Becky sounds like she’d run for president one day as a joke
WIN
then lose the second term election, but when she fails to concede, it’ll be a jovial rivalry, and when President Keener is inaugurated, Becky will just hang out in the Oval Office and bug Dotty
(there would be a humourous accompanying link but I can’t find it sry)
One thing that actually might escalate this beyond a friendly rivalry is that Becky has a natural talent for campaigning and politics, and Dorothy doesn’t. The traits that make a successful politician aren’t in her nature. That’s a compliment in my book, but it’s the sort of thing that would make succeeding at her career aspirations very difficult.
Dorothy put all her points into intelligence and wisdom and had nothing left to invest in charisma.
Rani
Yeah there is every sign a Keener v McIntyre presidential race would be a political disaster for the Democratic Party of the first order in the vein of Clinton v Trump.
And Becky wouldnt need the bloody Russians either.
drs
Reminder that Hillary *got more votes* than Trump, who won via the electoral college via some very narrow margins in states where GOP officials work to disenfranchise Democratic voters.
C.T Phipps
The obvious solution is that Dorothy hire Becky as her campaign manager. 🙂
Needfuldoer
Becky would make one hell of a press secretary after she’s done as campaign advisor. A good manager surrounds themselves with people whose strengths offset their own weaknesses.
Jane
Hillary Clinton was honestly a pretty good candidate – I don’t really want to acknowledge it since he’s otherwise a walking disaster, but Trump looks like he’s a once-in-a-generation master of self-promotion. I mean, in his second run, despite destroying the economy and killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, he somehow managed to get the second-highest popular vote total in US history, in an election that saw record turnout. And even the first time around, he pretty much crushed every other potential Republican candidate while a new scandal was being reported every week, so it’s not just blind partisanship.
Despite that, Russian interference, polls that were dead wrong, a media with a weird e-mail obsession, and an FBI director who flouted regulations to undermine her campaign, she still only lost because of an archaic system designed to protect slave owners at the expense of the rest of the country. As you say, in a system where everyone’s vote had equal value, she would be the president.
Prior to last November, one could make the case that some Mystery Candidate X could have trounced Trump, but seeing how close he came this time (again, in electoral votes, not the popular vote)… Well, without someone of her caliber, I think we he might have won the popular vote as well, and some swing states. I don’t think Kerry, for instance, would have stood a chance.
I’ll never understand it, but apparently Trump scammed his way into a mind control ray, or something.
Jon Rich
Clinton was not a good candidate. She was, arguably, an awful one, though a lot of that was arguably not her fault, but rather just the way things lined up. But she was very, very badly suited for the moment.
She had been under a heavy, heavy barrage of right-wing fire for 25 years by 2016. She had a lot of baggage, had a huge unfavorability rating, and was the consummate insider in an election where both the left and the right had a huge upswell of anti-establishment feeling. She was very *qualified,* but she wasn’t a great campaigner, and it showed, and she put far too much trust in traditional political wisdom and failed to account for changing times.
And, yes, Trump is completely min-maxed for self-promotion. It’s his one, absolutely devastating ability.
Jane
If that were the case, Biden would have won by a much safer margin. He very nearly lost the same states that sunk Clinton last time, and Georgia has far more to do with Stacy Abrams than anything Biden personally did. Nevada, too, has more to do with changing demographics than it does his campaign.
I would also point out that this is after everyone was able to see just how terrible Trump is in general. In 2016, people deluded themselves into thinking he was a brilliant businessman, or that his advisors would do all the real work, or that he’d just be an empty suit, or that someone would talk him out of human right abuses. In 2020, we know that he’s exactly as deranged as he appeared, and that the Republican party completely capitulated to him. If Clinton were running against 2020 Trump, I honestly believe she would have won.
Now, one could argue that Biden was a terrible candidate as well, but we had a field full of good candidates in the primary, and none of them beat him; he also has good favorable ratings, and didn’t make any mistakes that showed up in the polling. He wasn’t my first pick, but I think there’s strong evidence that he was the most electable candidate in the field.
I could argue Clinton’s merits, but it’s an argument people have been having for four years now. Now, we have proof that another popular candidate barely won against a weaker Trump. Isn’t this rather strong evidence that 2016 should be attributed to Trump’s strength rather than Clinton’s weakness? Or we could say that nobody can win a third term in today’s America, or that the media is completely broken and unable to properly convey danger, or something similar – but either way, I can’t see how this can be attributed to the candidate. If a good candidate barely wins in 2020, then a bad candidate should have lost in a landslide in 2016.
LiamKav
“And, yes, Trump is completely min-maxed for self-promotion. It’s his one, absolutely devastating ability.”
I think this is a mistake a lot of people on the left make with Trump. They assume that because they personally find him repugnant that he isn’t charismatic. Which is wrong. He’s extremely charismatic. It’s just that it’s a targeted charisma and if it doesn’t work on you then it ends up repulsing you.
I’d be wary of making any comments though about Trump being a “once in a generation master of self promotion”. It may not be to the same level but the success of Johnson in the UK, Morrison in Australia, Bolsonaro in Brazil (amoungst others) have demonstrated that a lot of the public is perfectly happy to vote for variations on the “charismatic strongman leader who isn’t a regular politician” no matter how demonstrably that isn’t true.
The media has been caught short over the past decade or so, unable to cope with either social media or a Murdoch-driven press that doesn’t play fair. They don’t have an effective counter for it, and Trump exploited it for all it’s worth.
Jane
Eh, “once in a generation” might have been hyperbolic, but… I genuinely can’t think of any Republican politician since Reagan who’s been able to convince people to ignore their own self-interest in favor of his to this extent. I mean, at this moment, he’s openly telling his supporters not to vote for two critical senate seats, and the party is still willing to cover for him. If anyone else were to try that, the party would be in open mutiny.
LiamKav
Oh, I get that Trump is potentially very much the Final Form of this particular politician. But I also think that all of us are guilty of perhaps not knowing enough about other countries to maybe be a bit blind to the rise of extreme populism across the globe. We’re just obviously gonna hear more about Trump than, say Viktor Orbán, even though the later has also packed the courts, vilified the media and underminded democratic institutions.
We are making the assumption that Trump is getting away with things that no-one else will. The depressing thing will be finding out that others will also get away with them.
Jane
While this is a global phenomenon and it’s important to be aware of this trend, I’m also not entirely certain that it’s productive to compare across countries in the “Greatest Strongman” contest – each country has different standards and safeguards against this kind of thing. A Danish politician can get away with saying things about Muslims that would make Trump sound downright tame, for instance, while Erdogan had to provoke a coup before he could get away with shutting down the press in his country.
It’s just easier to compare within a country for this kind of thing than without, because it means everyone’s working from the same baseline and facing the same expectations.
I feel like I should keep dragging out my buddy’s observation:
Dems lose bc the base takes an all-or-nothing approach, so the most electable candidate loses bc “Bernee or Bust” (for instance) just bc the electable candidate is only 80-90% good or w/e
Meanwhile, Reps know how to dig in on the one or two issues that matter* most and can compromise beyond all moral reason to get what they want… and they DO get it.
So if the rallying force that got us Biden doesn’t keep going, Dems will LOSE 2022 and DESERVE IT
Deanatay
I know liberals have been traumatized by the past four years, and are kinda basking in the euphoria of the Biden/Harris victory, but the number of people who are thinking that Trump will just retire and never be heard from again really worries me. He’s still the leader of the Republican party at this point, and as he’s only served one term, he can easily RUN AGAIN. And potentially, WIN AGAIN. Trump has a taste for the spotlight, and the funds he’s been raising to ‘save the election’ will go straight into his re-election coffers. He didn’t lose by a terribly wide margin, like Carter did, so the Republicans could back him. If you think there aren’t plans for Trump 2024, you need to think again.
thejeff
I don’t know anyone serious who thinks Trump’s going to just retire and never be heard from again.
Trump’s definitely planning on campaigning at least. It gets him fundraising and rallies. I’m not sure whether he’d actually run again – he didn’t like being president and if he can find other grifting opportunities, he may find an excuse to avoid it. He’ll also be older and he’s already in decline.
He’s fighting to stay in power now partly because he can’t admit to losing, but also because he’s terrified of legal consequences. That’s why he’s trying to work out the best way to get himself and his family pardoned. Won’t help with state crimes though. Letitia Jones is coming for him.
I think the odds are better he’ll be in prison in 2025 than back in the White House. He certainly won’t shut up in the mean time though. He may be trying to set himself up as a Republican kingmaker, with candidates having to come kiss the ring to get his blessing and his base’s support.
thejeff
@Ana: That might be some of it. Progressive defections – to not voting or to the Greens, were enough for the margin in 2016, but so were a lot of other factors. The leftist defectors piss me off more, since it feels like betrayal from those who are supposed to be on the same side, but I’m not sure they’re the real problem.
It’s also not clear the GOP is really any better about defectors. There’s plenty of anger on the right about RINOs. Witness the attempts to get Trumpists not to back the GOP Georgia Senators because they didn’t help Trump steal the White House.
If you lurk on right wing sites, you’ll see the same kinds of complaints you see here, just the mirror image. About RINOs and how Republicans never stick together and Democrats are so disciplined.
Geneseepaws
The mind control ray shoots Fear.
Sombrero
The mind control ray is called “Reality TV”. After many years of politicians dabbling into Reality TV techniques to win votes, finally you have an experienced professional taking it to the max. If I were a Democratic Party mastermind I would be frantically watching YouTube/Instagram/the rest looking for the 2028 winner.
Needfuldoer
Social media bubbles are also immensely powerful. If you can control the narrative someone’s exposed to, you control their worldview. Why do you think dark money is propping up fringe outlets and “free speech alternatives” to established platforms?
thejeff
Though I think those “free speech alternatives” are generally less dangerous. The crazy people segregating themselves lets them keep further radicalizing each other, but it makes recruitment harder by raising the barrier to entry. If you’re already on a platform it’s easy to slide down the rabbit hole, being recommended more and more extreme content. If you have to sign up for a new platform to find it, you’re not going to bother, unless you’ve already been radicalized.
Needfuldoer
She’s a skilled politician, but not a good candidate. She let conservative media walk all over her and prop her up as their boogeyman. (They successfully applied the “all-powerful and too weak” doublethink against her, after thirty years of conspiracy theories had time to fester.) If you applied the Clinton 2016 platform to another Democrat who didn’t have decades lf baggage to work against, they may have been up for reelection this year.
thejeff
It’s certainly possible, but the point is that after 2016, there was a lot of talk about how she must be especially horrible at it, because she couldn’t even beat Trump, who was clearly a horrible candidate himself. That any other candidate would have beat Trump in a landslide, because Trump was himself so unpopular.
Trump driving up turnout massively this year, despite a disastrous 4 years, confirms what really should have been obvious all along: That Trump, in his own awful way, is in fact a formidable candidate.
Needfuldoer
Trump is the exact opposite of Clinton in that sense: a good candidate but a bad politician. He’s a charismatic carnival barker who rode to power on the wave of stupid, gullible, and hateful people he empowered.
He was in it for the attention and adoration, not the actual job. In his ideal world, he would have lost, gotten his own show on Fox (or one of the splinter echo chamber channels), done more rallies, and played more golf-kickball. If not for the impending indictments, he’ll probably do that anyway once he’s done licking his wounds.
Pedantic Jerkass
Jim Comey did not undermine Clinton’s campaign, Trump’speopledid.
thejeff
Lots of familiar names in there: Flynn, Giuliani.
We really need to see some jail time.
Ferret
I mean, that would require Becky to not be running on the Democratic ticket when she’s pretty hardcore embraced progressive ideology. Which to be fair is entirely possible given the current political climate of the Democratic party flipping the bird to progressives and going back to play with their moderate Republican friends now that fascism is “over.”
Jane
I could imagine a weird timeline where Dorothy ran as a Republican in a state without a functioning Democratic party and won as the “moderate” choice. Then, when running for President, managing to win as the “moderate” choice again when her half-dozen opponents fractured the field while sprinting right to chase what they believed to be the base – and alienating everyone to the left of Pinochet in the process.
I mean, she’d lose rather hard because said base wouldn’t turn out for her, but I could see a way for her character end up nominated.
Keulen
By the time Becky and Dorothy are old enough to run for president, I’d like to think there might be some entirely different political parties for them to run as. Assuming civilization hasn’t collapsed due to climate change by then.
Jane
Eh, for that to happen in the modern era, we’d need to switch from FPTP to ranked choice voting, or something similar. Which would mean that we’d need to get the general public to actually care about how our elections are conducted, which… Doesn’t seem very likely. I mean, we can’t even get everyone to sign on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact despite perennial dissatisfaction with the electoral college, let alone reform of that magnitude.
I could easily imagine both parties becoming something radically different as the older generation dies out, and newer voters adopt significantly different political philosophies, but we’ll most likely still have Republicans and Democrats a hundred years from now. Assuming the country still exists at the point, as you say.
We’re in a level of political turmoil that has historically caused massive shifts in the US party system – see the Federalists fading to nothing and the Democratic-Republicans splitting into the Democrats and the Whigs, or the Whigs collapsing and ultimately coalescing into the Republicans.
(Of course, every party system change since then has been the parties keeping the same names but changing roles.)
Additionally, there are some mechanisms for a third party to take hold in the US despite FPTP, by not touching the presidency. You can get a hell of a lot of influence by only ever going after “safe” local, state, and legislative seats, but the third parties so often end up trying to go after the presidency and wasting resources.
Jane
But each of those happened back in the days when regional parties still existed, waiting to take up the slack when a major party failed; that’s no longer the case. Without a solid base to retain political talent and build a public profile with, it simply isn’t possible to build something large enough to displace one of the major parties.
Ironically, your second paragraph speaks well to that problem; a realistic path to build a sustainable third party is by building their party infrastructure on a state level to accomplish local goals, and grow their reputation as a serious party instead of a protest vote or vanity campaign. But everyone who understands that eventually ends up disillusioned by the unrealistic ambitions that our current third parties pursue, and either join the major parties to change them from within, or drop out of politics entirely.
thejeff
I think party collapse and replacement is still possible, though radical shifts within the two parties are much more likely.
Previous party replacements haven’t come through slow declines in one and their replacement by a growing third party, but by the outright collapse of one and something new being built out of the corpse.
I don’t think that there is a sustainable third party path though, not much beyond the very low numbers of elected councilmen and the like we see today. Even with things like ranked choice voting in Maine, I doubt we’ll see much change in voting patterns.
Jane
It’s not so much that I think it likely that we’d see meaningfully large third parties if we had ranked choice, so much as I think it’s outright impossible to have them without. In our current system, when people are split between the two decent options, it just means the option neither of them wanted gets picked – and that means that after a couple of cycles, they just stick with the bigger name and get pretty bitter towards the smaller.
That said, there haven’t been any major parties of note since the civil war, so I’m not really certain that there’s much value in looking to history here. Politics have changed dramatically since the Whigs, and scandals that would have destroyed a party in those days now get shrugged off after four years.
thejeff
The way to think about parties in the US vs multi-party democracies is that in those countries, there are generally multiple parties that win elections then make coalitions to form a government. In the US, we make coalitions to form the parties and then elect one of the coalitions directly.
Third party activists tend to not realize this, see the parties as monolithic, and try to emulate multi-party countries without understanding it doesn’t work in this system.
Jane
Third party activists in the US tend to be… Not very serious people, in my experience.
But that said, the way I see it is like this; Michael Steel and Nicolle Wallace shouldn’t have to be in a party that increasingly views them with contempt just because they want taxes to be lower. When one half of the party goes completely off the rails, they shouldn’t be able to hold the sane half hostage – they should have the option of going elsewhere, without the only other option being their diametrical opposite.
I mean, in practice, things would usually look exactly like they do now – but in theory, it would help at times like these when a substantial part of the party feels like they have no part in the coalition anymore.
thejeff
@Ferret: Maybe we can at least let the transition happen before we decide the Democrats are flipping the bird to progressives and going back to their Republican friends? You know, see how they actually govern?
I mean, they’re not going to go far enough to satisfy the hardcore lefties. Which shouldn’t surprise anyone, since moderate voters are a huge part of the Democratic coalition and they’re scared of the hardcore lefties. Plus, without control of the Senate (or with marginal control, if we manage to pull off a minor miracle in Georgia), legislation is going to be moderate at best – but that’s because of the nature of divided control of government.
Kryss LaBryn
I’m still hoping that Biden is preaching the whole “Not gonna prosecute, America needs to heal, not further division” thing to back off and not push Trump into further madness and destruction (which he’s already doing quite enough of, on top of what he hath already wrought)–but that tune will change the moment he’s in office and Trump can’t be destroying the government and country anymore.
I also really want some of the holes in the laws patched up. Like the whole thing about having a ridiculously corrupt administration, just blatantly, cartoonishly corruption, and then pardoning the lot of them, ahead of time, including himself. That’s not how any of that should work!!
Thing is, at the end of the day, Becky’s hyping how awesome she is, and Dorothy organizes the thing that will address the problem.
You wanna bet for all her “natural talent at campaigning”, about any of the cool stuff she had DeSanto promise ever happen? Becky’s got narrative for days, but that only gets you so far.
thejeff
Well, Robin’s out of office, so you can’t really blame Becky for that. And even if she hadn’t dropped out, she’s one Congresscritter so what she could do on her own is very limited.
Becky would be an improvement if she did, if only because she’s not dunking herself in orange… something.
Since this has veered into politics, a question: If the Senate happens to go 50/50, and therefore there’s no majority leader, who decides what gets put to a vote? I know the VP breaks voting ties in the Senate, but “what gets put to a vote” feels like takes far too much time for an outsider to be doing it.
thejeff
The Majority Leader is determined by a Senate vote, so the VP gets to cast the tie-breaking vote there. Then Democrats get to organize the Senate and control the agenda.
So, for those of you in Georgia, please vote in the runoffs. It’s critical. And those of us who aren’t, volunteer and donate.
JBento
Thanks.
Kryss LaBryn
Also, double-check that you’re still registered to vote!! Apparently a lot of people in Georgia who were registered to, and did vote in the presidential election have found themselves mysteriously deregistered since. And the deadline to register again in time to vote in Georgia is like Dec. 7th!!
About 1 year into Dorothy’s first term
Becky: *Walks into the oval office* Hey Dotty!
Dorothy: *Sigh* How did you get back in this time?
Becky: Trap door under the Lincoln bedroom.
Dorothy: Just how many more secret entrances to the Whitehouse do you know about?
Becky: I can make it about half way through your second term before I need to start rationing them. Maybe only show up every 2-3 days.
Let’s be honest here. They’re never graduating let alone actually getting to the point they serve in congress. I’m not even sure Dorothy will get to Yale, but let’s pretrend for now they all aren’t stuck in a near perpetual college themed purgatory.
Becky will fall ass-backwards into an actual career in politics because of course she will, Dorothy will get herself hired as her valet because that way Becky will let her make all the real decisions, and that’s how we get a gender-swapped remake of Jeeves and Wooster set in Washington DC.
241 thoughts on “Blackboards”
Ana Chronistic
Becky sounds like she’d run for president one day as a joke
WIN
then lose the second term election, but when she fails to concede, it’ll be a jovial rivalry, and when President Keener is inaugurated, Becky will just hang out in the Oval Office and bug Dotty
(there would be a humourous accompanying link but I can’t find it sry)
UnfrozenNeanderthal
One thing that actually might escalate this beyond a friendly rivalry is that Becky has a natural talent for campaigning and politics, and Dorothy doesn’t. The traits that make a successful politician aren’t in her nature. That’s a compliment in my book, but it’s the sort of thing that would make succeeding at her career aspirations very difficult.
chris2315
Dorothy put all her points into intelligence and wisdom and had nothing left to invest in charisma.
Rani
Yeah there is every sign a Keener v McIntyre presidential race would be a political disaster for the Democratic Party of the first order in the vein of Clinton v Trump.
And Becky wouldnt need the bloody Russians either.
drs
Reminder that Hillary *got more votes* than Trump, who won via the electoral college via some very narrow margins in states where GOP officials work to disenfranchise Democratic voters.
C.T Phipps
The obvious solution is that Dorothy hire Becky as her campaign manager. 🙂
Needfuldoer
Becky would make one hell of a press secretary after she’s done as campaign advisor. A good manager surrounds themselves with people whose strengths offset their own weaknesses.
Jane
Hillary Clinton was honestly a pretty good candidate – I don’t really want to acknowledge it since he’s otherwise a walking disaster, but Trump looks like he’s a once-in-a-generation master of self-promotion. I mean, in his second run, despite destroying the economy and killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, he somehow managed to get the second-highest popular vote total in US history, in an election that saw record turnout. And even the first time around, he pretty much crushed every other potential Republican candidate while a new scandal was being reported every week, so it’s not just blind partisanship.
Despite that, Russian interference, polls that were dead wrong, a media with a weird e-mail obsession, and an FBI director who flouted regulations to undermine her campaign, she still only lost because of an archaic system designed to protect slave owners at the expense of the rest of the country. As you say, in a system where everyone’s vote had equal value, she would be the president.
Prior to last November, one could make the case that some Mystery Candidate X could have trounced Trump, but seeing how close he came this time (again, in electoral votes, not the popular vote)… Well, without someone of her caliber, I think we he might have won the popular vote as well, and some swing states. I don’t think Kerry, for instance, would have stood a chance.
I’ll never understand it, but apparently Trump scammed his way into a mind control ray, or something.
Jon Rich
Clinton was not a good candidate. She was, arguably, an awful one, though a lot of that was arguably not her fault, but rather just the way things lined up. But she was very, very badly suited for the moment.
She had been under a heavy, heavy barrage of right-wing fire for 25 years by 2016. She had a lot of baggage, had a huge unfavorability rating, and was the consummate insider in an election where both the left and the right had a huge upswell of anti-establishment feeling. She was very *qualified,* but she wasn’t a great campaigner, and it showed, and she put far too much trust in traditional political wisdom and failed to account for changing times.
And, yes, Trump is completely min-maxed for self-promotion. It’s his one, absolutely devastating ability.
Jane
If that were the case, Biden would have won by a much safer margin. He very nearly lost the same states that sunk Clinton last time, and Georgia has far more to do with Stacy Abrams than anything Biden personally did. Nevada, too, has more to do with changing demographics than it does his campaign.
I would also point out that this is after everyone was able to see just how terrible Trump is in general. In 2016, people deluded themselves into thinking he was a brilliant businessman, or that his advisors would do all the real work, or that he’d just be an empty suit, or that someone would talk him out of human right abuses. In 2020, we know that he’s exactly as deranged as he appeared, and that the Republican party completely capitulated to him. If Clinton were running against 2020 Trump, I honestly believe she would have won.
Now, one could argue that Biden was a terrible candidate as well, but we had a field full of good candidates in the primary, and none of them beat him; he also has good favorable ratings, and didn’t make any mistakes that showed up in the polling. He wasn’t my first pick, but I think there’s strong evidence that he was the most electable candidate in the field.
I could argue Clinton’s merits, but it’s an argument people have been having for four years now. Now, we have proof that another popular candidate barely won against a weaker Trump. Isn’t this rather strong evidence that 2016 should be attributed to Trump’s strength rather than Clinton’s weakness? Or we could say that nobody can win a third term in today’s America, or that the media is completely broken and unable to properly convey danger, or something similar – but either way, I can’t see how this can be attributed to the candidate. If a good candidate barely wins in 2020, then a bad candidate should have lost in a landslide in 2016.
LiamKav
“And, yes, Trump is completely min-maxed for self-promotion. It’s his one, absolutely devastating ability.”
I think this is a mistake a lot of people on the left make with Trump. They assume that because they personally find him repugnant that he isn’t charismatic. Which is wrong. He’s extremely charismatic. It’s just that it’s a targeted charisma and if it doesn’t work on you then it ends up repulsing you.
I’d be wary of making any comments though about Trump being a “once in a generation master of self promotion”. It may not be to the same level but the success of Johnson in the UK, Morrison in Australia, Bolsonaro in Brazil (amoungst others) have demonstrated that a lot of the public is perfectly happy to vote for variations on the “charismatic strongman leader who isn’t a regular politician” no matter how demonstrably that isn’t true.
The media has been caught short over the past decade or so, unable to cope with either social media or a Murdoch-driven press that doesn’t play fair. They don’t have an effective counter for it, and Trump exploited it for all it’s worth.
Jane
Eh, “once in a generation” might have been hyperbolic, but… I genuinely can’t think of any Republican politician since Reagan who’s been able to convince people to ignore their own self-interest in favor of his to this extent. I mean, at this moment, he’s openly telling his supporters not to vote for two critical senate seats, and the party is still willing to cover for him. If anyone else were to try that, the party would be in open mutiny.
LiamKav
Oh, I get that Trump is potentially very much the Final Form of this particular politician. But I also think that all of us are guilty of perhaps not knowing enough about other countries to maybe be a bit blind to the rise of extreme populism across the globe. We’re just obviously gonna hear more about Trump than, say Viktor Orbán, even though the later has also packed the courts, vilified the media and underminded democratic institutions.
We are making the assumption that Trump is getting away with things that no-one else will. The depressing thing will be finding out that others will also get away with them.
Jane
While this is a global phenomenon and it’s important to be aware of this trend, I’m also not entirely certain that it’s productive to compare across countries in the “Greatest Strongman” contest – each country has different standards and safeguards against this kind of thing. A Danish politician can get away with saying things about Muslims that would make Trump sound downright tame, for instance, while Erdogan had to provoke a coup before he could get away with shutting down the press in his country.
It’s just easier to compare within a country for this kind of thing than without, because it means everyone’s working from the same baseline and facing the same expectations.
Ana Chronistic
I feel like I should keep dragging out my buddy’s observation:
Dems lose bc the base takes an all-or-nothing approach, so the most electable candidate loses bc “Bernee or Bust” (for instance) just bc the electable candidate is only 80-90% good or w/e
Meanwhile, Reps know how to dig in on the one or two issues that matter* most and can compromise beyond all moral reason to get what they want… and they DO get it.
*arguably
Ana Chronistic
So if the rallying force that got us Biden doesn’t keep going, Dems will LOSE 2022 and DESERVE IT
Deanatay
I know liberals have been traumatized by the past four years, and are kinda basking in the euphoria of the Biden/Harris victory, but the number of people who are thinking that Trump will just retire and never be heard from again really worries me. He’s still the leader of the Republican party at this point, and as he’s only served one term, he can easily RUN AGAIN. And potentially, WIN AGAIN. Trump has a taste for the spotlight, and the funds he’s been raising to ‘save the election’ will go straight into his re-election coffers. He didn’t lose by a terribly wide margin, like Carter did, so the Republicans could back him. If you think there aren’t plans for Trump 2024, you need to think again.
thejeff
I don’t know anyone serious who thinks Trump’s going to just retire and never be heard from again.
Trump’s definitely planning on campaigning at least. It gets him fundraising and rallies. I’m not sure whether he’d actually run again – he didn’t like being president and if he can find other grifting opportunities, he may find an excuse to avoid it. He’ll also be older and he’s already in decline.
He’s fighting to stay in power now partly because he can’t admit to losing, but also because he’s terrified of legal consequences. That’s why he’s trying to work out the best way to get himself and his family pardoned. Won’t help with state crimes though. Letitia Jones is coming for him.
I think the odds are better he’ll be in prison in 2025 than back in the White House. He certainly won’t shut up in the mean time though. He may be trying to set himself up as a Republican kingmaker, with candidates having to come kiss the ring to get his blessing and his base’s support.
thejeff
@Ana: That might be some of it. Progressive defections – to not voting or to the Greens, were enough for the margin in 2016, but so were a lot of other factors. The leftist defectors piss me off more, since it feels like betrayal from those who are supposed to be on the same side, but I’m not sure they’re the real problem.
It’s also not clear the GOP is really any better about defectors. There’s plenty of anger on the right about RINOs. Witness the attempts to get Trumpists not to back the GOP Georgia Senators because they didn’t help Trump steal the White House.
If you lurk on right wing sites, you’ll see the same kinds of complaints you see here, just the mirror image. About RINOs and how Republicans never stick together and Democrats are so disciplined.
Geneseepaws
The mind control ray shoots Fear.
Sombrero
The mind control ray is called “Reality TV”. After many years of politicians dabbling into Reality TV techniques to win votes, finally you have an experienced professional taking it to the max. If I were a Democratic Party mastermind I would be frantically watching YouTube/Instagram/the rest looking for the 2028 winner.
Needfuldoer
Social media bubbles are also immensely powerful. If you can control the narrative someone’s exposed to, you control their worldview. Why do you think dark money is propping up fringe outlets and “free speech alternatives” to established platforms?
thejeff
Though I think those “free speech alternatives” are generally less dangerous. The crazy people segregating themselves lets them keep further radicalizing each other, but it makes recruitment harder by raising the barrier to entry. If you’re already on a platform it’s easy to slide down the rabbit hole, being recommended more and more extreme content. If you have to sign up for a new platform to find it, you’re not going to bother, unless you’ve already been radicalized.
Needfuldoer
She’s a skilled politician, but not a good candidate. She let conservative media walk all over her and prop her up as their boogeyman. (They successfully applied the “all-powerful and too weak” doublethink against her, after thirty years of conspiracy theories had time to fester.) If you applied the Clinton 2016 platform to another Democrat who didn’t have decades lf baggage to work against, they may have been up for reelection this year.
thejeff
It’s certainly possible, but the point is that after 2016, there was a lot of talk about how she must be especially horrible at it, because she couldn’t even beat Trump, who was clearly a horrible candidate himself. That any other candidate would have beat Trump in a landslide, because Trump was himself so unpopular.
Trump driving up turnout massively this year, despite a disastrous 4 years, confirms what really should have been obvious all along: That Trump, in his own awful way, is in fact a formidable candidate.
Needfuldoer
Trump is the exact opposite of Clinton in that sense: a good candidate but a bad politician. He’s a charismatic carnival barker who rode to power on the wave of stupid, gullible, and hateful people he empowered.
He was in it for the attention and adoration, not the actual job. In his ideal world, he would have lost, gotten his own show on Fox (or one of the splinter echo chamber channels), done more rallies, and played more golf-kickball. If not for the impending indictments, he’ll probably do that anyway once he’s done licking his wounds.
Pedantic Jerkass
Jim Comey did not undermine Clinton’s campaign, Trump’s people did.
thejeff
Lots of familiar names in there: Flynn, Giuliani.
We really need to see some jail time.
Ferret
I mean, that would require Becky to not be running on the Democratic ticket when she’s pretty hardcore embraced progressive ideology. Which to be fair is entirely possible given the current political climate of the Democratic party flipping the bird to progressives and going back to play with their moderate Republican friends now that fascism is “over.”
Jane
I could imagine a weird timeline where Dorothy ran as a Republican in a state without a functioning Democratic party and won as the “moderate” choice. Then, when running for President, managing to win as the “moderate” choice again when her half-dozen opponents fractured the field while sprinting right to chase what they believed to be the base – and alienating everyone to the left of Pinochet in the process.
I mean, she’d lose rather hard because said base wouldn’t turn out for her, but I could see a way for her character end up nominated.
Keulen
By the time Becky and Dorothy are old enough to run for president, I’d like to think there might be some entirely different political parties for them to run as. Assuming civilization hasn’t collapsed due to climate change by then.
Jane
Eh, for that to happen in the modern era, we’d need to switch from FPTP to ranked choice voting, or something similar. Which would mean that we’d need to get the general public to actually care about how our elections are conducted, which… Doesn’t seem very likely. I mean, we can’t even get everyone to sign on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact despite perennial dissatisfaction with the electoral college, let alone reform of that magnitude.
I could easily imagine both parties becoming something radically different as the older generation dies out, and newer voters adopt significantly different political philosophies, but we’ll most likely still have Republicans and Democrats a hundred years from now. Assuming the country still exists at the point, as you say.
bhtooefr
Not necessarily.
We’re in a level of political turmoil that has historically caused massive shifts in the US party system – see the Federalists fading to nothing and the Democratic-Republicans splitting into the Democrats and the Whigs, or the Whigs collapsing and ultimately coalescing into the Republicans.
(Of course, every party system change since then has been the parties keeping the same names but changing roles.)
Additionally, there are some mechanisms for a third party to take hold in the US despite FPTP, by not touching the presidency. You can get a hell of a lot of influence by only ever going after “safe” local, state, and legislative seats, but the third parties so often end up trying to go after the presidency and wasting resources.
Jane
But each of those happened back in the days when regional parties still existed, waiting to take up the slack when a major party failed; that’s no longer the case. Without a solid base to retain political talent and build a public profile with, it simply isn’t possible to build something large enough to displace one of the major parties.
Ironically, your second paragraph speaks well to that problem; a realistic path to build a sustainable third party is by building their party infrastructure on a state level to accomplish local goals, and grow their reputation as a serious party instead of a protest vote or vanity campaign. But everyone who understands that eventually ends up disillusioned by the unrealistic ambitions that our current third parties pursue, and either join the major parties to change them from within, or drop out of politics entirely.
thejeff
I think party collapse and replacement is still possible, though radical shifts within the two parties are much more likely.
Previous party replacements haven’t come through slow declines in one and their replacement by a growing third party, but by the outright collapse of one and something new being built out of the corpse.
I don’t think that there is a sustainable third party path though, not much beyond the very low numbers of elected councilmen and the like we see today. Even with things like ranked choice voting in Maine, I doubt we’ll see much change in voting patterns.
Jane
It’s not so much that I think it likely that we’d see meaningfully large third parties if we had ranked choice, so much as I think it’s outright impossible to have them without. In our current system, when people are split between the two decent options, it just means the option neither of them wanted gets picked – and that means that after a couple of cycles, they just stick with the bigger name and get pretty bitter towards the smaller.
That said, there haven’t been any major parties of note since the civil war, so I’m not really certain that there’s much value in looking to history here. Politics have changed dramatically since the Whigs, and scandals that would have destroyed a party in those days now get shrugged off after four years.
thejeff
The way to think about parties in the US vs multi-party democracies is that in those countries, there are generally multiple parties that win elections then make coalitions to form a government. In the US, we make coalitions to form the parties and then elect one of the coalitions directly.
Third party activists tend to not realize this, see the parties as monolithic, and try to emulate multi-party countries without understanding it doesn’t work in this system.
Jane
Third party activists in the US tend to be… Not very serious people, in my experience.
But that said, the way I see it is like this; Michael Steel and Nicolle Wallace shouldn’t have to be in a party that increasingly views them with contempt just because they want taxes to be lower. When one half of the party goes completely off the rails, they shouldn’t be able to hold the sane half hostage – they should have the option of going elsewhere, without the only other option being their diametrical opposite.
I mean, in practice, things would usually look exactly like they do now – but in theory, it would help at times like these when a substantial part of the party feels like they have no part in the coalition anymore.
thejeff
@Ferret: Maybe we can at least let the transition happen before we decide the Democrats are flipping the bird to progressives and going back to their Republican friends? You know, see how they actually govern?
I mean, they’re not going to go far enough to satisfy the hardcore lefties. Which shouldn’t surprise anyone, since moderate voters are a huge part of the Democratic coalition and they’re scared of the hardcore lefties. Plus, without control of the Senate (or with marginal control, if we manage to pull off a minor miracle in Georgia), legislation is going to be moderate at best – but that’s because of the nature of divided control of government.
Kryss LaBryn
I’m still hoping that Biden is preaching the whole “Not gonna prosecute, America needs to heal, not further division” thing to back off and not push Trump into further madness and destruction (which he’s already doing quite enough of, on top of what he hath already wrought)–but that tune will change the moment he’s in office and Trump can’t be destroying the government and country anymore.
I also really want some of the holes in the laws patched up. Like the whole thing about having a ridiculously corrupt administration, just blatantly, cartoonishly corruption, and then pardoning the lot of them, ahead of time, including himself. That’s not how any of that should work!!
Rainhat
Thing is, at the end of the day, Becky’s hyping how awesome she is, and Dorothy organizes the thing that will address the problem.
You wanna bet for all her “natural talent at campaigning”, about any of the cool stuff she had DeSanto promise ever happen? Becky’s got narrative for days, but that only gets you so far.
thejeff
Well, Robin’s out of office, so you can’t really blame Becky for that. And even if she hadn’t dropped out, she’s one Congresscritter so what she could do on her own is very limited.
Reltzik
If Becky’s not going to brag about routine sexual assault on a live mike, I’d still call it an improvement.
JBento
Becky would be an improvement if she did, if only because she’s not dunking herself in orange… something.
Since this has veered into politics, a question: If the Senate happens to go 50/50, and therefore there’s no majority leader, who decides what gets put to a vote? I know the VP breaks voting ties in the Senate, but “what gets put to a vote” feels like takes far too much time for an outsider to be doing it.
thejeff
The Majority Leader is determined by a Senate vote, so the VP gets to cast the tie-breaking vote there. Then Democrats get to organize the Senate and control the agenda.
So, for those of you in Georgia, please vote in the runoffs. It’s critical. And those of us who aren’t, volunteer and donate.
JBento
Thanks.
Kryss LaBryn
Also, double-check that you’re still registered to vote!! Apparently a lot of people in Georgia who were registered to, and did vote in the presidential election have found themselves mysteriously deregistered since. And the deadline to register again in time to vote in Georgia is like Dec. 7th!!
BBCC
^^^^^
Xaeon
About 1 year into Dorothy’s first term
Becky: *Walks into the oval office* Hey Dotty!
Dorothy: *Sigh* How did you get back in this time?
Becky: Trap door under the Lincoln bedroom.
Dorothy: Just how many more secret entrances to the Whitehouse do you know about?
Becky: I can make it about half way through your second term before I need to start rationing them. Maybe only show up every 2-3 days.
Doctor_Who
Becky: Joyce can see fine!
Joyce: Thank you, Joe.
Heather Flowers
I appreciate Becky’s outfit perfectly matching the five-color lesbian flag in this strip.
Viktoria
I am sure Becky did that intentionally.
Rose by Any Other Name
Well fuck.
Now I want a lesbian flag outfit.
Sirksome
I wonder which one of these two Joyce will be voting for in the 2052 democratic primary.
Jane
Tell Becky she’s voting for her, but quietly vote for Dorothy when she’s actually in the booth?
Agemegos
In 2052 they might be old enough to run for Congress.
Sirksome
Let’s be honest here. They’re never graduating let alone actually getting to the point they serve in congress. I’m not even sure Dorothy will get to Yale, but let’s pretrend for now they all aren’t stuck in a near perpetual college themed purgatory.
Bagge
My take home from this is that they all look great in those hats.
Doctor_Who
Becky’s kind of makes it looks like an invisible person is dumping a bowl of marinara on her head.
It’s perfect, in other words.
Dean
It also looks like she’s on her way to vote for the next Pope.
Geneseepaws
That’s silly. The Pope isn’t an elected posti…… oh, you are right!
Maybe Becky can reform Russia. She could be the Cardinal in the Kremlin.
RacingTurtle
Hooray for hats!
butts
what
Clif
You win.
Alex Boston
If she doesn’t become president she could have a career as a Jeeves level personal assistant.
Slartibeast Button, BIA
Like whats-their-name in QC?
StClair
Tilly.
Kyrik Michalowski
Taffy.
Delicious Taffy
‘Sup?
Demoted Oblivious
Station?
Yay Newfriend?
Pint-size?
Hanelore? (To Marigold Farmer)
Yelling Bird?
Clif
Who doesn’t need a friend like Yelling Bird?
Deanatay
SUCK MY CLOACA SHITBREATH
YOU’RE WELCOME
Doctor_Who
Becky will fall ass-backwards into an actual career in politics because of course she will, Dorothy will get herself hired as her valet because that way Becky will let her make all the real decisions, and that’s how we get a gender-swapped remake of Jeeves and Wooster set in Washington DC.
Khyrin