|
FizFashizzle posted:Is there any other job where you could fail as miserably as dem leadership and not be expected to resign? Seyser Koze posted:Cop? They're doing their jobs, though. There's a difference between what people think their jobs ought to be and what they actually are
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
Rigel posted:This year is the acid test. As far as the politicians are concerned, this November decides it: either the voters give a poo poo about abortion, or they don't. If the voters collectively tell the politicians that they don't really care that much, then the parties will conclude that abortion is only useful for raising money but won't actually get them votes. Voters are collectively telling the democrats to do something hit the democrats sit and twiddle their thumbs. The Democrats are going to interpret any election in a way that benefits them and their donors. They didn’t win as many seats as they thought in 2020? It’s because of defund the police. If they win, it’s because voters like the incremental and neoliberal changes democrats espouse and not because voters want substantial change like in 2008 Edit: if the democrats lose, the actual message is that people don’t believe in democrats, not that people are alright with abortion being overturned theCalamity fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Really? That's the acid test? Not Obama getting elected in 2008 in a landslide after promising that "the first thing he would do" after inauguration was signing the Freedom of Choice Act? It seems to me like the Democratic party leadership will draw whatever conclusion they want from elections, regardless of what the voters say. The Dems are betting hard that it will matter, they seem to be moving all in on this as their November message, but if the voters apathetically shrug and vote for Republicans RIGHT AFTER Roe v Wade was struck down as you seemed to suggest they might do, then the politicians are not going to conclude that they just didn't talk about abortion enough. They will instead conclude that it is not really a vote-winning issue that people really care about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
Woke up to the news that Roe v. Wade was overturned. This sucks, my dudes. As someone who did recently move from a very red state to a purple state: poo poo was expensive, and I wouldn't have able to if my family didn't lend me money to live on while I got established. Expecting people to move from a red state to a purple or blue state is just batshit. I think we should still vote, and vote Democrat, because it at least keeps it to "people who don't care if we live or die" than "want us specifically dead".
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
They seem to be shifting to that for fundraising, however that does not seem to mean all that much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The Dems are betting hard that it will matter, they seem to be moving all in on this as their November message, but if the voters apathetically shrug and vote for Republicans RIGHT AFTER Roe v Wade was struck down as you seemed to suggest they might do, then the politicians are not going to conclude that they just didn't talk about abortion enough. They will instead conclude that it is not really a vote-winning issue that people really care about. But the voters have been signaling for literal decades that they support abortion rights, and strongly too. I posted that Gallup poll a few posts up proving this to be the case. It doesn't seem like the Dems are getting the message no matter what happens. They certainly didn't get the message after 2008, when they had a huge mandate. That being the case, it kind of begs the question, can abortion rights be protected through electoralism at all?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Voters are collectively telling the democrats to do something hit the democrats sit and twiddle their thumbs. They literally did everything they could after the leak. They do not have the votes, so they are campaigning on this as their big message of the year. Biden's DOJ just now announced that they are going to try to fight states that try to go beyond their borders. If you think they are twiddling their thumbs, you are either not paying attention, or you are.... perhaps expecting them to pick up weapons and literally fight.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Is there any other job where you could fail as miserably as dem leadership and not be expected to resign? Professional sports referee.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 22:57
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The Dems are betting hard that it will matter, they seem to be moving all in on this as their November message, but if the voters apathetically shrug and vote for Republicans RIGHT AFTER Roe v Wade was struck down as you seemed to suggest they might do, then the politicians are not going to conclude that they just didn't talk about abortion enough. They will instead conclude that it is not really a vote-winning issue that people really care about. The Dems are doing that for fundraising. The Dems themselves are apathetically shrugging their shoulders even though they are the ones in power and asking for more votes. The voters are going to look at the Dems and ask themselves “what have the Dems done for me? I wanted abortion rights and they failed to do that despite having the power. Why should I keep voting for them?” If the Dems do nothing why should anyone vote for them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:"My enemies are all stupid even though they're kicking my rear end at every turn and have only continued to grow more powerful" is questionable analysis. If it were me I would start from the assumption that my powerful enemies were smart indeed, i think a big critical flaw we had was underestimating the republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
Rigel posted:They literally did everything they could after the leak. They do not have the votes, so they are campaigning on this as their big message of the year. Biden's DOJ just now announced that they are going to try to fight states that try to go beyond their borders. People have been screaming at them to pass and sign a law guaranteeing abortion rights for a lot longer than just the last couple of months, though. Again, Obama promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as the "first thing" he would do in office.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:if the democrats lose, the actual message is that people don’t believe in democrats, not that people are alright with abortion being overturned theCalamity posted:The voters are going to look at the Dems and ask themselves “what have the Dems done for me? I wanted abortion rights and they failed to do that despite having the power. Why should I keep voting for them?” Roe v Wade JUST got overturned, and we are going to hear almost nothing but abortion from now to election day. There's no mystery on which party is banning abortion. If after all that drama and emotion, the voters then decide to vote for Republicans anyway, *Everyone* should immediately conclude at that point that abortion does not really matter to voters. Maybe it matters to some people, but it won't win elections. Its really that simple, you can't easily spin a hypothetical result this year where the Dems campaign on abortion, lose, and then go "well abortion is still an issue that matters to voters, its just that this one thing wasn't quite sold right or they had the wrong messenger". This isn't a used car that needs to be sold or a complex subject that needs to be carefully explained, either the voters are pissed and vote based on it, or they aren't really that upset about it and they decide they care about inflation instead. .
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:05
|
|
|
Rigel posted:They literally did everything they could after the leak. They do not have the votes, so they are campaigning on this as their big message of the year. Biden's DOJ just now announced that they are going to try to fight states that try to go beyond their borders. Times Dems had a majority or close to a super majority in the last 50 years, and didn't do anything for Roe v Wade: 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 2010 2011 2020 Maybe they should have codified abortion into law one of those several times in the past when they could have?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:indeed, i think a big critical flaw we had was underestimating the republicans. It's not just true of Republicans, though. It's people like Manchin, or Sinema, or Democrat leadership in general. Like if these people are so stupid why don't you just go outsmart them then. Why do they keep winning if they're big dumb dummies Rigel posted:If after all that drama and emotion, the voters then decide to vote for Republicans anyway, *Everyone* should immediately conclude at that point that abortion does not really matter to voters No they shouldn't. This is just a weird way of reasoning backwards into reassuring yourself the US government is tethered to some kind of democracy TheIncredulousHulk fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Roe v Wade JUST got overturned, and we are going to hear almost nothing but abortion from now to election day. There's no mystery on which party is banning abortion. It doesn't matter how many people vote because they will never get 61 Democrats into the Senate. Restoring abortion federally is literally impossible, and voters know it. Dems need to have spent the last 30 years working on things like expanding the court, term limits, getting DC, Puerto Rico and Guam statehood, national ranked choice voting, accountability for spreading misinformation, prosecuting domestic terrorism leaders, etc. But they didn't. They just said the same useless poo poo and look where it got us, a permanent minority majority and a failed federal government. The Dems who have been in office for the past 3 decades have failed, it is entirely rational for voters who care about abortion not to vote for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But the voters have been signaling for literal decades that they support abortion rights, and strongly too. I posted that Gallup poll a few posts up proving this to be the case. It doesn't seem like the Dems are getting the message no matter what happens. They certainly didn't get the message after 2008, when they had a huge mandate. That being the case, it kind of begs the question, can abortion rights be protected through electoralism at all? Approving of something and voting on something are different. If approving in big numbers translated to votes, then pro gun control candidates would get 65-80% of the vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:It doesn't matter how many people vote because they will never get 61 Democrats into the Senate. We don't need 61, we only need 50+1. We currently have 48 who are willing to do what needs to be done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
Rigel posted:We don't need 61, we only need 50+1. We currently have 48 who are willing to do what needs to be done. 50+1 doesn't mean anything so long as we have the filibuster, sadly. E: misunderstood, disregard. Velocity Raptor fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:indeed, i think a big critical flaw we had was underestimating the republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Professional sports referee. As a lifetime baseball fan I'm gonna object to this one
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:They're doing their jobs, though. There's a difference between what people think their jobs ought to be and what they actually are Your job is ultimately determined by the people who pay you to do it. Most Dem legislators' compensation isn't really the paycheck that comes from our taxes, you know?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Roe v Wade JUST got overturned, and we are going to hear almost nothing but abortion from now to election day. There's no mystery on which party is banning abortion. The thing that will most likely happen are voters who largely vote Democratic simply won’t vote at all because they will see the Democratic Party as being ineffectual. Again, why should people continue to vote for a party that is ineffective? The Dems love to trot out how they will protect abortion rights and I ain’t seen them do that. I see them supporting the Hyde Amendment. I see them campaigning for anti-choice democrats. I see them not wanting to use abortion rights as a litmus test. Nothing that the democrats have done tells me that they really care about abortion rights. How many times has Pelosi said that abortion rights weren’t as much of a priority anymore? Like twice now in the recent years. It’s shameful. Why keep voting for people like that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:13
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:They're doing their jobs, though. There's a difference between what people think their jobs ought to be and what they actually are Explain how they are doing their job?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
I know no mod in this forum has even a vague understanding of how Brandenburg v. Ohio applies to 'inciting violence' because I can see all the women they've probated for having emotions about their bodily autonomy being curtailed and the rule they cite to justify it. You're a sniveling pack of misogynists afraid of your own shadows. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Doctor Yiff fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jd_durkin/status/1540452282130636800?s=20 Lame duck, he’ll be impeached more than Trump was by the time he gets thrown out of office. Just no desire to do anything. Garland is an embarrassment. The only way forward is when the GOP destroys the filibuster. Democrats will have to struggle for power back at that point. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Approving of something and voting on something are different. If approving in big numbers translated to votes, then pro gun control candidates would get 65-80% of the vote. Well, but we haven't seen a presidential candidate get elected by massive margins after promising to sign into law very specific, sweeping gun reform bills, at least as far as I can remember. We have seen a candidate promise to sign into law a very specific piece of legislation guaranteeing abortion rights as his first act in office. Now obviously, that candidate's electoral success and his promise to enshrine reproductive rights into law isn't exactly a 1-to-1 sort of equation; there were a lot of things that Obama promised that people were very excited about. But when a vast majority of Americans have signaled for fifty years straight that they support abortion remaining legal under some or all circumstances, and when activists have been begging the Dems to sign abortion rights protections into law that whole time, and one of the core promises that Dems have been making to their base for decades is that they'll protect abortion rights, that seems to me to be a pretty clear sign of where the voters stand on the issue. And yet for fifty years they've failed to pass that legislation and sign it into law, and now SCOTUS has overturned the decision protecting these rights in half of the country...and this November is the real opportunity for voters to show the Dems that they care about reproductive rights? Not all of those other elections in the past fifty years, where the voters gave the Dems the mandate they needed to pass and sign into law legislation that protects abortion? No, the Dems have shown us that they'll glean whatever lesson they feel suits them from elections. That is why I expect a lot of voters that the Dems need to hold onto their majorities are going to stay home in November.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:https://twitter.com/jd_durkin/status/1540452282130636800?s=20 Can’t codify Roe. Won’t even try to expand the courts. Can’t end the filibuster. What use are the democrats? Voting harder for them isn’t going to do anything except make democratic voters increasingly resentful and exhausted
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:20
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:50+1 doesn't mean anything so long as we have the filibuster, sadly. I think you misunderstood. We only need 50+1 to modify or abolish the filibuster, and we currently have 48 who are willing to at least chip away at it to move votes for election reform and abortion. There's really no reason to be obsessed with 60 anymore as the margin to really make progress, because we will get rid of the filibuster well before we ever managed to get back up to 60 again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:22
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I think you misunderstood. We only need 50+1 to modify or abolish the filibuster, and we currently have 48 who are willing to at least chip away at it to move votes for election reform and abortion. Did they vote on ending the filibuster?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I think you misunderstood. We only need 50+1 to modify or abolish the filibuster, and we currently have 48 who are willing to at least chip away at it to move votes for election reform and abortion. Ah, yes, you're right. I did misunderstand you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
FlapYoJacks posted:Explain how they are doing their job? Who? Democrat leadership, or the cops? The Democrats leadership are going to raise tons of cash from this, and they're going to defuse any major civil unrest from this by convincing a large portion of the people angry about it that the only possible solution is pressing the placebo button again in November, thereby continuing to stabilize the system as it exists for the immediate future. That completely deranged image of them singing on the steps of the Supreme Court? That's them doing their jobs And cops are cops
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:25
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Did they vote on ending the filibuster? Yes. Twice. People keep saying that the Dems should at least do something even if they know it won't work. They do, and then people don't notice and still assume they did nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, but we haven't seen a presidential candidate get elected by massive margins after promising to sign into law very specific, sweeping gun reform bills, at least as far as I can remember. We have seen a candidate promise to sign into law a very specific piece of legislation guaranteeing abortion rights as his first act in office. Now obviously, that candidate's electoral success and his promise to enshrine reproductive rights into law isn't exactly a 1-to-1 sort of equation; there were a lot of things that Obama promised that people were very excited about. But when a vast majority of Americans have signaled for fifty years straight that they support abortion remaining legal under some or all circumstances, and when activists have been begging the Dems to sign abortion rights protections into law that whole time, and one of the core promises that Dems have been making to their base for decades is that they'll protect abortion rights, that seems to me to be a pretty clear sign of where the voters stand on the issue. And yet for fifty years they've failed to pass that legislation and sign it into law, and now SCOTUS has overturned the decision protecting these rights in half of the country...and this November is the real opportunity for voters to show the Dems that they care about reproductive rights? Not all of those other elections in the past fifty years, where the voters gave the Dems the mandate they needed to pass and sign into law legislation that protects abortion? Obama won in 2008 very obviously because the economy collapsed a month before the election and the Iraq war. Do you seriously think that Obama won in 2008 (primarily by expanding the electoral map to include states that are much more pro-life than average like Indiana) because he ran on abortion?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:27
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Yes. Twice. Can you link to when they voted to end the filibuster?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:27
|
|
|
Rigel posted:I think you misunderstood. We only need 50+1 to modify or abolish the filibuster, and we currently have 48 who are willing to at least chip away at it to move votes for election reform and abortion. There are less than 48 that want to get rid of the filibuster even for a single issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:Can you link to when they voted to end the filibuster? January 22, 2022 for the John Lewis Voting Rights Act (failed 49 - 51) and September 30th, 2021 on a rules committee motion (failed 48 - 52).
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Obama won in 2008 very obviously because the economy collapsed a month before the election and the Iraq war. Do you seriously think that Obama won in 2008 (primarily by expanding the electoral map to include states that are much more pro-life than average like Indiana) because he ran on abortion? He won alongside that and saying that he would place it into law. Then didn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Obama won in 2008 very obviously because the economy collapsed a month before the election and the Iraq war. Do you seriously think that Obama won in 2008 (primarily by expanding the electoral map to include states that are much more pro-life than average like Indiana) because he ran on abortion? Like I said in my post...(emphasis added) quote:Now obviously, that candidate's electoral success and his promise to enshrine reproductive rights into law isn't exactly a 1-to-1 sort of equation; there were a lot of things that Obama promised that people were very excited about. But when a vast majority of Americans have signaled for fifty years straight that they support abortion remaining legal under some or all circumstances, and when activists have been begging the Dems to sign abortion rights protections into law that whole time, and one of the core promises that Dems have been making to their base for decades is that they'll protect abortion rights, that seems to me to be a pretty clear sign of where the voters stand on the issue. Whether it's at the top of their list of priorities or not is immaterial. There's no reason why, if the Dems lose big this upcoming November, the lesson they should draw is, "Voters just must not care about abortion very much, I guess!" By the same logic, voters have shown that they have cared about abortion rights by voting for loudly pro-choice candidates for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
Reminder that voter approval of abortion is highly conditional, even among a chunk of Democrats (although "under any circumstances" has swung upward among Dems in the past couple years, according to Gallup). A majority of voters would be perfectly fine with restricting abortion to the first 12 weeks according to Gallup:  And here's how it would affect voters' choices (same poll, most recent results mostly taken after Alito leak):  Probably the most depressing stat according to the same recent Gallup poll is that a majority of voters don't support bodily autonomy even in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy if the woman decides she doesn't want the child for any reason:  So while yes, a majority of voters support legal abortion, a majority of voters don't support it unconditionally, and only slightly more than one out of every four voters is making it a litmus test at the polls. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Jun 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:53 |
|
|
theCalamity posted:Can you link to when they voted to end the filibuster? HR1, January 2022 https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/01/19/us/biden-voting-rights-filibuster. https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/senate-voting-legislation-filibuster/index.html The vote to change the filibuster was 48-52 with Manchin and Sinema voting against.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 23:38
|
|