If Biden loses, he must urge union

[Obama24]

I'm a big fan of the movie Lincoln.

While I do believe we are not near the point of a civil war, we are deeply and bitterly divided.

If Biden loses, there shall be tears. Anger. There will be yet more division than presently, with fingers pointed and unkind words drawn like so many swords against one another.

If Biden loses, he must use the last of his political strength to urge union. He must with the last of his political will drop politics altogether and neither paint his defeat as that of democracy, nor the victory of those he has termed 'Ultra Maga.' He must, in defeat, give us a sense of grace that Trump in his loss couldn't.

Circling back to the beginning of my post, a line by Lincoln in that film speaks to me of our time:

"Say all we done is show the world that democracy isn't chaos, that there is a great invisible strength in a people's union. Say we've shown that a people can endure awful sacrifice and yet cohere. Mightn't that save at least the idea of democracy, to aspire to? Eventually to become worthy of?"

If he can do this, in defeat, rise above all politics to bind the disparate and embittered parts of our union together, than even if he is a one termer, he will have marked himself as among the great.

[Antonio the Sixth]

imagine being this f**king cucked in the year of our Lord 2024

[Obama24]

imagine being this f**king cucked in the year of our Lord 2024

Wanting a more united country is being cucked?

I'm a Democrat. When I came up the Democratic Party was the party of the people who wanted better. The party that opposed the Iraq War, waterboarding, and torture. The party that preached togetherness and that brought a black man to the White House just 40 years after the ending of Jim Crow.

My ideals as such instruct me that one must rise above the ugliness the other side offers. Perhaps your brand of politics is the politics of perpetual anger, perpetual hatred, perpetual animosity and perpetual war. But wanting your country to be less divided isn't being "cucked." It's what you should believe in.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

imagine being this f**king cucked in the year of our Lord 2024

Wanting a more united country is being cucked?

I'm a Democrat. When I came up the Democratic Party was the party of the people who wanted better. The party that opposed the Iraq War, waterboarding, and torture. The party that preached togetherness and that brought a black man to the White House just 40 years after the ending of Jim Crow.

My ideals as such instruct me that one must rise above the ugliness the other side offers. Perhaps your brand of politics is the politics of perpetual anger, perpetual hatred, perpetual animosity and perpetual war. But wanting your country to be less divided isn't being "cucked." It's what you should believe in.

When Republicans lost the 2020 election, they didn’t urge unity, they attempted a coup. The Republican Party is not a democratic institution. We can’t be naïve.

[SWE]

Republicans are the enemy and it would be doing the country a disservice to ignore this obvious reality

[Obama24]

Republicans are the enemy and it would be doing the country a disservice to ignore this obvious reality

You consider 70 million odd people your enemy? Pray tell, what should be done about them?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Republicans are the enemy and it would be doing the country a disservice to ignore this obvious reality

You consider 70 million odd people your enemy? Pray tell, what should be done about them?

Well, they shouldn’t hold political office.

[Obama24]

Republicans are the enemy and it would be doing the country a disservice to ignore this obvious reality

You consider 70 million odd people your enemy? Pray tell, what should be done about them?

Well, they shouldn’t hold political office.

But they're enemies, right? How do you propose to actually stop them? Do you propose barring all registered Republicans from elected office? Voting? What else, after?

[darklordoftech]

If only Trump urged union in 2020.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If only Trump urged union in 2020.

Yes and it ended up being really bad not only for the nation but the GOP. If he did:

- The GOP does way better in 2022

- Trump comes back and easily wins in 2024

So its very possible Trump not doing this kept republicans from having the Presidency, a solid House Majority and 60 senate seats come Jan 2025.

[President Johnson]

I'm honestly tired of the talking points that Democrats should always urge for union and bipartisanship, while a large majority of the Republican Party never does that and is morally just bankrupt.

Democrats constantly have reached out to the other side in good faith over the last few years. They're also a much more constructive opposition in congress with a Republican in the White House, while the three Democratic presidents of the last 30 years have faced relentless and fundamental opposition from congressional Republicans (while the number of lesser partisan Republicans constantly declines as they're primaried or forced to retire for being "traitors"). The Republican Party constantly lowers the standards and when Democrats slightly retaliate, they're being slammed by the media as obstructionist and divisive. Give me a break.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm honestly tired of the talking points that Democrats should always urge for union and bipartisanship, while a large majority of the Republican Party never does that and is morally just bankrupt.

Democrats constantly have reached out to the other side in good faith over the last few years. They're also a much more constructive opposition in congress with a Republican in the White House, while the three Democratic presidents of the last 30 years have faced relentless and fundamental opposition from congressional Republicans (while the number of lesser partisan Republicans constantly declines as they're primaried or forced to retire for being "traitors"). The Republican Party constantly lowers the standards and when Democrats slightly retaliate, they're being slammed by the media as obstructionist and divisive. Give me a break.

I mean the Republicans did not really do obstructionism under Clinton. The Republican House passed quite a bit actually and one of Clinton's arguments in 1996 was that if Dole was elected he would just sign all of this into law .

So I would not say it was obstructionism but the opposition in which Clinton acted a check on the GOP's agenda rather than the other way around. Like just look at the stuff passed then:

- Multiple deregulation bills
- welfare reform
- spending cuts
- line item veto(which SCOTUS sadly struck down)
- CHIP
- different crime bills(there were more than just the 1994 one)
- Capital Gain Tax Cuts


like Clinton and the GOP congress actually got a lot done together

[President Johnson]

I'm honestly tired of the talking points that Democrats should always urge for union and bipartisanship, while a large majority of the Republican Party never does that and is morally just bankrupt.

Democrats constantly have reached out to the other side in good faith over the last few years. They're also a much more constructive opposition in congress with a Republican in the White House, while the three Democratic presidents of the last 30 years have faced relentless and fundamental opposition from congressional Republicans (while the number of lesser partisan Republicans constantly declines as they're primaried or forced to retire for being "traitors"). The Republican Party constantly lowers the standards and when Democrats slightly retaliate, they're being slammed by the media as obstructionist and divisive. Give me a break.

I mean the Republicans did not really do obstructionism under Clinton. The Republican House passed quite a bit actually and one of Clinton's arguments in 1996 was that if Dole was elected he would just sign all of this into law .

So I would not say it was obstructionism but the opposition in which Clinton acted a check on the GOP's agenda rather than the other way around. Like just look at the stuff passed then:

- Multiple deregulation bills
- welfare reform
- spending cuts
- line item veto(which SCOTUS sadly struck down)
- CHIP
- different crime bills(there were more than just the 1994 one)
- Capital Gain Tax Cuts


like Clinton and the GOP congress actually got a lot done together

Most of that was pretty right-wing stuff though, like the repeal of Glass Steagall and DOMA. Even a lot of Democrats voted for that. However, the 1990s were the time when hyper partisanship really begun. They also endlessly investigated Clinton and impeached him for purely political reasons.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm honestly tired of the talking points that Democrats should always urge for union and bipartisanship, while a large majority of the Republican Party never does that and is morally just bankrupt.

Democrats constantly have reached out to the other side in good faith over the last few years. They're also a much more constructive opposition in congress with a Republican in the White House, while the three Democratic presidents of the last 30 years have faced relentless and fundamental opposition from congressional Republicans (while the number of lesser partisan Republicans constantly declines as they're primaried or forced to retire for being "traitors"). The Republican Party constantly lowers the standards and when Democrats slightly retaliate, they're being slammed by the media as obstructionist and divisive. Give me a break.

I mean the Republicans did not really do obstructionism under Clinton. The Republican House passed quite a bit actually and one of Clinton's arguments in 1996 was that if Dole was elected he would just sign all of this into law .

So I would not say it was obstructionism but the opposition in which Clinton acted a check on the GOP's agenda rather than the other way around. Like just look at the stuff passed then:

- Multiple deregulation bills
- welfare reform
- spending cuts
- line item veto(which SCOTUS sadly struck down)
- CHIP
- different crime bills(there were more than just the 1994 one)
- Capital Gain Tax Cuts


like Clinton and the GOP congress actually got a lot done together

Most of that was pretty right-wing stuff though, like the repeal of Glass Steagall and DOMA. Even a lot of Democrats voted for that. However, the 1990s were the time when hyper partisanship really begun. They also endlessly investigated Clinton and impeached him for purely political reasons.

Sure but a lot of that was the American mood in the 1990s was pretty right wing overall. Keep in mind Clinton in the 1992 campaigned on spending cuts , being tough on crime , for welfare reform and actively said he is not like democrats of the old and when he tried to govern like a liberal democrat in his first two year it resulted in a massive backlash .

Clinton probably concluded himself that the mood of the country in the 1990s was still pretty right wing(ballot measure from that decade show this too) and decided that it would be better for liberalism to use his power to water down right wing  policies  rather  than risk losing in 1996 and letting them pass fully. He all but admitted the reason he did DOMA was to prevent a marriage amendment and part of the reason why he governed more right wing economically was to prevent the balanced budget amendment from passing which was only one vote away from passing . So a lot of what he did was to basically allow liberalism to live to fight another day  as both those amendments passing would have been a complete disaster for liberals economically and socially .

The country’s mood did become more liberal by 2000 though as Bush ran considerably to the center of the GOP congress and economically governed more moderately than a Republican administration in the mid 1990s would have . A Republican win in 1996 would have pretty much affirmed the country wanted all the policies that the Republican house wanted to pass with no checks and that agenda was definitely more right wing than the agenda Bush got passed .

You could argue Clinton vs Gingrich was like two parliamentary heavy weights going at each other in a minority government and Clinton ended up winning as he knew better when to keep his power dry and when to attack while Newt didn’t and ended up self destructing.

[Pro-Israel, anti-Bibi]

No quarter to tyrants.

[S019]

If Democrats lose the election and there isn’t any evidence of irregularities or fraud, they should obviously concede. It’s in the best interest of the country that we don’t have these fights over the legitimacy of the election, after every single election. Also, obviously we would want to wish the President well and hope that he/she is successful, no matter who they are.

Apart from Donald Trump, every single concession speech has followed these basic rules, and I don’t see why Biden would depart from that, if he lost.

[bagelman]

If a Republican other than Donald Trump, especially if they're sane, wins against Biden then I would agree with you.

[politicallefty]

If Democrats lose the election and there isn’t any evidence of irregularities or fraud, they should obviously concede. It’s in the best interest of the country that we don’t have these fights over the legitimacy of the election, after every single election. Also, obviously we would want to wish the President well and hope that he/she is successful, no matter who they are.

Apart from Donald Trump, every single concession speech has followed these basic rules, and I don’t see why Biden would depart from that, if he lost.

Try this example then: Biden wins the popular vote by around the same as 2020, but the Electoral College is tied. Democrats narrowly win back the House by the slimmest of margins while the Senate is tied. A majority of state delegations in the House vote for Trump.

Would you urge concession or unity in that case?

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

This entirely depends on how he loses, but no, he cannot follow in Trump's footsteps and try for a coup. That much should be clear.

Of course, he could say what he wants and it wouldn't do much when Trump is celebrating his victory by screaming for blood.

[S019]

If Democrats lose the election and there isn’t any evidence of irregularities or fraud, they should obviously concede. It’s in the best interest of the country that we don’t have these fights over the legitimacy of the election, after every single election. Also, obviously we would want to wish the President well and hope that he/she is successful, no matter who they are.

Apart from Donald Trump, every single concession speech has followed these basic rules, and I don’t see why Biden would depart from that, if he lost.

Try this example then: Biden wins the popular vote by around the same as 2020, but the Electoral College is tied. Democrats narrowly win back the House by the slimmest of margins while the Senate is tied. A majority of state delegations in the House vote for Trump.

Would you urge concession or unity in that case?

Well I think the Electoral College should be abolished. That said, in such a case, the Constitution says that the election is decided by a contingent election in the House. It would be losing the election fair and square, and the losing candidate should concede.

[Schiff for Senate]

If only Trump urged union in 2020.

Yes and it ended up being really bad not only for the nation but the GOP. If he did:

- The GOP does way better in 2022

- Trump comes back and easily wins in 2024

So its very possible Trump not doing this kept republicans from having the Presidency, a solid House Majority and 60 senate seats come Jan 2025.

He would never manage 60 senate seats lol

Let's say Trump immediately concedes and behaves himself. Looking immediately at the GA senate runoffs, I actually think Kelly Loeffler would still have lost to Raphael Warnock; she was unpopular and Warnock was definitely a much stronger candidate than her (there's a reason there was a small-but-significant overperformance by Warnock over both Biden and Ossoff). Perdue would probably have held on, though. That means a 51-49 R senate for the 117th congress.

Looking ahead to 2022, given just how much Walker won by and the fact that there was no real opposition candidate to him, GA would've gone the same as in OTL. Maybe McCormick would've won the PA-SEN primary, but given the way he's campaigning rn in OTL, I think he would still have been portrayed as "out-of-touch" the way that Oz ultimately was, and lost the election.

Masters won the AZ primary as much because he was supported by Theil as because he was supported by Trump, and he was a crappy candidate who would've lost to Kelly even without the Big Lie (he lost by nearly 5 points in OTL).

Really only NV was close enough to flip in 2022, and I think maybe Laxalt could've won if he hadn't had to peddle the election lie. So that makes it 52-48 R.

Now kindly explain how you see the GOP flipping 8 more seats this year to get to the 60 seat mark?

Solid house majority is also pretty far-fetched...the Republicans have proven themselves unfit of governing as the majority, and tbh, the speakership debacles have less to do with Trump's Big Lie and more to do with the rise of the far-right generally. With the sh**tshow that's been going on in the House of Representatives since last year, I firmly believe that even if the GOP held a majority in 2024, it would not be that wide.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If only Trump urged union in 2020.

Yes and it ended up being really bad not only for the nation but the GOP. If he did:

- The GOP does way better in 2022

- Trump comes back and easily wins in 2024

So its very possible Trump not doing this kept republicans from having the Presidency, a solid House Majority and 60 senate seats come Jan 2025.

He would never manage 60 senate seats lol

Let's say Trump immediately concedes and behaves himself. Looking immediately at the GA senate runoffs, I actually think Kelly Loeffler would still have lost to Raphael Warnock; she was unpopular and Warnock was definitely a much stronger candidate than her (there's a reason there was a small-but-significant overperformance by Warnock over both Biden and Ossoff). Perdue would probably have held on, though. That means a 51-49 R senate for the 117th congress.

Looking ahead to 2022, given just how much Walker won by and the fact that there was no real opposition candidate to him, GA would've gone the same as in OTL. Maybe McCormick would've won the PA-SEN primary, but given the way he's campaigning rn in OTL, I think he would still have been portrayed as "out-of-touch" the way that Oz ultimately was, and lost the election.

Masters won the AZ primary as much because he was supported by Theil as because he was supported by Trump, and he was a crappy candidate who would've lost to Kelly even without the Big Lie (he lost by nearly 5 points in OTL).

Really only NV was close enough to flip in 2022, and I think maybe Laxalt could've won if he hadn't had to peddle the election lie. So that makes it 52-48 R.

Now kindly explain how you see the GOP flipping 8 more seats this year to get to the 60 seat mark?

Solid house majority is also pretty far-fetched...the Republicans have proven themselves unfit of governing as the majority, and tbh, the speakership debacles have less to do with Trump's Big Lie and more to do with the rise of the far-right generally. With the sh**tshow that's been going on in the House of Representatives since last year, I firmly believe that even if the GOP held a majority in 2024, it would not be that wide.

The 8 seats would be : WV OH MT NV AZ WI MI PA . Basically if Trump got the 2016 map + NV that means democrats would have to win senate seats in places that they are losing presidentially  Currently that would give the republicans 57 which is 3 short .

Also if Trump conceded and behaved himself , Biden losing the NPV wouldn’t be out of the question either which makes the over performance required even higher than otherwise . And btw say Republicans don’t get to 60 it’s not hard to see them get to 58/59 with around 235 house seats . So it’s absolutely clear Trump denying the election cost the Republicans quite a bit .

[Vice President Christian Man]

I'm honestly tired of the talking points that Democrats should always urge for union and bipartisanship, while a large majority of the Republican Party never does that and is morally just bankrupt.

Democrats constantly have reached out to the other side in good faith over the last few years. They're also a much more constructive opposition in congress with a Republican in the White House, while the three Democratic presidents of the last 30 years have faced relentless and fundamental opposition from congressional Republicans (while the number of lesser partisan Republicans constantly declines as they're primaried or forced to retire for being "traitors"). The Republican Party constantly lowers the standards and when Democrats slightly retaliate, they're being slammed by the media as obstructionist and divisive. Give me a break.

You're not wrong, but I see attempted bipartisanship as taking the high road and them being better on a moral level. At least they can campaign on "we tried working with them but they wouldn't cooperate" which might not work in 2024, but it certainly worked in 1996 and 2012. I don't think surrendering to them and being the ones to refuse if they somehow decided to work with them would be smart optics.