I don't think the Libs have a plan. Do we have a plan?

  • gramsciezethemeans [he/him,they/them]
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 years ago

    I mean I think 2000 is a perfect example of libs rolling over because of a judicial coup. Not saying things haven't changed since then but it I think it shows that above all else libs with power (party leaders/officials, wealthy donors) respect the sanctity of their institutions. Now I do think a significant base of dem voters would be really pissed off but without any way to organize that anger how much does that really matter?

      • DoctorSunshine [comrade/them]
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 years ago

        With how much fog there is around elections, "concerns" surrounding mail-in voting they've been stoking the embers on for years, electronic voting with no paper trail, straight up stealing of ballots, etc, that we know is going on, there's so much bs we don't know about that I can't see a scenario in which Biden clearly won as you say. Exit polls will be branded fake news, results as fraudulent. We won't even know if it's true, really.

      • gramsciezethemeans [he/him,they/them]
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        I think for me it comes down to what will democrats do about it? They sure as hell aren't going to mobilize their base into mass action. Are they going to contest the legitimacy of the supreme court? I think they want to avoid that at all costs because it threatens the wider American political project and potentially their class hegemony. I mean just look how they did absolutely nothing for the confirmation this week. So how do they negotiate their need to support the legitimacy of political institutions with a desire to defeat Trump?

        Personally I think it's unlikely to come to that point. I don't think Republicans who actually matter see Trump as the person to push things to the limit for. At a certain level I think they'll accept that a Biden admin will be more than tolerable on a material level. But hey we'll find out in a week.

      • Myaccountgothacked [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Wut? The whole thing was about how he stole the election. They called Gore the winner on all major news networks and then switched once Fox News changed and liberals cried about the election being stolen for months and then didn’t do shit about it. Once bush became president they gave him more power than they’ve ever given to the executive branch.

    • cracksmoke2020 [none/use name]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      2000 was totally different, Al Gore and Bush ran identical campaigns, like seriously go watch their ads, they are almost identical. Politics wasn't nearly as polarized, social media definitely makes things far more polarized. Back then the mainstream media could exist in a way that calmed down the country about all of it, now people create all their own media and would go absolutely insane.

      Also Bush didn't run as a foreign policy hawk, he actually accused Clinton of being too interventionist. Bush was running as a domestic moderate Republican, supported capital gains tax cuts and oil/gas, but he was also more supportive of social programs than we see with the Republicans today (Medicare part D, education reform, EITC, ect).

      Liberals were upset, but like actual liberals and progressives were a much more fringe part of American society than they are today. Keith Overman was viewed by the American public and elite the same way the same group views Tucker Carlson.

      • Myaccountgothacked [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Keith was covering baseball for Fox at the time. Gore was not thought to be close to Bush ideologically. This is all weird revisionism.