adjusted median real income is up 20% since 1990 in the US. Unemployment is lower. Life expectancy is higher. Air pollution is lower. Crime is lower. Gay marriage is now legal. The living standards of the many in the US have demonstrably improved dramatically over the last 30-40 years. Housing affordability is worse, but that is largely due to local rather than national politics, and the policies that have lead to unaffordable housing are largely non-partisan (in that homeowners across the political spectrum are for restrictive zoning and against development). It's true that many people feel that living standards have not improved. I don't have an answer for that beyond speculation.
    - mptest 2y ago
      >Inflation...1990 in the US There are many things this statistic masks. How many households were dual income vs single income over that same time span? This also doesn't take in to account cost of living changes, which I'm confident have risen more than 20%. Sorry in advance if I'm wrong. Inflation erosion, how CPI is calculated to make things look better than they are (too much to get in to), but my point is that statistic is not the holy grail of progress. >unemployment is lower Won't argue that one >life expectancy is higher As would be expected with 35 years of progress in medicine? Plus, that statistic hides we've actually plateaued and even declined compared to other OECD nations. >Air pollution... gay marriage is legal Won't argue with those, though I wonder how much longer the air will be cleaner when the current admin has severely weakened the EPA and clean air/water regulations. >The living standards...30-40 years. Are you deriving that from the median real income? Even assuming it's true, why are a growing percentage of american's living paycheck to paycheck? >Housing affordability is worse...local That's... a pretty big one... I'd argue it could be greatly helped by federal policy against oh idk, stopping private equity from buying up homes and apartments, severe taxes on 2nd or 3rd properties, unoccupied property, etc. All I'm saying is, there's a reason average americans aren't pickin up what you are puttin down. I don't think it's just a feeling.
- jfengel 2y ago
  The attitude of "you won't make it better so we'll make it much, much worse" is the reason we're past the point of no return. Actually making things better is hard. A lot of people legitimately disagree with Bernie Sanders. He simply does not have majority support. For the rest of my life, the Democrats' policy is going to be "trying to get back the rights you lost in 2024”.
  - mptest 2y ago
    >he simply does not have majority support That very well may be, but considering all his policies do[0], the question must be asked, why? Maybe we should ask ourselves why, when the american majority supported his entire policy agenda, did they not support him? Could it be perhaps the billionaire owned media misrepresenting him and his positions? His own party conspiring to take him out of the primary running? Or just average voter ignorance? No one has ever contended that americans always vote in their best interest, after all. [0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/25/pete-buttigieg/polls-show-most-democrats-many-americans-back-key-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/25/pete-butti...
    - lostdog 2y ago
      It's not that complicated. In 2016 America though Bernie was a crazy leftist, and didn't vote for him. He did pick up more votes than expected as a protest against Hillary, and he was just starting to get buy-in on his policies. Then he went out and sold America on some social democrat ideas. He did ok in 2020, but lost, partially because Democratic voters were afraid that Republicans would see him as a crazy leftist, and partially because Biden had more support from some demographics. Yeah, there's some billionaire pushback, but Bernie chaired the budget committee. It's not like he was whacked by some billionaire hit squad, he just wasn't quite popular enough to win the presidential primaries.
      - mptest 2y ago
        Looking all the way downstream, to the end result (voting numbers) is much less valuable vein to mine for insight than how he was portrayed in media, online and in legacy media, before votes were cast. That provides much more insight in to how his campaign failed, in my eyes at least. I don't have all the historical polling data to say this with certainty, but his policies were pretty much always supported by a majority of the american public from a cursory perplexity search (grain of salt and all that, but seriously, can you think of one policy of his that wasn't popular?) The more important question, to me at least, than "in 2016 did america think bernie was a crazy leftist?" is, "why, when his policies all had majority voter support, did the candidate himself carry the McCarthy era veil of 'crazy leftist' and 'communist'"? And I think the answer is the same as in my original comment, a concerted effort from the billionaire class (who own all our media) to do anything BUT accurately portray the guy who vocally wanted to cost them money in favor of those who wanted to enrich them. I think the billionaire class almost always plays a bigger role than we think, but that might just be all the books I read about the machinations of the rich and powerful to manufacture consent. I'm no expert.
- fooster 2y ago
  With republicans in control of congress and/or the senate and opposing everything the democrats did it is hardly surprising is it.
  - mptest 2y ago
    Hardly surprising to us, those paying attention. But that's an ever shrinking percentage, and the percentage that can parse complex realities is also unfortunately shrinking. If you wanna get real pessimistic google literacy statistics for adults in the US.
- alsaaro 2y ago
  Kamala Harris is a progressive, who by certain objective measures, was the most left senator, even further left than Sanders. Of course in the general election she moved to the center, as did Trump. Kamala lost all seven swing states. The democrats should move to 90's style triangulation, it works.
analog31 2y ago
They were barely more than half of the voters, and did not represent a single unified ideology. This doesn't mean they won't vote against their own interests again.
- cnokleberg 2y ago
  Less than half the voters (49.8% of popular vote), due to third-party candidates.
quotemstr 2y ago
> It gets monotonically worse from here, and there is no longer anything we can do about it. For decades now, government policy has had approximately nothing to do with the will of the public. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...) This situation is now being corrected. Anyone who sees this as a catastrophe, as getting "monotonically worse", is no fan of a republican form of government
- macintux 2y ago
  This republican form of government was explicitly created to insulate law and justice from the direct will of the public.
  - quotemstr 2y ago
    So whose preferences should policy reflect? NGO presidents? Tech company employees in gatekeeper positions? Editorial column writers? Why these people and not the public? What gives them the right to rule?
    - wredcoll 2y ago
      Are you asking why america has a republican form of government designed to minimize the power of the majority of the population? Well, partly because travel and communications were extremely slow when the constitution was written, but mostly because the rich land owners (and white males) were the ones writing it.
    - macintux 2y ago
      Ideally not thin-skinned demagogic grifter kleptocrats with no respect for the Constitution or rule of law. Seems like a low bar to hurdle, yet here we are.

mptest 2y ago

[flagged]

stephen_g 2y ago
It's an issue we're seeing all around the West - previously centre-left parties unfortunately were cowed into supporting 'soft-neoliberalism' over the last 30-40 years, and now that's shown to not improve the living standards of the many (but works amazingly for the wealthy), voters are looking for anything that looks different than the status-quo. Unfortunately that plus a bit of culture war drives them into the populist right. Obviously that's a worse choice (at best it's just corrupt crony-capitalism under a veneer of caring about the little guy, at worst outright fascism) but we all have to admit that parties like the Democrats (and Labor in the UK and Australia, etc.) haven't had policy platforms to make changes that really and substantially help the struggling working-class for decades. It's hard for us to see, because most people commenting on hacker news are in the professional class and the status-quo works quite well for us.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > that plus a bit of culture war drives them into the populist right And the establishment refusing to run new candidates. If there is a single person to blame for Trump 2.0, it’s Biden.
  - CapricornNoble 2y ago
    How the Democrats went from having an excited and involved Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard in 2016, to pushing to re-elect a cognitively-impaired 80 year old in 2024 would make for an interesting expose, that's for sure.
- ipsento606 2y ago
  > now that's shown to not improve the living standards of the many Inflation-adjusted median real income is up 20% since 1990 in the US. Unemployment is lower. Life expectancy is higher. Air pollution is lower. Crime is lower. Gay marriage is now legal. The living standards of the many in the US have demonstrably improved dramatically over the last 30-40 years. Housing affordability is worse, but that is largely due to local rather than national politics, and the policies that have lead to unaffordable housing are largely non-partisan (in that homeowners across the political spectrum are for restrictive zoning and against development). It's true that many people feel that living standards have not improved. I don't have an answer for that beyond speculation.
  - mptest 2y ago
    >Inflation...1990 in the US There are many things this statistic masks. How many households were dual income vs single income over that same time span? This also doesn't take in to account cost of living changes, which I'm confident have risen more than 20%. Sorry in advance if I'm wrong. Inflation erosion, how CPI is calculated to make things look better than they are (too much to get in to), but my point is that statistic is not the holy grail of progress. >unemployment is lower Won't argue that one >life expectancy is higher As would be expected with 35 years of progress in medicine? Plus, that statistic hides we've actually plateaued and even declined compared to other OECD nations. >Air pollution... gay marriage is legal Won't argue with those, though I wonder how much longer the air will be cleaner when the current admin has severely weakened the EPA and clean air/water regulations. >The living standards...30-40 years. Are you deriving that from the median real income? Even assuming it's true, why are a growing percentage of american's living paycheck to paycheck? >Housing affordability is worse...local That's... a pretty big one... I'd argue it could be greatly helped by federal policy against oh idk, stopping private equity from buying up homes and apartments, severe taxes on 2nd or 3rd properties, unoccupied property, etc. All I'm saying is, there's a reason average americans aren't pickin up what you are puttin down. I don't think it's just a feeling.
jfengel 2y ago
The attitude of "you won't make it better so we'll make it much, much worse" is the reason we're past the point of no return. Actually making things better is hard. A lot of people legitimately disagree with Bernie Sanders. He simply does not have majority support. For the rest of my life, the Democrats' policy is going to be "trying to get back the rights you lost in 2024”.
- mptest 2y ago
  >he simply does not have majority support That very well may be, but considering all his policies do[0], the question must be asked, why? Maybe we should ask ourselves why, when the american majority supported his entire policy agenda, did they not support him? Could it be perhaps the billionaire owned media misrepresenting him and his positions? His own party conspiring to take him out of the primary running? Or just average voter ignorance? No one has ever contended that americans always vote in their best interest, after all. [0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/25/pete-buttigieg/polls-show-most-democrats-many-americans-back-key-/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/feb/25/pete-butti...
  - lostdog 2y ago
    It's not that complicated. In 2016 America though Bernie was a crazy leftist, and didn't vote for him. He did pick up more votes than expected as a protest against Hillary, and he was just starting to get buy-in on his policies. Then he went out and sold America on some social democrat ideas. He did ok in 2020, but lost, partially because Democratic voters were afraid that Republicans would see him as a crazy leftist, and partially because Biden had more support from some demographics. Yeah, there's some billionaire pushback, but Bernie chaired the budget committee. It's not like he was whacked by some billionaire hit squad, he just wasn't quite popular enough to win the presidential primaries.
    - mptest 2y ago
      Looking all the way downstream, to the end result (voting numbers) is much less valuable vein to mine for insight than how he was portrayed in media, online and in legacy media, before votes were cast. That provides much more insight in to how his campaign failed, in my eyes at least. I don't have all the historical polling data to say this with certainty, but his policies were pretty much always supported by a majority of the american public from a cursory perplexity search (grain of salt and all that, but seriously, can you think of one policy of his that wasn't popular?) The more important question, to me at least, than "in 2016 did america think bernie was a crazy leftist?" is, "why, when his policies all had majority voter support, did the candidate himself carry the McCarthy era veil of 'crazy leftist' and 'communist'"? And I think the answer is the same as in my original comment, a concerted effort from the billionaire class (who own all our media) to do anything BUT accurately portray the guy who vocally wanted to cost them money in favor of those who wanted to enrich them. I think the billionaire class almost always plays a bigger role than we think, but that might just be all the books I read about the machinations of the rich and powerful to manufacture consent. I'm no expert.
fooster 2y ago
With republicans in control of congress and/or the senate and opposing everything the democrats did it is hardly surprising is it.
- mptest 2y ago
  Hardly surprising to us, those paying attention. But that's an ever shrinking percentage, and the percentage that can parse complex realities is also unfortunately shrinking. If you wanna get real pessimistic google literacy statistics for adults in the US.
alsaaro 2y ago
Kamala Harris is a progressive, who by certain objective measures, was the most left senator, even further left than Sanders. Of course in the general election she moved to the center, as did Trump. Kamala lost all seven swing states. The democrats should move to 90's style triangulation, it works.

analog31 2y ago

They were barely more than half of the voters, and did not represent a single unified ideology. This doesn't mean they won't vote against their own interests again.

cnokleberg 2y ago
Less than half the voters (49.8% of popular vote), due to third-party candidates.

quotemstr 2y ago

> It gets monotonically worse from here, and there is no longer anything we can do about it. For decades now, government policy has had approximately nothing to do with the will of the public. (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...) This situation is now being corrected. Anyone who sees this as a catastrophe, as getting "monotonically worse", is no fan of a republican form of government

macintux 2y ago
This republican form of government was explicitly created to insulate law and justice from the direct will of the public.
- quotemstr 2y ago
  So whose preferences should policy reflect? NGO presidents? Tech company employees in gatekeeper positions? Editorial column writers? Why these people and not the public? What gives them the right to rule?
  - wredcoll 2y ago
    Are you asking why america has a republican form of government designed to minimize the power of the majority of the population? Well, partly because travel and communications were extremely slow when the constitution was written, but mostly because the rich land owners (and white males) were the ones writing it.
  - macintux 2y ago
    Ideally not thin-skinned demagogic grifter kleptocrats with no respect for the Constitution or rule of law. Seems like a low bar to hurdle, yet here we are.