So, Nerds for Humanity (pro Yang podcast) had an interesting debate between the host and a Biden supporter about whether Biden should be replaced or not, and whether it would help and hurt electability in november. They went back and forth for an hour, and I wasn't really super convinced by the biden guy's argument, he seemed really like hardcore biden bro for my tastes, but I do think he raised some good points himself.
Replacing Biden is...risky. Traditionally, you dont want to replace an incumbent president with someone else. As George W. Bush said, you dont wanna switch horses mid stream. This is one of the reasons I fought Biden/Clinton so much when they ran in previous elections. i didn't wanna be stuck with these guys for 8 years, since as we can see, it's kinda making the democratic party stuck and unable to promote progressive candidates or policies. But I digress. We are stuck with them now, and replacing Biden carries risks as we would lose the incumbency advantage. It's also unclear if anyone else would do better. In 2020, Biden WAS the most electable, now, you could've made a case for Bernie in 2020. I don't think he would've won arizona or georgia, but the rust belt? yeah I think he could've pulled it off. But other than that, every candidate did worse than Biden in 2020 polling wise.And I'm not sure they would do better this time. Harris is the only one polled and her numbers are...horrible.We dont know how Williamson or Dean Phillips would do as no one polled them. So that leaves an information gap either way. We're going off of conventional information from 2020. Imagine if we did this in 2020, where the conventional info from the last cycle was "bernie would've won", but yet, Bernie kinda had iffy numbers in 2020. As I said, he would lose the south, and MAYBE do better in the rust belt, but even I have to admit Biden's numbers were better.How phillips or williamson would do is a huge unknown. Admittedly this is DNC screwery, as the democrats actively suppressed alternatives to Biden. But still, that information gap is a thing.
At the same time, let's go into the argument for Biden. No one wants this dude. His approval rating fluctuates between 30-40%. Most people arent happy with the dude. He's been relatively ineffective at promoting change or his vision, and above all, the dude is OLD. Like, REALLY OLD. Like "he shouldnt be running for president" old. There's been questions lately as of his mental competency and it almost seems like we might be dianne feinsteining the guy. I necessarily believe these rumors, but i understand them, and I have to admit, dude has an image problem. We need someone new. A generic democrat does poll better on paper, although it's unclear if an actual named democrat would do better.
The guest on the podcast above doesnt seem to think so. He seems to have the idea that we would come down to some brokered convention with the party delegates nominating Harris or Newsom in some smoke filled back room (he also doesnt believe voters should vote in primaries *shudders*), and that if those two are put up, we're screwed. harris, possible. Newsom, maybe, idk enough about him either way, but he thinks that newsom would be weak in the 6 swing states on the basis of fear mongering about california homelessness and crime rates. Maybe he would, I don't know. I've heard newsom talk and he's charismatic, but he's just another neolib and i dont know why everyone loves the guy other than charisma. He's just another boring democrat. ANd if anything I think one of the reasons we're in this situation is the fact that we've gone the centrist route in the first place.
The six big swing states are this: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.
Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin used to be more reliably blue but are going red due to being in the rust belt. The problem with the rust belt is that it works against current democratic strategy. The demographics are primarily white, while the dems lean into identity politics, and the democrats have been abandoning the working class in favor of neoliberalism. They couldve either went left, into candidates like yang or bernie, IMO, or right, into trump. because the dems refuse to go left, they're going right. That's why i think bernie would've won the rust belt by a much larger margin in 2016 than clinton did, and why I still think bernie could've pulled off 2020. i think a neolib is gonna have a hard time in these states. The dems are too focused on fricking philadelphia here in PA and they're losing the rest of the state. They're leaning too hard into suburbanites who are rich, successful, and socially liberal but fiscally conservative. And that strategy might do well in georgia and arizona, but it sucks up here.
Now, georgia and arizona. As this guy said, basically, if the ghost of john mccain ran, they'd go john mccain. They're basically conservatives, but they're that form of conservatism that is no longer popular in the GOP as it swings toward trump. Prior to 2016, I think AZ going red was a forgone conclusion, and quite frankly, we didnt need it. We were doing just fine with the rust belt, thank you very much. but because neoliberal dems have essentially lost once typical bellweathers like ohio and florida, they're trying to pick up some southern states based on the suburbanite and minority votes. Arizona is heavily hispanic, but also very suburbanite and neoliberal. So biden's politics work there, whereas bernie's don't. They cant consistently win down there, but trump is scaring them away from the GOP so theyre gravitating toward the dems. And the third wayers want some centrist to not do anything either way. They just wanna grill...on their sidewalks....because its 110 year round....because its arizona.....
Georgia, they got tons of black voters around atlanta, and atlanta is a sprawling city with sprawling suburbs. So once again, same minorities + suburbanites strategy. The dems try to use it up here to win PA too, to mixed success. I kinda hate it as im more one of those obama coalition white working class voters who HATES the direction the dems have taken the past 10 years. I thought the future would be progressivism and instead we're getting this crap. They're throwing it away. But I digress.
And nevada, very progressive, bernie won there in 2020. Very strong union support. I think a progressive would do well there. But we're not sure if one of the aforementioned alternatives to biden would do well there.
Honestly, the dems are in a tough spot. They kinda screwed themselves, they scared states like ohio and iowa away. They're risking losing other rust belt states too. Trumpism is going well up here as democratic strategy effectively abandons this region of the country. Dems can still win here due to trump being insane and dems supporting SOME working class stuff, but they dont wanna go overboard at risk of losing other states they're trying to get.
If it were up to me, I'd be fine abandoning the south. We dont need AZ or GA, we never did. I dont see them as reliable, I see them as red territory. They only went blue once, and the dem strategy of abandoning the working class to some extent when the working class wants CHANGE has been disastrous for them.
But again, is this the election year to litigate that? No. We need to focus on what we can do. Ohio is off the board, florida is off the board, iowa is off the baord. And they got a lot of regressive elements in those states anywhere where im not sure a progressive COULD win there. The working class has a habit of voting against their own interests.
I'd focus on PA, WI, MI, and NV obviously. PA seems the easiest on paper. And it's the one im most familiar with, having lived here. Im not sure replacing biden would help or hurt, but I'd be willing to try it. Honestly, my own motivations are simply that i never liked biden in the first place. He's tolerable, but he was never what i wanted. But yeah, regardless, biden CAN win PA i think. Wisconsin and michigan, idk, in 2016 and 2020 they poll a lot bluer than they are. I could see wisconsin randomly go from being in +0-1% Biden to +7 Trump. Michigan Biden's doing horrible in. I suspect that's the middle eastern vote pissy over gaza. Yeah, that's the one state that MIGHT matter as i cant think of another explanation why that's so much redder than wisconsin and pennsylvania are. Nevada, that I think we could get with a strong progressive candidate. Biden might be best here though due to his relationships with unions. Like, Biden CAN triangulate, that's an advantage here. He CAN win over working class voters. he's not FULL neolib. He IS pro union, he's working with unions, im not sure phillips would resonate better. Phillips is more progressive on policy, and being from MN he could have rust belt appeal in michigan and wisconsin, but would he get the unions like Biden does? That's the real question, isn't it? I dont know. Unions can be finnicky. You can be the better candidate IMO but unions will just back some crappy neolib if theres a working political relationship there. And phillips has that yang esque appeal that I like but a lot of working class voters (wrongly) dont like. ANd that poses questions about nevada too. Could an alternative to biden get the unions in nevada? unknown.
And again, Arizona and Georgia are a whole different animal. A more progressive candidate will LOSE those people. Not that I mind. if we got PA, MI, WI, and NV, that's 276 locked up, gg, no re. But yeah, we're in a state where the dems certainly dug themselves in a conundrum. 2016 and 2020 HAVE realigned our presidential election map. The blue wall was THE key for democrats, and now it's just one of two paths, with both paths being extremely uncertain. Right now it is better for a dem to appeal to both from a purely electoral standpoint. The blue wall eroding has made winning less certain, and the opening of the sun belt has made a centrist path possible. This is what I feared most. Again, I dont WANT this shift. I dont WANT AZ and GA to shift democrats with the rust belt shifting trump. This screws up my own personal electoral strategy for how to get a PROGRESSIVE president. My path with bernie in 2016 and 2020 relied on ignoring the south and winning the north. But the dems threw away the north to win the south, and now it's like, they're between two worlds. And it's not really good. We are seeing signs of the realignment that hillary wanted, that sabotages the progressives' electoral strategy. THey literally threw it away.
Anyway, for 2024, given all of this, you COULD make a case we NEED Biden. He MADE this strategy possible, and changing candidate might screw things up where another candidate cannot repeat biden's specific path to victory, because again, Biden did have enough pro labor progressive flair to win over the rust belt, but was also centrist enough to win at least a couple sun belt states. it's unclear if dean phillips or any other candidate can pull that off. A progressive would have a narrower path of victory than Biden, and dean phillips could either repeat the biden strategy, or end up repelling all groups in his own way. We dont know, polling isnt there.
We do know harris would be a disaster. She has NO appeal among swing voters ANYWHERE and does markedly worse than Biden.
And yeah. For better or for worse, we might be stuck with Biden.
I will vote for phillips in the primary simply out of principle. I might vote for the "lesser evil' this election cycle in the general, but I am voting my fricking heart out in the primary for a better candidate. As for whether phillips could do better or worse, who knows. You can make a convincing argument that all things considered, Biden is the best we got, though.
No comments:
Post a Comment