|
Flying-PCP posted:If federal-level democracy never really existed, then this is fast-moving realization, not fast-moving politics.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 16:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Did Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire just slip and hit the wrong button? The Senate does not do electronic voting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 16:37
|
|
|
Best Friends posted: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? Most states aren't nearly as red as WV. WV has been running down the Republican hole and fast, starting around 2015. By percentage, the only state who had both fewer votes for Biden or more votes for Trump in 2020 was WY. So, while there are some future red state Democratic senators that might lean more like Manchin, most future possible Democratic senators would be voted in by people who are probably more in the political middle. Especially since there are still a number of R senators from purple/leaning blue states. Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Jul 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 16:42
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Most states aren't nearly as red as WV. WV has been running down the Republican hole and fast, starting around 2015. By percentage, the only state who had fewer votes for Biden or more votes for Trump in 2020 was WY. So given that at least some of the incremental democratic senators needed for a progressive democrat agenda will be more Joe Manchins, clearly more than 12 more senators are needed. How many more? What’s the probable number of incremental democratic senators needed to pass a progressive agenda then?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:So given that at least some of the incremental democratic senators needed for a progressive democrat agenda will be more Joe Manchins, clearly more than 12 more senators are needed. How many more? What’s the probable number of incremental democratic senators needed to pass a progressive agenda then? Oh, hell, I have no idea about that part. I was just stating a case why I don't think it's a given that Manchin is a template for red state senators. Obviously, until something changes, it makes more sense to focus on getting rid of the filibuster over attempting to get a filibuster proof majority in the senate. What will that take? I have no idea 
Kalit fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Jul 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 16:52
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:So given that at least some of the incremental democratic senators needed for a progressive democrat agenda will be more Joe Manchins, clearly more than 12 more senators are needed. How many more? What’s the probable number of incremental democratic senators needed to pass a progressive agenda then? There is no reason to expect that 62 Democrats are necessary to pass legislation in the Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 16:59
|
|
|
Best Friends posted: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? It's not even just the Senate with the switch-out villains; Chait has a piece on Gottheimer (who helped block meaningful prescription-drug legislation last year): quote:Joe Manchin has absorbed most of the heat from liberals angry that the Senate has often blocked President Biden’s proposals. But Manchin represents an overwhelmingly Republican state, and he has been willing to negotiate a meaningful (albeit smaller) Senate reconciliation package that would move forward key progressive goals.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 17:01
|
|
|
Rigel posted:There is no reason to expect that 62 Democrats are necessary to pass legislation in the Senate. I think one big reason to expect it would be the idea that Joe Manchin is a fuckin weirdo, and most Dem senators don't want the choice between pissing off their donors and Joe Manchin levels of negative attention, and the filibuster helps prevent that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Anyone just dismissing this out of hand is fooling themselves. Yeah, outside of the SA politics message boards, centrist and right-wing political beliefs are pretty popular. Why SA Goons solely attribute Democratic politicians’ tendency to be centrist instead of left-wing to corporate/Democratic Party corruption is just wishful thinking. Unfortunately for SA Goons, their minority political views will not be very pervasive in our representative democracy system of government. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 17:05
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Oh, hell, I have no idea by that part. I was just stating a case why I don't think it's a given that Manchin is a template for red state senators. Getting Washington DC some loving representation would be a good start. Especially with Republican congresspeople vowing to remove DC home rule in order to ban abortions there. DC's shadow senators (the guys who would be in line immediately to step in once DC becomes a state) and shadow representative are all strong progressives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 17:08
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Yeah, outside of the SA politics message boards, centrist and right-wing political beliefs are pretty popular. Too vague of an assertion to really be falsifiable... this is true for many issues, but for others the senate is absolutely blocking very popular policy changes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:So given that at least some of the incremental democratic senators needed for a progressive democrat agenda will be more Joe Manchins, clearly more than 12 more senators are needed. How many more? What’s the probable number of incremental democratic senators needed to pass a progressive agenda then? Kelly is "centrist," but is for removing the filibuster. So are Warnock and Ossoff. Manchin is very, very odd in that he keeps winning elections as a Democrat in the reddest state. (It's actually good to have him around but it's terrible when he's the deciding vote.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 17:17
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:So given that at least some of the incremental democratic senators needed for a progressive democrat agenda will be more Joe Manchins, clearly more than 12 more senators are needed. How many more? What’s the probable number of incremental democratic senators needed to pass a progressive agenda then? My guess is about 63 or 65 senators, providing they don't want to get rid of the filibuster. That would be enough seats for the squishy moderates to get hall passes. If we had 50 who wanted to get rid of the filibuster, the number drops to about 55. Any less and you'll just have moderates skullfucking the agenda, like they are now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
DeathSandwich posted: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. I don't think it's that calculated within the DNC so much as it's just the way things are for Dems, especially those elected in red/purple states. There always seems to be one, going back to even before Lieberman. But I don't think they sit there and ponder legislation with an eye towards specifically blaming a blue dog for why things don't get done. I just think they're weak, ineffectual, begin every negotiation with a compromise and are afraid to use their power when they get it. Also, they like dangling promises down the road for the Next Most Important Election Ever cycle that I've been hearing since I was 18 to drive voter turnout. Our bench is...empty right now. I don't see anyone on the horizon that's going to inspire anyone. Maybe there's another Obama in the wings somewhere who has yet to deliver a compelling speech or some poo poo but, even then, Obama talked a good game but turned out to be just another guy. He had me for a while and I was very excited to work on his behalf and vote for him. For my trouble, I got a ton of emails and junk mail asking me for loving money and a cabinet packed to the brim with the architects of the 2008 housing crash. Nothing done at all about the travesty and lies surrounding the Iraq war nor the banks that hosed over nearly the entirely globe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 17:29
|
|
|
Best Friends posted: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? Willa Rogers posted:It's not even just the Senate with the switch-out villains; Chait has a piece on Gottheimer (who helped block meaningful prescription-drug legislation last year): Take this to the Midterms thread, please.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 17:32
|
|
|
That bench is empty by design, the party establishment spent decades going scorched earth on it to clear the way for the chosen, and has no way to react when they doesn't work out. The whole apparatus is still not really over how we're supposed to be in the victory lap second term of President Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 17:33
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:Take this to the Midterms thread, please. Even when we're talking about politicians currently elected, and their past & present actions? Why? From the OP: quote:Welcome to the new USCE thread for 2022. This is a quick reminder that USCE is for discussing of current events and news about the United States in the year of our LORD 2022. If anyone has some interesting articles they wish to talk about, post it here! And please add some of your own commentary to it first. I thought the Chait piece, which was written two days ago, was pertinent in context of the discussion of rotating villains, which has been a mainstay of the CE/USPol threads; was that a wrong assumption on my part? (I'm asking here instead of via PM bc I think it's fair for everyone to know the acceptable parameters of discussion rather than being probated for discussing something that's been acceptable for posting till now.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 17:43
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:That bench is empty by design, the party establishment spent decades going scorched earth on it to clear the way for the chosen, and has no way to react when they doesn't work out. The whole apparatus is still not really over how we're supposed to be in the victory lap second term of President Clinton. Maybe. But Barrack Obama was basically nobody until he delivered a king hell bitch of a speech at the DNC that genuinely spoke to people and that I personally found incredibly moving and resonating. For the first time in a long time, I heard someone (who I had never heard of) speak to the priorities and ideals that I myself held and I think a lot of other people did too. His charisma and oratory skills were exceptional, but were the exception not the rule. If the bench was empty by design, I doubt he could have beaten Hillary for the nomination but I'll concede that I might be missing something and also realize that the party mechanism worked rather hard to stomp out his candidacy. I think the overall thing, really, is that the Democratic Party is, for the most part, rather centrist and even conservative. That's hardly news here though. They just get labeled far left radical liberals because their opposition mostly consists of people who support theocratic dictatorship and Montgomery Burns clones so anything to the left of that is European Socialism. There is no political party that supports (very) popular left leaning ideas like M4A, stricter gun control, abortion rights, affordable education and a whole bunch of other things I could list which poll very well when they're not framed or worded using terms that Americans have been conditioned to hate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
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. You could take a page out of the republican playbook, and start using the kind of rhetoric that eventually results in stochastic acts of violence. Then just hope your stochastic terrorists have good enough aim and/or that they scare/motivate enough people that electoralism gets you what you want. ....what? Don't act like the chuds aren't clapping like seals when they see attacks like Buffalo's Tops grocery shooting, or the Walmart El Paso shooting, or the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre in 2018. Violence is a tool, and right now only one side seems to be willing to reach for it. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Even when we're talking about politicians currently elected, and their past & present actions? Why? To me your conversation with Best Friends appears to be about the upcoming legislators, which feels more appropriate for the thread on elections where they shall be chosen. Also, that wasn’t a “I’m about to probate you” warning, just a request in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 18:16
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:To me your conversation with Best Friends appears to be about the upcoming legislators, which feels more appropriate for the thread on elections where they shall be chosen. Also, that wasn’t a “I’m about to probate you” warning, just a request in good faith. Both Manchin & Gottheimer are current legislators; Manchin isn't up for reelection this year, and Gottheimer's reelection is the same as every other U.S. Rep, every two years (he is currently serving as rep, which was the focus of Chait's piece). The piece is over Gottheimer's current & present actions. In any case, I think this new stratification should be spelled out more clearly in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Both Manchin & Gottheimer are current legislators; Manchin isn't up for reelection this year, and Gottheimer's reelection is the same as every other U.S. Rep, every two years (he is currently serving as rep, which was the focus of Chait's piece). Noted, I'll put this up for an internal discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 18:32
|
|
|
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. It's up to us to move the voters left, not only increasing the popularity of leftist ideas but also getting people to place more priority on factoring them into their voting decisions. It's always been difficult to get 60+ seats, but both the difficulty in getting large blue majorities and the difficulty in getting the GOP to cooperate both stem from the fact that progressives have not been successful in building public support. There's not much point in talking how issues poll if you can't get people to come out and vote based on those issues. Voter suppression works best when policies are popular only with certain specific demographics; it's not terribly effective when most or all of the populace is behind a policy. The same goes for gerrymandering - it reduces the representation of some areas while increasing the representation of others, but that's only useful if support for a policy is divided into areas that support it and areas that don't. If suppressing black voters is enough to stop minimum wage increases and drug pricing reform, it's because we haven't convinced white people that those things are more important than policing trans kids' bathroom usage or forcing rape victims to carry their rapists' babies. I don't have some easy blueprint for how to change their minds on that, but there is no path to progressive political success on the national level that doesn't include finding a way to either change their minds or activate the tens of millions of voters who don't particularly care either way. Ultimately, poo poo like gerrymandering and voter suppression only works because the electorate at large isn't really pushing for progressive policies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's up to us to move the voters left, not only increasing the popularity of leftist ideas but also getting people to place more priority on factoring them into their voting decisions. It's always been difficult to get 60+ seats, but both the difficulty in getting large blue majorities and the difficulty in getting the GOP to cooperate both stem from the fact that progressives have not been successful in building public support. There's not much point in talking how issues poll if you can't get people to come out and vote based on those issues. What do you see as the role of Democratic legislators, such as Coons & Carper, who oppose politically popular legislation such as raising the minimum wage? Or the role of a Democratic administration that runs on politically popular legislation such as opening Medicare to those age 60+ or a public option, then fails to promote it or include it in its proposed legislation? Or the role of a party that promises that with 50 senators and a Dem veep, voters will have these things that the party has promised. Finally, who do you believe holds more sway when it comes to emerging legislation: political donors, or the party's voters? And do you believe that the party itself bears any responsibility in convincing voters of things that are politically popular yet never are legislated?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:What do you see as the role of Democratic legislators, such as Coons & Carper, who oppose politically popular legislation such as raising the minimum wage? I see them as making a sufficient effort to pursue the highest political priorities of the voters in their states. It's the job of the left - not the Democratic Party - to convince enough of their voters to become single-issue minimum wage voters that Coons and Carper either change their position on the issue or get replaced. Similarly, public option healthcare can't have been that politically popular, or else Congress would have forced it into the bill whether the administration liked it or not. With 50 Senators who support a policy, voters will absolutely have those things. Whether the Dems are able to get 50 senators that support that policy is ultimately up to the voters. As for the last question, it's a bit of a trick question, because it misunderstands the relationship between politicians, donors, and voters. Politicians are (for the most part) not spending campaign donations on hookers and blow - they're spending those donations on trying to convince voters to vote for them. Ultimately, whether a politician keeps their seat or not is up to the voters...but how important the donors are is also up to the voters, and how willing they are to be swayed by some TV ads and a phonebanking campaign. The amount of influence donors have over a given issue is strongly based on how deeply the voters care about the issue. Plenty of well-funded politicos have managed to get ousted by an opponent with less money because they pissed off the voters enough that they couldn't use donations to buy their way out of their unpopularity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
I didn't claim that an increased minimum wage had to be the "highest" political priority; only that it was an example of something politically popular that was spurned by [eta: congressional] Dems. As far as a public option, it has shown sustained, overwhelming majority, support from voters across most surveys--which is why Biden & other Democrats successfully ran on legislating a public option two short years ago. The idea that "the left" is responsible for donor-driven legislation that excludes initiatives that are overwhelmingly popular among voters is not only offensive, it's an incredibly narrow & self-fulfilling view that won't win Democrats any new voters, and will likely cause them to lose voters, over time. In any case, since you included yourself initially as part of "the left" that must do a better job in making things that are already politically popular even more so to become legislation, what are some examples of the ways in which successfully you've done so, or ways in which you believe "the left" can convince politicians to support such legislation to garner even more support than three out of every four voters? eta the part of your initial post I was addressing in my last paragraph: quote:It's up to us to move the voters left, not only increasing the popularity of leftist ideas but also getting people to place more priority on factoring them into their voting decisions. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Jul 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 19:20
|
|
|
Blaming "the left" for not moving the democratic party into a more progressive stance is a hard sell for me. I'm very hard left and so are a lot of my friends. We're dead broke. I work two jobs (and freelance) and many of us raise kids or commute an hour to work as our rent increases. We're not rich political donors but we get out and protest, sometimes knock on doors, vote in primaries and often write our congressmen. Not entirely sure how or why mainstream democrats not embracing and running on the overwhelmingly popular ideas that Willa posted is our fault.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I didn't claim that an increased minimum wage had to be the "highest" political priority; only that it was an example of something politically popular that was spurned by Dems. I don't think it's reasonable to argue that the Biden administration spurned increased minimum wage. They, or at least a faction therein, are demonstrably willing to raise the minimum wage for everyone they can through executive action, because that's exactly what Interior and Labor did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 19:55
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Blaming "the left" for not moving the democratic party into a more progressive stance is a hard sell for me. I'm very hard left and so are a lot of my friends. We're dead broke. I work two jobs (and freelance) and many of us raise kids or commute an hour to work as our rent increases. We're not rich political donors but we get out and protest, sometimes knock on doors, vote in primaries and often write our congressmen. The thing is that the Democrats did run on and embrace popular ideas like Medicare at 60 and a public option--even the centrist candidate who won the nomination and then the election. And that will make the Democrats themselves a harder sell to voters in future elections.* *Mods, please let me know if mentioning "future election" should be silo'd to the midterms thread and I'll edit that line out. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
A new milestone for the Biden presidency: https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1547997948872495104 He's currently polling 4 points behind where Trump was at during the same point in their respective presidencies: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I don't think it's reasonable to argue that the Biden administration spurned increased minimum wage. They, or at least a faction therein, are demonstrably willing to raise the minimum wage for everyone they can through executive action, because that's exactly what Interior and Labor did. I mentioned the minimum wage vote in context of the several Democrats who voted against it in the U.S. Senate. The administration spurned a public option & Medicare at 60; they weren't even included in the earliest outlines of what Biden wanted in a BBB bill or any other legislation. eta: I used the language "spurned by Dems"; I'll edit it to make clear that I was discussing congressional Dems so there's no future confusion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/USFWS/status/1547929557986029570 The United States Fish And Wildlife Service telling us to go touch grass they're right
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 20:09
|
|
|
B B posted:A new milestone for the Biden presidency: quote:Biden was at the White House Congressional Picnic on Tuesday evening when he was asked if he had anything to say to Democrats who want him to hang it up after a single term. READ THE POLLS, JACK
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The thing is that the Democrats did run on and embrace popular ideas like Medicare at 60 and a public option--even the centrist candidate who won the nomination and then the election. How many presidents don't break a decent number of campaign promises? Do you think it's any different this time than when Trump, Obama, etc had broken a majority of their campaign promises?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
Five Thirty Eight also has a piece about Democrats spending $1 million to support Trump's pick for Maryland governor in the Republican primary, instead of supporting outgoing Gov. Hogan's pick. This is pretty rich considering the number of prominent Democrats who openly supported Hogan or who sat on their hands after Ben Jealous won the Democratic nomination to run against Hogan four years ago. I understand they're trying to game out who they consider the worst g.e. opponent, but it's not like that has never come back to bite them in the butt. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jul 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
Kalit posted:How many presidents don't break a decent number of campaign promises? Do you think it's any different this time than when Trump, Obama, etc had broken a majority of their campaign promises? This has nothing to do with my response to MP, which was rebutting the idea that "we on the left" are somehow responsible for getting legislation passed after politicians have won elections by supporting ideas popular among voters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:This has nothing to do with my response to MP, which was rebutting the idea that "we on the left" are somehow responsible for getting legislation passed after politicians have won elections by supporting ideas popular among voters. Ah, sorry, I didn't realize you meant only leftist voters when you stated "And that will make the Democrats themselves a harder sell to voters in future elections". Thank you for elaborating on that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 20:21
|
|
|
Kalit posted:Ah, sorry, I didn't realize you meant only leftist voters when you stated "And that will make the Democrats themselves a harder sell to voters in future elections". Thank you for elaborating on that. I believe you've misunderstood: 1. MP claimed that "we on the left" have to do more to pressure politicians to pass legislation. 2. I pointed out that we elected politicians for the very reason that the legislation they promised to pass was already very politically popular. [eta: Popular among all voters, not just "leftists"] 3. Three out of every four voters supporting things like a public option has nothing to do with "the left" and everything to do with popular legislations for which politicians are elected. [eta: In other words, more than "the left" support these issues.] 4. I put "the left" in quotes because MP intimated that it's "we the left's" responsibility to get legislation passed that was already popular, and for which the politicians were elected. Do you understand now, or do you need further clarification why were discussing "the left" [note the quotes] in context of my response to MP? iow, the furthest thing from what I was discussing is that these issues are limited to "leftist voters" when three out of every four voters support them. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jul 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
How many times does it have to be shown that what voters want means precisely zero point dick, while the wealthy class gets legislation they want basically at their whim, before the arguments that we need to keep working on voters finally dies the ignominious death it deserves? Start working on things that actually can improve the world and will help with the poo poo storm that's coming. Electoralism hasn't been that for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 20:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:I believe you've misunderstood: I understand that part, but I'm still confused on your claim of "make the Democrats themselves a harder sell to voters in future elections". This statement, to me, implies that a significant number of voters will hold a grudge and not vote for Democrats in the future based on these broken promises. If this is not what you mean by that specific statement, I'm sorry for the assumption and you can correct me. But, looking at past presidents, broken campaign promises happen all the time for both parties. But people still go out and vote for these parties, with voter turnout generally trending upward as the years go on. So what are you basing this claim on? Kalit fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Jul 15, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2022 20:36
|
|