Thread by @shaunjlawson

As we all wait, and wait, and wait, here's an article by @OwenJones84 . Which gets right to the heart of "where do the Democrats go now?" - and the constant, uh, lively debate on and off here between socialists, social democrats, liberals and centrists.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

I like Owen a huge amount. He is an awesome campaigning journalist - and I agree with at least 90% of what he says on most things.

This isn't one of those times - but that doesn't make me blind to the factors leading to his conclusions. Not in any way.

Take a look at this graph. Which shows clearly and precisely what, above all, is destroying America.

THAT is what neoliberalism does. It is entirely about funneling what little the poor and middle class have away from them towards the rich, very rich and grotesquely rich.

The feeling of hopelessness and anger it creates is tearing the US and the Western world apart.

Naturally, most people will look at that graph and think: "The Democrats have allowed this? Shame on them! It's their fault!"

But it's not. It's just not.

When did neoliberalism truly begin? 1979 in the UK, 1980 in the US. Do you know what the electoral college result was - against Carter, an incumbent? 489-49.

Carter won just six states in total.

So Reagan let rip, wealth started funneling dramatically upwards, there was boom and bust, unemployment and homelessness soared. And what happened in 1984, when the Democrats fielded a candidate well to the left of Carter?

AN EVEN BIGGER BLOWOUT.

Walter Mondale lost the popular vote by 18 points and won one solitary state. Unthinkable nowadays. Despite Reagan's very divisive and harmful policies - most of America's economic problems now date back to him - he had an incredible folksy appeal for most Americans.

Never underestimate that last point. It was most true of Reagan - but it was and is also true of Bill Clinton, Bush junior and importantly, Biden. Americans really like Presidents who speak softly, often in some sort of drawl, and sound like one of them.

As the Democrats stayed left/liberal by choosing Dukakis in 1988, again they got hammered. Another meltdown on the electoral college map.

Then juxtapose how Bill Clinton - a moderate southern Democrat - won the Presidency twice, while the liberal (in practice, too liberal) John Kerry lost: in a country which was now hideously divided.

And it's not like Kerry lost to some outstanding President, is it?!

In fact, 2004 remains the only election since 1988 in which the Republicans won the popular vote.

Yesterday, I mentioned how many Americans are European in outlook. But the problem is the rest of them - and how the political system massively over-represents them.

Many have reacted with scorn to the Democrats not having picked up the Senate. What they don't seem to realise is how the Senate works. Wyoming (population 580,000) has the same number of senators as California (population 40m). Two. Every single state has two senators.

Try to imagine a representative body which passes the laws that govern everyone in which Manchester has the same size of representation as... Argentina. Insane, I know. But that's the United States Senate - without control of which, no government can do very much.

In turn, what does that mean? So many small states are deep deep red that the Democrats cannot possibly stand on that left/liberal a platform and have a chance in hell of controlling the Senate.

Let's look at recent Senate elections.

In 2014, Republican candidates won 52% of the vote and gained 9 Senate seats.

In 2016, Democrat candidates won 54% of the vote and gained... 2 Senate seats.

In 2018, Democrat candidates won 54% of the vote and... LOST TWO SENATE SEATS.

That is absolutely nobody's definition of a democratically elected legislative body - and it's so bad that it's increased polarisation and partisanship across the US enormously. In no way does it represent what the majority of Americans believe or want.

And of course, because it doesn't, the Supreme Court doesn't either. Unrepresentative Republican Senate majorities have enabled them to block liberal justices and confirm very very conservative ones. Thus, even in 2020, are abortion rights horribly under threat.

So let's turn to the Presidency - and an electoral college which delivered two Presidents who lost the popular vote in the space of five elections, and has flirted with doing it for a third time in six elections this year.

Time for another map. Of the civil war.

Of course, back then, the Republicans were on the side of the angels, the Democrats on the side of the devil. But the reason those states are coloured red and blue is... 160 years later, look how many states are still in the same mindset!

When he signed the Civil Rights Act - which granted black Americans the right to vote across the south - Lyndon Johnson knew he was signing the south away "for at least a generation". Almost three generations later, the south is as conservative and Republican as ever.

And that base, which Democrats seem unable to shift at all, is exactly what gives the Republicans such a good platform in the electoral college. It makes it much closer than it should be all the time.

This year, despite hopes to the contrary, Texas and Florida remain pretty red

Arkansas, Tennessee (which didn't even vote for its own representative, Al Gore, despite it being the closest national election ever), Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina are all as red as ever. Lyin' Lindsay Graham won re-election by a disturbingly large amount.

Yet complicating matters still further is: which racial group overwhelmingly votes Democrat? Black voters (above all, older black voters). Where do so many older black voters live? In the south.

The last thing any Democrat candidate could or should do is not prioritise them.

But if they do prioritise them, and emphasise identity issues etc, what do white working class voters start to do? Move away from the Democrats... meaning that as well as being screwed in the south, they're suddenly screwed in the north too. In Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan.

All places ravaged by the demise of heavy industry under Reagan and afterwards. For the north of England, Scotland and Wales under Thatcher, read the north and mid-west of the US under Reagan and since.

But this brings me to the most problematic aspect of Owen's article.

Like Tucker Carlson in his viral video the other night, all Owen does is repeat a constant Republican talking point. Which insists that working class voters have been betrayed by ' the Democratic establishment' in Washington.

No. They've been betrayed by REPUBLICANS.

Republicans who, with regular control of the Senate for the reasons I've explained above, pass laws and pack the Court: doing terrible harm to working class people - before then blaming 'Washington gridlock' or 'the liberal elite' for the suffering they themselves cause.

Republicans who, with regular control of the Senate during Obama's presidency, made a point of blocking absolutely everything. And as Obama only had a super-majority for just 5 months (2 among whom were independents), he was limited in what he could do.

huffpost.com/entry/debunkin…

Does anyone here think the Tories will actually HELP working class voters? It's the same (in fact, it's much worse) with the Republicans... yet working class voters have flocked to them all the same as their lives have continued to get worse. Far worse.

In terms of much of his support, Trumpism is basically a cry for help from horrendous numbers of people left behind and ignored. That's where I agree with Owen - but he completely misses the reasons why, and as good as views history backwards. No context, no detail.

These people, like most of their Democrat-voting counterparts, KNOW something is wrong. Very wrong. But the electoral system is unable to represent them properly - and the Republicans play the most cynical game imaginable, just like Farage or Johnson do.

Wanna know why Pennsylvania's count still hasn't finished? Democrats pleaded with the Republican-controlled state legislature to allow the count to begin early (ie. before election day). And the Republicans VETOED IT.

Yet what does the GOP say about it?

https://twitter.com/RepBenninghoff/status/1323956615247286272

That's the entire generation-long strategy in a nutshell.

1. Undermine democracy, carry out voter suppression of working class and poor voters

2. Blame Democrats

3. Receive the vote of all those who don't pay attention to detail but believe your lies

4. Rinse and repeat.

So when so many chastise the US for still not having finished its elections, they just don't pay any attention at all to WHY that is.

And why that is is the partisan, cynical beyond belief behaviour of a party which does not believe in democracy. It knows that democracy = defeat

Think about it. A Republican legislature which is THAT nasty and THAT cynical... yet people keep voting for it! A pattern which is paralleled all over the place.

Why? Another important point. From birth, Americans practically have it ingrained into them that government is bad.

The Constitution itself was deliberately designed to cause gridlock. To try and ensure that no individual or party could ever become too powerful. It's just that what worked beautifully back then does the exact opposite now, and has enabled both Bush and Trump.

But so so many Americans still don't trust government at all. That's a massive part of why so many of them own guns: for the day when, as they see it, the government comes for them.

And it's also why they were so attracted to an anti-establishment non-politician.

And yes, the logical contradiction here is obvious: Trump WANTS to come for huge numbers of people. But not white working class people - well, not overtly, at least.

We've already seen how much the EC constrains the Democrats. Screwed in the south. Endangered in the north.

But you see: so does this mindset, held by so many, that government is 'tyrannical' and 'wants to take things away from me'.

That mentality is exactly why, the New Deal apart, socialism has never got anywhere in the US: a nation of rugged individualism.

It's cultural, in other words: massively so. And what it leads to is very many voters 'splitting their ticket': choosing one party for President, the other for Congress. And having a major penchant for checking the President by voting for the other party or not voting at midterms

It also leads to people voting differently between national level and state level; and between Congress and governor level. Another aspect ignored by so many observers of the US is states' rights. They all have different laws, different procedures, their own ways of doing things.

It's complicated. Enormously complicated, and broad brush "socialism is the cure!" explanations just do not cut it. And the reason they don't is: they just don't understand.

Biden, of course, ended up failing pretty badly in Florida and Texas.

I suspect the USPS may have had at least *something* to do with the former - but let's leave that to one side. All Trump had to do in Florida was denounce the "radical socialist left" to Cubans, Venezuelans and Puerto Ricans terrified of what they think 'socialism' is.

So much so that I don't think Florida is really a swing state any longer. Looking at who their representatives and governor are, and at this year's margin - despite Florida's shambolic handling of the pandemic - I think it's a red state now.

And Texas is still pretty red too.

In electoral college terms, that Sanders, a genuine socialist, would've done monumentally worse than Biden in Florida doesn't make a mathematical difference. But it DOES make a difference, a huge one, in its knock-on effect across the EC and the country itself.

A Sanders candidacy would've had no chance at all anywhere in the south. And his failure to connect with so many older black voters would also mean that North Carolina would not be close, and Georgia wouldn't be anywhere near in play.

Now, true: a Sanders candidacy might very well be doing better in Ohio and Iowa - but looking at the margins, probably not well enough. It might also be doing better than Biden in Nevada... but maybe not Arizona, because the McCain factor is huge in the latter.

He'd be fine on the west coast, fine in most of the north-east... but it'd likely be horribly close in New Hampshire and Maine, which are both pretty conservative by New England standards.

Where does that leave? The rust belt.

Minnesota, of course, was the one and only state to vote for Walter Mondale in 1984. So it's very liberal, right? Well - yes and no. It's the state of both Ilhan Omar AND Amy Klobuchar, whose politics could scarcely be more different.

So who won the Democratic primary in Minnesota this year?Biden, by more than 8 points. Sanders didn't even break 30%.

Elsewhere, Illinois is deep blue and surely always will be. But what about the three states Trump picked up in 2016 - the key to all this?

The argument of Sanders supporters - including Owen or @AaronBastani - is invariably that Bernie speaks the language of working class people, is anti-establishment, and provides comprehensive answers with radical, transformative policies.

This begs a rather awkward question.

Given all this:

- Why did Biden beat Sanders in Wisconsin by OVER THIRTY-ONE POINTS?

- Why did Biden beat Sanders in Pennsylvania by OVER SIXTY-ONE POINTS?

- Why did Biden beat Sanders in Michigan by OVER SIXTEEN POINTS?

- Why did turnout rise quite enormously on Super Tuesday... where Biden smashed Sanders everywhere?

- Why has Democratic turnout risen so much at the general election - with Biden, not Sanders, the nominee?

It's not, and has never been, the 'Democratic establishment' who've stopped Bernie. It's DEMOCRATIC VOTERS EVERYWHERE who've stopped him. White and black, male and female alike. His only real base is young voters and Latinos... and that's a million miles from being enough.

In the end, when (not if) Biden wins, he'll have done so by straddling a hellishly difficult divide between:

- White men who broke for Trump in 2016 and viewed Hillary as a 'liberal elitist'

- Older black men who adore Biden and hold Bernie in contempt

- Latinos from Mexico, ie. those in Arizona and Nevada

- A progressive platform

- Trust, because every American knows who he is

- Moderate calm, reason and crucially, calling for the nation to unite and heal. Which ludicrously, I've seen many of my followers pan him for.

And thanks to straddling this divide, he's going to flip all those rust belt states back. He's got his approach there exactly right.

All the evidence suggests that Bernie could not have done this. He's just too divisive for too many,

Bernie, incidentally, does MUCH better at caucuses than primaries. This was especially so in 2016, and it makes sense. His supporters are invariably the most fervent, passionate, argumentative - and the caucus process is bizarre. Very few people vote in them at all.

But at primaries, where massively higher numbers vote (including plenty who aren't that political at all), he fails. Not just in part of the country, but all over it.

Don't get me wrong. I wish it wasn't this way. I love the man and would love to see his policies implemented.

But it *is* this way for all the reasons I've provided in this epically long (even by my notorious standards) thread.

I'll close with a map of what I think the map would look like if it was Trump v Sanders (just replace Biden's name). The answer is: not good. Not good at all.

And remember: that's during a global pandemic which has kiled well over 200,000 Americans, and when the President is batshit mental. In other words, against any even semi-'normal' Republican, it'd be worse. Maybe a lot worse.

The problem is the system. Which both stems from and reinforces the culture. The gargantuan task facing the Democratic Party is somehow to change that culture. And they'll have to: because Latinos and younger black voters won't hang around much longer if they don't.

Meaning that in future (2028 onwards), their base won't be in the rust belt. It'll be in the north-east as ever, AND in the west and south-west. And Texas will be the prize that decides it all.

That's why I think the future will ultimately lie with AOC (who as well as being superb, has a star power which could make her President one day) and the Justice Dems.

But not yet. Nowhere near yet. The work ahead to get to that point will be huge.

And will require an understanding of electoral realities in America which far, far too many on the UK left lack.

Even though what they all propose would make the US so, so much better.

PS. Almost forgot. When the Senate (and the House too) over-represents rural conservative America so much, what would happen downballot under a Sanders candidacy?

Wipeout, because moderate votes just would not come. And wipeout means no chance for the President in any case.

One final addendum to this thread. This is a projected map of how I imagine 2032 might look, with a much more leftist Democratic Party under, say, AOC.

The rust belt would be permanently Republican. The state deciding everything would be Texas.

NB. Note that the electoral college tallies for each state would be a bit different, as they're adjusted every decade. But it gives you a rough idea: the rust belt would be permanently Republican, and the Dems' base would look very different.