2020 Democratic Primaries/General Election Thread

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't know why conservative Christians think liberal Christians doesn't understand the core of their beliefs. We just don't think it's theologically justified. The same way that conservative Christians think our position on gay marriage is theologically justified - but of course they believe we don't read or understand the Bible without even once considering we interpret Scripture very, very differently than they do.

From my POV, it's because most liberal Christians don't. I except you from this based on past conversations, but whether it's anecdotal with the liberal Christians I've met personally, well-known books on various subjects including soteriology and biblical interpretation by regarded liberal scholars, etc., my experience is a near-universal disregard of the basic Reformation arguments relating to the authority and interpretation of the Bible. Over and over and over again I see them bypassed with no serious attempt to engage with them, so the conclusion I've regularly drawn is that they either don't care or don't have a good answer to them.

As an example, a lot of the rhetoric takes the form of this, which I think a very close paraphrase of a well-known author: "At the end the day, that kind of God isn't worthy of being believed, much less worshipped." This isn't a one-off, that's the thrust of the 'argument' from this author and many other widely-read ones. To which my response is basically: "That's a great humanistic argument. Do you have anything to say that might be recognizable as Christian - as in, of or pertaining to Christ or the Word in which he is revealed, if he is revealed anywhere?".

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

the responsibility to submit to whatever government is in place (Romans, Peter, etc).

Paul and Peter, of course, famously did not submit to whatever government was in place. Which is why they were both crucified .

[Brian Swartz]

I think you know what I meant, but to clarify for any others who might not; the general principle of submission of respect is still there even while disobeying. I don't see any grounds for disobedience except as it concerns governmental commands conflicting with commands of God for the behavior of the individual believer(Daniel, apostles in Acts, etc). As I've said before, I carry this to the point (and beyond) that the American colonies were not justified in their revolution against England.

[Thomkal]

So my absentee ballot didn't get put in a dumpster, dropped in a ditch, or put in a ballot box placed by the Republican party, thank the gods.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

From my POV, it's because most liberal Christians don't. I except you from this based on past conversations, but whether it's anecdotal with the liberal Christians I've met personally, well-known books on various subjects including soteriology and biblical interpretation by regarded liberal scholars, etc., my experience is a near-universal disregard of the basic Reformation arguments relating to the authority and interpretation of the Bible. Over and over and over again I see them bypassed with no serious attempt to engage with them, so the conclusion I've regularly drawn is that they either don't care or don't have a good answer to them.

As an example, a lot of the rhetoric takes the form of this, which I think a very close paraphrase of a well-known author: "At the end the day, that kind of God isn't worthy of being believed, much less worshipped." This isn't a one-off, that's the thrust of the 'argument' from this author and many other widely-read ones. To which my response is basically: "That's a great humanistic argument. Do you have anything to say that might be recognizable as Christian - as in, of or pertaining to Christ or the Word in which he is revealed, if he is revealed anywhere?".

This is part of what I'm talking about, to be honest. There is a notion that if one does not start from a fundamentalist principle, theological underpinnings aren't serious. Even the most liberal theologians, von Harnack, Borg, even Spong, know Scripture very well - their interpretations are simply very different - and even farther left than my own. They wrote quite massive works of theology where they grapple with these ideas and come to different ends.

Liberal Christians, as a vast majority if not entirely, believe one should realize that Scripture was written by flawed men. They may have been inspired by God, but that does not mean God put pen in their hands and possessed them. Therefore their biases are important to consider. Which also means what is important is the grand themes of Scripture and living into the Spirit of God's will. Meaning that the questions of whether a God cognizant with of 'worthy to be worshipped' is very important - if God is Love and God does something that does not make sense with the axiom then the default is go back to God's nature over a story which may be flawed.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Yes, because it's important that such tactics not become normal and accepted and rewarded. Since Garland happened, my position has been the Democrats should refuse to consider any other candidate - or given how long it's been now, any candidate that isn't similar to Garland. Right that wrong first, and then we can move on.

I don't have a problem with the Barrett nomination in a vacuum. We aren't in a vacuum. As important as SCOTUS justices are, they aren't as important as the integrity of governmental institutions as a whole - and most people here know that there aren't many people more conservative than me on Constitutional matters. It's a massive important issue, but this is even more fundamental than that.

And that's the thing. Republicans are muttering about precedent and how THIS precedent is different from THAT precedent while pointedly ignoring the Lincoln precedent - the ONE precedent that's remotely applicable here - because it's all about power games.

But in playing those power games, if the other side isn't willing to play right back, the institution is undermined.

Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrent doesn't deter if one side unilaterally disarms, and that's kind of where we're at. Republicans have shown that they're willing to do whatever it takes, counting on Democrats to roll over and take it. If Democrats prove 'em right, they'll do it again, and again, and again, and that's the end of the institution. If they show a spine, then maybe - maybe - Republicans won't be quite so blatant about undermining 220 year old institutions in the name of political power.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So my absentee ballot didn't get put in a dumpster, dropped in a ditch, or put in a ballot box placed by the Republican party, thank the gods.

I just checked and my ballot shows as received as well.

I'm registered Republican in a Republican state, so I guess I wasn't targeted.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

I just checked and my ballot shows as received as well.

I'm registered Republican in a Republican state, so I guess I wasn't targeted.

Heh

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

liberal Christians, as a vast majority if not entirely, believe one should realize that Scripture was written by flawed men. They may have been inspired by God, but that does not mean God put pen in their hands and possessed them. Therefore their biases are important to consider. Which also means what is important is the grand themes of Scripture and living into the Spirit of God's will.

Even taking your last sentence, I still have yet to encounter a cogent interpretive framework that really does that from the kinds of people you describe however. What will typically happen is they'll base many arguments on one or two verses, and then you point out that the New Testament says something different a dozen or 20 times, and the response is 'that's not what God is like'.

Maybe they're right about God, but I've never been able to discover anything resembling a consistent hermeneutic. It doesn't have to be a fundamentalist one, but there have to some sort of principles aside from 'I like God this way' governing it. It always reads a lot more like fitting Scripture into a predetermined doctrine of God than the other way around.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If they show a spine, then maybe - maybe - Republicans won't be quite so blatant about undermining 220 year old institutions in the name of political power.

What evidence is there of this when we've seen nothing but escalation for almost 40 years? I don't see any realistic way this happens. The only realistic solution, and it's still a long shot, IMO is the electorate deciding to vote for responsibility more often than it doesn't. In order for them to do that, somebody has to be available to vote for who plans on being responsible.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

100% agree, this is extremely well-put. My discussions of how a Christian should interact with politics always start with it shouldn't be a major priority, relatively speaking, and the responsibility to submit to whatever government is in place (Romans, Peter, etc).
Large sections of American Christianity definitely have this very wrong IMO.

I agree with you completely here. The fact that we have an ability to dissent and even have a voice in government under modern democracies open things up quit a bit, but under standard rule Christians should be the best citizens of whatever government they live.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

This is me as well. I think MacArthur is probably the best preacher alive today, but this is really over the line.

Agree again. When I was in school through my years in ministry, I used the MacArthur Study Bible as my every day Bible.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

From my POV, it's because most liberal Christians don't. I except you from this based on past conversations, but whether it's anecdotal with the liberal Christians I've met personally, well-known books on various subjects including soteriology and biblical interpretation by regarded liberal scholars, etc., my experience is a near-universal disregard of the basic Reformation arguments relating to the authority and interpretation of the Bible. Over and over and over again I see them bypassed with no serious attempt to engage with them, so the conclusion I've regularly drawn is that they either don't care or don't have a good answer to them.

As an example, a lot of the rhetoric takes the form of this, which I think a very close paraphrase of a well-known author: "At the end the day, that kind of God isn't worthy of being believed, much less worshipped." This isn't a one-off, that's the thrust of the 'argument' from this author and many other widely-read ones. To which my response is basically: "That's a great humanistic argument. Do you have anything to say that might be recognizable as Christian - as in, of or pertaining to Christ or the Word in which he is revealed, if he is revealed anywhere?".

I can see where you get that opinion, but I strongly disagree. I do think there is a strong conflict in the Christian faith in how we look at the Bible (our hermeneutic so to speak), but to suggest one is less studious than the other is simply not true. I can follow with anecdotal evidence of conservative Christians who "proof text" everything, and wouldn't begin to know how to really break-down and study scripture. I don't want to get to insulting, but there is quite a bit of conservative teaching that is just directly anti-scholarly.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think you know what I meant, but to clarify for any others who might not; the general principle of submission of respect is still there even while disobeying. I don't see any grounds for disobedience except as it concerns governmental commands conflicting with commands of God for the behavior of the individual believer(Daniel, apostles in Acts, etc). As I've said before, I carry this to the point (and beyond) that the American colonies were not justified in their revolution against England.

Yes, that would be a logical conclusion to follow that belief to the extreme. Of course, the counter would be that there was imposition on free Christian worship that could have been used as justification. The colonies were full of Christian groups that had faced prosecution from England, and a strong England could continue such persecution in the Colonies at any time. Of course all of that is neither here nor there in this discussion.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I can follow with anecdotal evidence of conservative Christians who "proof text" everything, and wouldn't begin to know how to really break-down and study scripture. I don't want to get to insulting, but there is quite a bit of conservative teaching that is just directly anti-scholarly.

I'm with you on this as well. I'm far from an apologist for all conservative Biblical scholarship. I do though see a difference when you compare the better aspects of the respective schools of thought.

[Kodos]

When you come for the political talk and get a bunch of religious discussion.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Even taking your last sentence, I still have yet to encounter a cogent interpretive framework that really does that from the kinds of people you describe however. What will typically happen is they'll base many arguments on one or two verses, and then you point out that the New Testament says something different a dozen or 20 times, and the response is 'that's not what God is like'.

Maybe they're right about God, but I've never been able to discover anything resembling a consistent hermeneutic. It doesn't have to be a fundamentalist one, but there have to some sort of principles aside from 'I like God this way' governing it. It always reads a lot more like fitting Scripture into a predetermined doctrine of God than the other way around.

Sort of touches on what I was typing while you were typing this
I think the approach is much more that they do a hard study on what is "kernel" for the lack of a better vocabulary (you having me drawing on things a studied 20-30 years ago) and use it to illuminate the rest of scripture. Less "I like God that way" and more "find the true essence of God, study the nature and society of men at the time, and sift out the man to find truth." Probably a butchered way of explaining it, but something like.

[Brian Swartz]

Good point Kodos. I'll cease and desist this tangent. I apologize, I shouldn't have let it get this far.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Kodos

When you come for the political talk and get a bunch of religious discussion.

Sorry, we did begin to chase a rabbit there.

"Trump bad. Biden good."
Better?

[Brian Swartz]

That we can agree on. Trump bad. Trump very, very, bad.

[Edward64]

I am worried all the good (seemingly daily) polling news re: large margins etc. for Biden on MSM may cause complacency.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Sorry, we did begin to chase a rabbit there.

"Trump bad. Biden good."
Better?

Perfect! Maybe a Lincoln Project vid link to really sell it?!

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I am worried all the good (seemingly daily) polling news re: large margins etc. for Biden on MSM may cause complacency.

I would hope nobody gets complacent after what happened last time and what we have had to endure for the last 4 years.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I am worried all the good (seemingly daily) polling news re: large margins etc. for Biden on MSM may cause complacency.

It's certainly possible.

I know anecdotes don't equal data but I was enthused by what I saw this morning.

Early voting started in Texas today and lines were as long as I've ever seen them for our local polling place. Lines were longer than an hour in suburban Houston whereas I can usually get in and out in a few minutes. There's an extra week of early voting but people were out there in droves today. We'll be going next week when it dies down a bit but it's a crazy high level of turnout at first blush.

SI

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

It's certainly possible.

I know anecdotes don't equal data but I was enthused by what I saw this morning.

Early voting started in Texas today and lines were as long as I've ever seen them for our local polling place. Lines were longer than an hour in suburban Houston whereas I can usually get in and out in a few minutes. There's an extra week of early voting but people were out there in droves today. We'll be going next week when it dies down a bit but it's a crazy high level of turnout at first blush.

SI

You can definitely see the enthusiasm in the long wait times. I still don't get people waiting as long as they did yesterday here (in Georgia) when I imagine by Thursday there will be probably be next to no lines in most places. We have three weeks of early voting. Are they afraid of a shut-down? Was it just because of the bank holiday?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

You can definitely see the enthusiasm in the long wait times. I still don't get people waiting as long as they did yesterday here (in Georgia) when I imagine by Thursday there will be probably be next to no lines in most places. We have three weeks of early voting. Are they afraid of a shut-down? Was it just because of the bank holiday?

I guarantee you it was due to the holiday. No need to call off work (for some jobs) or pull the kids out of school.

[Brian Swartz]

I think it might be peace of mind. I'm voting now so I can be sure I voted and it was counted, who knows what's going to happen the closer we get to E-day, etc. Kind of like how you feel when you check off an item from your to-do list that you could have done anytime - you still feel better having done it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

And that's the thing. Republicans are muttering about precedent and how THIS precedent is different from THAT precedent while pointedly ignoring the Lincoln precedent - the ONE precedent that's remotely applicable here - because it's all about power games.

But in playing those power games, if the other side isn't willing to play right back, the institution is undermined.

Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrent doesn't deter if one side unilaterally disarms, and that's kind of where we're at. Republicans have shown that they're willing to do whatever it takes, counting on Democrats to roll over and take it. If Democrats prove 'em right, they'll do it again, and again, and again, and that's the end of the institution. If they show a spine, then maybe - maybe - Republicans won't be quite so blatant about undermining 220 year old institutions in the name of political power.

Exactly my argument as well.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

You can definitely see the enthusiasm in the long wait times. I still don't get people waiting as long as they did yesterday here (in Georgia) when I imagine by Thursday there will be probably be next to no lines in most places. We have three weeks of early voting. Are they afraid of a shut-down? Was it just because of the bank holiday?

Partly the holiday but I also think a lot of people are worried about fuckery down the line. So get in your vote as early as possible before they shut down early voting sites or whatever.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I think it might be peace of mind. I'm voting now so I can be sure I voted and it was counted, who knows what's going to happen the closer we get to E-day, etc. Kind of like how you feel when you check off an item from your to-do list that you could have done anytime - you still feel better having done it.

Agreed

Our plan is to go next week but I would not wait until Election Day at all this year, if I can help it (and I know some cannot)

SI

[ISiddiqui]

It appears the sexting scandals had little to no impact on the NC Senate race:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - North Carolina Senate - Tillis vs. Cunningham

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It appears the sexting scandals had little to no impact on the NC Senate race:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - North Carolina Senate - Tillis vs. Cunningham

I was waiting for that to move the needle but I didn't see it in the most recent polling. I'm shocked, honestly.

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It appears the sexting scandals had little to no impact on the NC Senate race:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - North Carolina Senate - Tillis vs. Cunningham

I guess he lost support among women but gained support among men.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I was waiting for that to move the needle but I didn't see it in the most recent polling. I'm shocked, honestly.

SI

One of the polls being +10 for Cunningham made me laugh out loud. I guess no one cares about sexting other people while married anymore! Anthony Weiner was a decade too late!

[RainMaker]

The President was having an affair with a pornstar while his wife was home nursing their child. Pretty sure you're going to have to be much more lurid to make a mark in the electorate.

[GrantDawg]

Weiner texted underage girls. That will never fly.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[ISiddiqui]

Just wait a few years.

[RainMaker]

Well unless you're half the Alabama electorate.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Well unless you're half the Alabama electorate.

He did it the old fashioned way, in person. That texting stuff is the Devil.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

It appears the sexting scandals had little to no impact on the NC Senate race:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - North Carolina Senate - Tillis vs. Cunningham

Thanks Trump!

[SirFozzie]

I saw a couple stories that some in the GOP are just hoping to keep it 51-49 D's, and that some folks are projecting a swing of SEVEN seats to the D's. Which is just nuts. Nice. But nuts.

[Brian Swartz]

I want to believe - but don't really - that people are just so committed to voting against Trump that they are temporarily disregarding other factors.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I want to believe - but don't really - that people are just so committed to voting against Trump that they are temporarily disregarding other factors.

I would believe it.

[GrantDawg]

538 has Dems ending with 55 seats at 55%. It is totally crazy feeling, but in the realm if quite possible. I would guess 52-53 is where it will end up.
Btw, there are polls showing now that it is possible that both Georgia Senate seats could go to a run-off in January. They gave the libertarian polling at 4% in the Perdue-Ossoff race.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[larrymcg421]

I'm not confident about the Dems if both GA races go to runoffs, especially if the likely scenario is that Biden has won big and Dems may already have 50+ seats, Dem turnout may be low.

[GrantDawg]

I doubt the 55 number includes either Georgia Senate seat. I think 538 predicts both to go GOP.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[larrymcg421]

Wait, did you mean 5.5% or 55%? Right now, it shows 5.2% at 55 seats, but you''d want to include the totals above 55. So the odds of Dems getting 55 seats or more would be 11.4% right now.

I don't see how they get to 55 seats without at least one of the GA seats. Right now, 538 has Dems picking up 5 seats and losing 1. This is a gain of 4, which would them at 51.

[kingfc22]

Whatever it takes to put Mitch in the backseat of the car.

[Swaggs]

Not that it matters much long-term politically or possibly at all, but from what I have watched of the ACB hearing (about 90 minutes this evening), it seems a little odd how much they are focusing on her family/motherhood. I’d be interested to see how it plays out in focus groups, as I can understand wanting to champion how impressive it is to have seven kids while having such an impressive career, but it also feels a little sexist to keep focusing on that rather than her accomplishments and judgments.

I guess these hearings have gotten progressively more personal like that, but I absolutely could not tell you how many children any other present or past justice have/had or really even if they are/were married, aside from RBG (only after she died, saw mentions of her husband and daughter) and maybe Kavanaugh (think he’s married and has daughters because I believe I heard he coached girls’ basketball).

[PilotMan]

Sharing this here, but it could very well fit in the trump thread too. We've talked about the mindset behind what drives some of this, and here we have some empirical data that ties authoritarian beliefs with religion and support for trump. The psychologist in me is mesmerized and terrified all the same.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...rian-research/

A new book by a psychology professor and a former lawyer in the Nixon White House argues that Trump has tapped into a current of authoritarianism in the American electorate, one that’s bubbled just below the surface for years. In “Authoritarian Nightmare,” Bob Altemeyer and John W. Dean marshal data from a previously unpublished nationwide survey showing a striking desire for strong authoritarian leadership among Republican voters.

They also find shockingly high levels of anti-democratic beliefs and prejudicial attitudes among Trump backers, especially those who support the president strongly. And regardless of what happens in 2020, the authors say, Trump supporters will be a potent pro-authoritarian voting bloc in the years to come.

They found a striking linear relationship between support for Trump and an authoritarian mind-set: The stronger a person supported Trump, the higher he or she scored on the RWA scale. People saying they strongly disapproved of Trump, for instance, had an average RWA score of 54. Those indicating complete support of the president, on the other hand, had an average score of 119, more than twice as authoritarian as Trump opponents.

Many fervent Trump supporters, Altemeyer and Dean write, “are submissive, fearful, and longing for a mighty leader who will protect them from life’s threats. They divide the world into friend and foe, with the latter greatly outnumbering the former.”

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Sharing this here, but it could very well fit in the trump thread too. We've talked about the mindset behind what drives some of this, and here we have some empirical data that ties authoritarian beliefs with religion and support for trump. The psychologist in me is mesmerized and terrified all the same.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...rian-research/

Not surprising. In their heart, they’re racist cowards wanting white American exceptionalism. And they keep voting for the message and not the substance behind it. Stupid fuckers.

[albionmoonlight]

"My Opponent is so pathetic that he's just like all of you losers" is an . . . interesting closing pitch to the Florida 65+ community:

pic.twitter.com/wJN4zv0y8O

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 14, 2020

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Wait, did you mean 5.5% or 55%? Right now, it shows 5.2% at 55 seats, but you''d want to include the totals above 55. So the odds of Dems getting 55 seats or more would be 11.4% right now.

I don't see how they get to 55 seats without at least one of the GA seats. Right now, 538 has Dems picking up 5 seats and losing 1. This is a gain of 4, which would them at 51.

I swear he said on the podcast 55%.