|
Koos Group posted:However, this does assume that the new Democratic senators elected were not similar to Manchin and Sinema. If we assume, based on the Senate's current makeup that Democrats have a 2/50 chance of being like Manchin and Sinema, then the probability of neither of the new senators being like them would be 92%. It is also assuming that Manchin and Sinema aren't currently taking the flak and providing cover for multiple other Democratic senators who would turn obstructionist if there was a real danger of anything useful passing. Or that conservative moneyed interests wouldn't be able to turn any moderate Dems if there was danger.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:49 |
|
|
RandomUserString posted:So was Biden: Sorry, you ain’t blowing my mind. Campaigns are full of puffery and deceptions, as I should hope everyone knows. He was largely lying to the extent he wasn’t talking about widely popular things like the infrastructure bill and narrow gun legislation (that only made it across the finish line because of Uvalde), all of which would need more than 5 Republicans to beat the filibuster anyway. None of this changes facts on the ground. The votes ain’t there for anything else. Koos addressed the rest of your point about the significance of two more Senate seats. It’s simple math, but I guess if you don’t believe the composition of Congress makes any difference in outcomes then posting about US politics is an interesting choice of pastime. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Jul 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 06:52
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:It is also assuming that Manchin and Sinema aren't currently taking the flak and providing cover for multiple other Democratic senators who would turn obstructionist if there was a real danger of anything useful passing. Or that conservative moneyed interests wouldn't be able to turn any moderate Dems if there was danger. Do you have any proof of this or is it just a generic “Dems bad” speculation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 06:54
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Do you have any proof of this or is it just a generic “Dems bad” speculation? Proof that monied interests can turn "moderate" dems? We have all kinds of evidence that politicians vote in line with their donors. It's not so much that lobbyists buy votes individually though; they buy the representatives that already share their ideology to some extent. You'd have to dig into the specifics of the cites in this article:https://www.promarket.org/2017/06/16/study-politicians-vote-will-constituents-35-percent-time/ but ultimately what the numbers state (as of 2017 at least) that the states follow the will of the people about 59% of the time, and politicians themselves tend to vote in line with their constituents 65% of the time. The reasons why are a little nebulous, though. I would assume that part of the reason that most lobbyists work for several firms at once during the year is because their true value is in the relationships that they make with the politicians who are amenable to their ideologies. The money in government is extremely corruptive, but not in the sense that "you give me 5000 dollars and I'll vote down the ACA" -- it's more that the lobbyists create long-term friendships with the politicians in their circle (like, not a Bernie Sanders with a Lindsey Graham, but a Collins with a Manchin, for example) and then leverage those relationships to bend the politician's ear to their cause. Or, sometimes it's even more direct than that. Politicians' schedules are pretty full most of the time, and the lobbyists can just fill up all their free spots with lunches and golf and events, and so they influence what points of view the politicians are even exposed to at all. That there are also literal criminals who do literal crimes in our government is also, I assume, not in question. In my own view, I'm inclined to believe Sinema when she says that there are little demlettes who hide behind her skirt when she kills bills so they don't have to. I don't know why you would assume she would say that otherwise. It doesn't make her look better; it just makes her seem like more of an idiot. When a dummy tells you who they are... etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 07:35
|
|
|
I think Sinema has plenty of reasons to make self aggrandizing claims and it’s in line with her past behavior.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 07:49
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Do you have any proof of this or is it just a generic “Dems bad” speculation? Chris coons dreams of being joe manchin. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 10:43
|
|
|
Here's something that isnt speculation. Per the "manchin and sinema are unique among all humans for being corrupted by power and anyone else with a D by there names always does good things" theory, one would assume that minimum wage increase got 48 votes, it being a good thing. Did Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire just slip and hit the wrong button? Did Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire just slip and hit the wrong button? Did Jonathan Tester of Montana just slip and hit the wrong button? Did Tom Carper of Delaware just slip and hit the wrong button? Did Chris Coons of Delaware just slip and hit the wrong button? Did Angus King of Maine just slip and hit the wrong button? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 12:58
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Here's something that isnt speculation. Per the "manchin and sinema are unique among all humans for being corrupted by power and anyone else with a D by there names always does good things" theory, one would assume that minimum wage increase got 48 votes, it being a good thing. It was asked several pages ago in this thread why Democratic leadership wasn't trying hard to discipline Manchin, and I think the above is telling as to why. Manchin gets to be the dedicated fall guy to take the heat off of all of these other democratic congress critters who want things to die and not be personally held accountable. If Manchin or Sinema were both replaced tomorrow, there would just be a new person being the dedicated roadblock that everyone just shrugs their shoulders and sighs at in the press to give cover for all the other decorum-poisoned minds. Just like how Lieberman was in Obama's first term.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 14:40
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Here's something that isnt speculation. Per the "manchin and sinema are unique among all humans for being corrupted by power and anyone else with a D by there names always does good things" theory, one would assume that minimum wage increase got 48 votes, it being a good thing. Well since they voted against one thing they must vote against everything. Checkmate I guess. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 14:45
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Here's something that isnt speculation. Per the "manchin and sinema are unique among all humans for being corrupted by power and anyone else with a D by there names always does good things" theory, one would assume that minimum wage increase got 48 votes, it being a good thing. Who stated this? Why are you choosing only minimum wage/1 bill specifically? How does this help lend credibility to the claim that is currently being discussed ITT: Tuxedo Gin posted:It is also assuming that Manchin and Sinema aren't currently taking the flak and providing cover for multiple other Democratic senators who would turn obstructionist if there was a real danger of anything useful passing If anything, your post is helping prove that this claim is false. Democratic senators who don't support a Democratic bill will still vote against it, even if it's already not going to pass. Manchin and Sinema aren't "providing cover". If you're responding to something else other than this, I'm sorry for the assumption. But you didn't have a specific quote listed to what you're responding to (beyond the quote I bolded that I don't recall anyone stating), so I'm assuming you're talking about what's currently being discussed in the last handful of posts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The GOP is plowing ahead with its Hispanic-voter outreach: Anyone just dismissing this out of hand is fooling themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 14:52
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Who stated this? Why are you choosing only minimum wage/1 bill specifically? How does this help lend credibility to the claim that is currently being discussed ITT: I guess i was responding to posts like this one and just the general belief that Manchin and Sinema, specifically, are the whole problem: yronic heroism posted:The hard truth is nothing works with Manchin/Sinema. Nothing would have worked with these numbers. Like I said a year and a half ago, they needed 52-53 seats and didn’t get it. Seems that all that’s left now is confirming judges and waiting to see how much Republican overstepping the country can take after either 2024 or 2028. If you have 53 seats, and 8 people vote against something, you still don't get the thing. I picked the minimum wage vote because it was a big thing recently that i could remember not actually being 48 votes that the Administration wanted. It was also where Sinema did her epic tiktok thumbs down so people focused on her and not the other 7 dems turning down minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:01
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Who stated this? Why are you choosing only minimum wage/1 bill specifically? How does this help lend credibility to the claim that is currently being discussed ITT: Your counter-argument is to agree that there are numerous members of the party that will oppose good policy? Since only 2 will determine whether a bill will be allowed to pass, said numerous members of the party only reveal that oppose any given policy rarely, but often enough to establish a pattern.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:02
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Well since they voted against one thing they must vote against everything. Checkmate I guess. One extremely important thing that signals where they stand when it comes to helping out the working class. If they can't be counted on to pass a (woefully insufficient) minimum wage increase, I sure won't count on those specific senators to vote yes on other bills that could help out the working class to that degree. Nucleic Acids posted:Anyone just dismissing this out of hand is fooling themselves. Yeah, it's one of so many warning signs that demographics aren't destiny, that dems gotta put in the effort to keep winning over Hispanic voters or they'll be losing more and more of them to the gop. Something that should be shouted from the rooftops but instead it's getting ignored.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:05
|
|
|
RandomUserString posted:So was Biden: Would you apply the same logic to Bernie? He made promises like M4A that would have never passed. Should he have said "We are going to get M4A in this country if I'm president"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:09
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:I guess i was responding to posts like this one and just the general belief that Manchin and Sinema, specifically, are the whole problem: Where did this user post that all other Democratic senators always do good things? That poster just seemed to be implying that there would be some additional good legislation that could pass if they had a few more Democratic senators. Which is far from claiming that every good piece of legislation would be magically passed. Gerund posted:Your counter-argument is to agree that there are numerous members of the party that will oppose good policy? Since only 2 will determine whether a bill will be allowed to pass, said numerous members of the party only reveal that oppose any given policy rarely, but often enough to establish a pattern. I was talking about them opposing that specific minimum wage provision of the bill. And, once again, if people are usually "hiding", why did they "reveal" themselves with this specific vote? What numerous specific bills were specific Democratic senators "hiding" behind Sinema/Manchin? It would be great if you could provide sources with these specifics, instead of a generic claim (which is what seems to happen ITT when discussed). Kalit fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jul 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:10
|
|
|
small butter posted:Would you apply the same logic to Bernie? He made promises like M4A that would have never passed. Should he have said "We are going to get M4A in this country if I'm president"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:I'd think Bernie would have put up a little more fight than Biden, and not just immediately cave at every turn. This is a historically weak and feckless presidency. Even if I were to agree with you, that is a different conversation. I gotta be honest - I'm counting my lucky stars that Biden is getting the blame for gas prices, inflation, and everything else and that it's not "the first Democratic Socialist president in America history" who is suffering this (after not actually being able to pass any socialist policies but probably canceling student debt).
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Where did this user post that all other Democratic senators always do good things? That poster just seemed to be implying that there would be some additional good legislation that could pass if they had a few more Democratic senators. Which is far from claiming that every good piece of legislation would be magically passed. It seems to me that saying you need 52-53 senators to accomplish your goals is certainly implying due to basic math that you only are going to lose 2-3 senators on any given thing. I was pointing out a counterpoint where they had 8 senators (the 6 i posted plus Manchin and Sinema) leave so that assertion that you need 52-53 senators might need to be adjusted?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:20
|
|
|
small butter posted:Would you apply the same logic to Bernie? He made promises like M4A that would have never passed. Should he have said "We are going to get M4A in this country if I'm president"? This is just an unrelated hypothetical since only one of those men is actually president and has had a rough time delivering on those promises. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:It seems to me that saying you need 52-53 senators to accomplish your goals is certainly implying due to basic math that you only are going to lose 2-3 senators on any given thing. I was pointing out a counterpoint where they had 8 senators (the 6 i posted plus Manchin and Sinema) leave so that assertion that you need 52-53 senators might need to be adjusted? But it's not a nothing/everything game? Saying nothing gets passed under Manchin/Sinema and you need X Democratic senators to fix that doesn't imply everything gets passed with X Democratic senators. Honestly, it's probably impossible to get everything passed in any situation. Even with 100 Democratic senators who agree on 99% of issues (whoever the source pushing the legislation is). Kalit fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Jul 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Anyone just dismissing this out of hand is fooling themselves. From Axios: quote:What the data show: Democrats are statistically tied with Republicans among Hispanics on the generic congressional ballot, according to a New York Times-Siena College poll out this week. Dems held a 47-point edge with Hispanics during the 2018 midterms. As I've said, I don't hold much stock in generic congressional ballots, but as I've also said the value in polling is in noting trends, and a shift among Hispanic voters to that degree, in just four years, is quite stunning. I don't understand why Democrats would shrug off this outcome based on caricatures & ventriloquisms like "chuds will find out & get mad that the GOP is wooing Hispanics" or "these voters think they're white" unless it's because they've curated themselves into news bubbles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
If Bernie was acting as timid and feckless as Biden is when it came to passing his agenda hell yes I would be calling him a dogshit president
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
The only insurable path to possibly getting left wing legislature at this point is a super majority that has super majority numbers that can counter the blue dogs and the conservative wreckers. So 60-70 seats. Vote more Democrats is a path to victory but it needs to be more than just enough to counter the current two villains because well, if we want to raise minimum wage we obviously have more than two villains in the party. If we want universal healthcare we obviously have more than two opposed to it within the party.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
small butter posted:Would you apply the same logic to Bernie? He made promises like M4A that would have never passed. Should he have said "We are going to get M4A in this country if I'm president"? If he just rolled over the way Biden did while watching BBB die, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:The only insurable path to possibly getting left wing legislature at this point is a super majority that has super majority numbers that can counter the blue dogs and the conservative wreckers. So 60-70 seats So what's the plan?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:30
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:This is just an unrelated hypothetical since only one of those men is actually president and has had a rough time delivering on those promises. It's not a hypothetical because the OP is claiming that Biden "lied" by making campaign promises that were unlikely to be fulfilled. When Bernie campaigned, he did the same thing. Some leftists will always feel righteous because as long as they don't have power, they cannot fail to deliver and be labelled as "liars." Of course, the minute that they do get power, they will either need a supermajority or enough votes to pass their agenda, deeply compromise their agenda, or do nothing. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:45
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:This is a simple and obvious fact that people ITT defending the Dems need to account for. This number of seats is almost impossible now, and it will soon be literally impossible with increased voter suppression because of past Dem fecklessness. I can't tell if you're asking a rhetorical question, but I assume most people ITT agree with it being some sort of combination of activism/electoralism?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:46
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I can't tell if you're asking a rhetorical question, but I assume most people ITT agree with it being some sort of combination of activism/electoralism? quote:
At any rate, these are, no offense, really banal suggestions that are precisely the kinds of things many progressives have been trying to do for years. My question is, what is the realistic path to a supermajority that we apparently need to get anything done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I can't tell if you're asking a rhetorical question, but I assume most people ITT agree with it being some sort of combination of activism/electoralism?
(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:55
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:The Dem party actively discourages insurgent campaigns, and has recently helped pass legislation to suppress protests. Why are you asking me questions to defend things that I haven't said/don't agree with? I don't even strictly follow the slogan "vote blue no matter who". E: cat botherer posted:At any rate, these are, no offense, really banal suggestions that are precisely the kinds of things many progressives have been trying to do for years. My question is, what is the realistic path to a supermajority that we apparently need to get anything done. You have to get mass support for your ideals by continue to do these things? Politics in a country is an extremely slow moving process. The only time it moves quickly is during times of instability (e.g. what's currently happening in Haiti), which usually(/always?) leads to terrible conditions. Especially for those at the bottom of society, who end up suffering the most. Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:02 on Jul 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:58
|
|
|
small butter posted:It's not a hypothetical because the OP is claiming that Biden "lied" by making campaign promises that were unlikely to be fulfilled. When Bernie campaigned, he did the same thing. Leftists  look at all these great hypotheticals about how horrible they are! Those leftists!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 15:59
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Your counter-argument is to agree that there are numerous members of the party that will oppose good policy? Since only 2 will determine whether a bill will be allowed to pass, said numerous members of the party only reveal that oppose any given policy rarely, but often enough to establish a pattern. Why would they tip their hand only sometimes, though? That kinda sounds like 'the illuminati leave their symbols around to taunt us' logic to me. The occam's razor take is that they just have they own calculations in relation their constituencies and their campaign donors, that sometimes causes them to vote for good policy and sometimes to vote against, not that they have the same understanding of 'good policy' that we do and are prepared to block anything in that category. 'The cruelty is the point' is a republican thing. For most democrat legislators, 'the grift is the point' is probably more accurate. Gumball Gumption posted:Leftists They're probably right though, because leftists are humans too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Why are you asking me questions to defend things that I haven't said/don't agree with? I don't even strictly follow the slogan "vote blue no matter who". e: quote:You have to get mass support for your ideals by continue to do these things? Politics in a country is an extremely slow moving process. The only time it moves quickly is during times of instability (e.g. what's currently happening in Haiti), which usually(/always?) leads to terrible conditions. Especially for those at the bottom of society, who end up suffering the most. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) cat botherer fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jul 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 16:02
|
|
|
So we get 53-54 democrats in the senate and then we still have gridlock because of cloture rules. They might change the rules though which only needs 50 votes so there’s a good chance that could happen with 53 Dem senators. The most recent vote to change the rules on cloture was back in January correct? But it was only for voting rights and nothing else. Given how the Democrats are, I could see them not fully getting rid of the filibuster. Big, drastic changes aren’t their style and they will try to be as incremental as possible. I see them changing the rules for each category of bills or whatever. Meaning there would be this huge song and dance to change the rules for cloture for voting rights, and then reproductive rights, and then LGBT rights and so on. Unless I’m mistaken. Now, do we know who supports getting rid of the filibuster entirely or only for certain things? What are candidates saying in regards to it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 16:06
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:How that square with voter suppression making mass support irrelevant? In 2024, federal-level democracy will be de-facto over (if it ever really existed). If federal-level democracy never really existed, then this is fast-moving realization, not fast-moving politics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
small butter posted:Some leftists will always feel righteous because as long as they don't have power, they cannot fail to deliver and be labelled as "liars." Of course, the minute that they do get power, they will either need a supermajority or enough votes to pass their agenda, deeply compromise their agenda, or do nothing. Why are you implying that is specific to "leftists", when the same issues clearly apply to centrists as well?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
Flying-PCP posted:Why would they tip their hand only sometimes, though? That kinda sounds like 'the illuminati leave their symbols around to taunt us' logic to me. The occam's razor take is that they just have they own calculations in relation their constituencies and their campaign donors, that sometimes causes them to vote for good policy and sometimes to vote against, not that they have the same understanding of 'good policy' that we do and are prepared to block anything in that category. 'The cruelty is the point' is a republican thing. For most democrat legislators, 'the grift is the point' is probably more accurate. Yeah but D&D is a lot better when we discuss what's actually happening instead of deflecting with leftists! hypotheticals. I'll happily talk about their failures to use their power when they are in positions of power like the presidency. I have no problem talking about Bernie and the Squads actual failed attempts to use power in their positions, at least that's a deflection of reality with reality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 16:23
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:Why are you implying that is specific to "leftists", when the same issues clearly apply to centrists as well? Does not help with the accusations that centrists consider complete inaction to be an acceptable outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:49 |
|
|
If Joe Manchin is allowed to be a democrat in good standing, why wouldn’t any new red state dem senator follow a similar game plan? In the event there are 12 new dem senators, most of those must come from red states. Why is there an assumption that they will vote more like an average dem senator and not like Joe Manchin, arguably the most electorally successful red state dem senator? As long as Joe Manchin is a democrat in good standing, he’s the template for a red state dem senator. As long as he’s the template for a red state dem senator, picking up more red state dem senators doesn’t substantially enable a progressive democratic agenda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 16:29
|
|
