We talk a lot about complicity among the Republicans and their allies, so why not apply it to Democrats when they declare they aren't fighting an issue anymore?
By this standard you're complicit because you stated above a "It doesn't have to come to the government shutdown and such". Which is all the Dems are doing here: not tying it to the budget. They aren't giving up, they just aren't using this particular hammer because they don't think it will work. It's fair to disagree on that.
"We won't fight for you unless we know we are going to win" is not strong messaging
And the fact is once the Republicans start deportations, voting Democrat will not save anyone because they're already gone. Democrats have to fight if they want people to believe that voting for them makes a difference
Seriously, wtf are they supposed to do now instead? What power do they actually have to leverage here?
Not nearly as much as they used to have; the Democrats squandered most of it it during the shutdown.
The time to take a principled stand was back then, when the Democrats had maximum leverage. Instead they folded almost immediately for "concessions" that included a vote that had no chance of passing. Now they can essentially wash their hands of it because that vote didn't pass and people excusing their actions can now make strategic arguments ("What else do you want? They had a vote!") for doing nothing until after the next election, or the one after that if the blue wave crests a bit short of the goal line.
The Democrats had their shot, balked, and put thousands of people in unnecessary jeopardy because of hamfisted political manuevering. Criticism of such ineptitude should come from all corners of the party, not just ethnic subgroups or the 'far left'.
What the heck is "political reality" and why is it being regarded as some absolute?
49 Dem senators no House majority and a hostile President. It's regarded as absolute because until November that isn't changing.
Okay so "political reality" means "actually passing legislation."
So people should only vote on something if they're in the position to win it?
It’s arguable, and arguable on a vote by vote basis, whether or not taking a symbolic vote is good or bad politically.
More importantly, we know that the party, the actual voters, are split on whether threatening a shutdown to even force a symbolic vote is a good idea. That seems like a losing proposition for Dems in Congress to me.
If this is the actual Democratic Party code of operations they sicken me and I'm not sure I should be supporting them until they change for the better. Screwing people over because of some mystical nonsense political "game" rules is something we all need to put into the past.
How are they screwing people over?
The votes happened dude. Despite all the yelling about the strategy and the mistakes they did or did not make depending on how you felt, the votes went to the floor.
And they failed. The Democrats don't have the votes for it because of the November 2016 elections. And that's basically it.
They can't screw anyone over here, they don't have the power.
Politics is more than the vote count on the floor. Especially when you're the minority.
Sure but if your complaint is that they need to message better that isn't "screwing people over".
Political messaging is about more then just vote counts. Actual policy is not. The only people actual effecting anyone here are Republicans. Democrats got their votes and they failed and that's literally it for what they can actually accomplish here related to people getting screwed over.
Like, I'm not sure you can emphasize this enough: the vote happened. That's what Democrats can force with enough leverage: a vote. They did. And the votes failed. They can yell and scream and take hostages and all that shit but all they can get for all that is another vote. And there is no reason to think the vote won't just fail again.
This is basically the same thing Harry was saying earlier and my response would be much the same.
Poor strategy and rhetoric on the part of Dems has a very real effect on people. Trying to separate elections policy and politics out like this like they're not somehow all the same thing only serves to absolve a party that doesn't know what it's doing of it's share of responsibility
I want a political party that fights for what I believe in, which includes DACA.
Their stand on the budget was absolute flimsy horseshit, when they could have had a stronger hand than the one they played. Which was terrible.
And somehow it worked well enough to get a vote on the floor of the Senate. Which was good.
But DACA support still died a quick death in the Senate, especially in the face of Trump's opposition. Which is terrible, and means they lost this round. Courts have called a time-out, but that's all this is.
But regarless of whether or not they won, I'm not seeing the Democrats fight very well. I'd love to get a win, especially on an issue like DACA. But I'd take losing better if they at least fought well.
Yes, the Democrats are not in charge of any branch the government. But they are in charge of themselves. And how well they fight is up to them.
*Note, the act of fighting for something currently seems to be defined by the Republicans. It may be unwise to assume their definition correct. For example, what about outside the walls of Congress and the Senate? How much are the Democratic party engaging with the activism around Dreamers? Are they supporting it? Just trying to free-load off of it? Is there some way they can "fight" outside congress, to help increase support for Dreamers?
I want to win in November, and burning down the system in March is not the way to do that.
Well then 800k people burn while you wait for November
I understand how you can arrive at that conclusion, but I personally won't support that stance
You say this as if there is a guarantee to have the votes to stop it. Every attempt they’ve done this has been a non starter.
Also, it’s important for the Dems to try to save everybody, and even if they did as your suggesting (which would take a miracle) I don’t think you’d like it if the Dems lose other battles you care abouti. The process. Because with politics both the big and small pictures matter - and can affect negatively on immigrant rights down the line.
This is how coalitions work, otherwise the opposition becomes the Green Party and they have no relevance here.
I want to win in November, and burning down the system in March is not the way to do that.
Well then 800k people burn while you wait for November
I understand how you can arrive at that conclusion, but I personally won't support that stance
You say this as if there is a guarantee to have the votes to stop it. Every attempt they’ve done this has been a non starter.
Also, it’s important for the Dems to try to save everybody, and even if they did as your suggesting (which would take a miracle) I don’t think you’d like it if the Dems lose other battles you care abouti. The process. Because with politics both the big and small pictures matter - and can affect negatively on immigrant rights down the line.
This is how coalitions work, otherwise the opposition becomes the Green Party and they have no relevance here.
This is so condescending.
+3
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
I just really hope that this election seasons is busy with primaries, while I certainly won’t both side this I would like to see new blood from both parties: Conservatives with caring principles who live in reality and liberals with spines. I view both as equally likely, which is a shame as I like everything the Dems are about, I just wished they cared enough to apply pressure for the groups that need someone on the federal level to fight for them. You don’t have to win every fight, but you should be in each fight trying to win.
I want to win in November, and burning down the system in March is not the way to do that.
Well then 800k people burn while you wait for November
I understand how you can arrive at that conclusion, but I personally won't support that stance
You say this as if there is a guarantee to have the votes to stop it. Every attempt they’ve done this has been a non starter.
Also, it’s important for the Dems to try to save everybody, and even if they did as your suggesting (which would take a miracle) I don’t think you’d like it if the Dems lose other battles you care abouti. The process. Because with politics both the big and small pictures matter - and can affect negatively on immigrant rights down the line.
This is how coalitions work, otherwise the opposition becomes the Green Party and they have no relevance here.
This is so condescending.
It’s reality. I want to save the Dreamers as much as you do, but expecting the Dems to operate as if they can wn this thing like it’s no big deal is only going to set you for disappointment. That’s not how politics works. The Dreamers are only saved by pursuading enough Republicans and avoid a Trump veto, anything less will end in failure. That’s the political consequence of the last elections, maybe in the next this won’t be as dire but until then this is the situation.
We talk a lot about complicity among the Republicans and their allies, so why not apply it to Democrats when they declare they aren't fighting an issue anymore?
Because you haven't drawn a line between their actions and the end of DACA that implies any complicity.
The vote happened. People complained they blinked and they kinda did but they still got the vote they asked for anyway. And it failed.
IMO, most of this is impotent frustration being vented. The Republicans are the ones who are actually to blame, but are untouchable; they hold all the cards and there's nothing we can actually do about that right now. ("Symbolically" is another matter, but symbols that are important to some are meaningless to others.) It also really doesn't help that the media seem willing to carry water for one party and take them at their word on everything, and blame everything on the other.
Go ahead and keep blowing off steam if it makes you feel better, but don't forget - if we're divided when opportunity for action comes, they win.
"We won't fight for you unless we know we are going to win" is not strong messaging
And the fact is once the Republicans start deportations, voting Democrat will not save anyone because they're already gone. Democrats have to fight if they want people to believe that voting for them makes a difference
Seriously, wtf are they supposed to do now instead? What power do they actually have to leverage here?
Not nearly as much as they used to have; the Democrats squandered most of it it during the shutdown.
The time to take a principled stand was back then, when the Democrats had maximum leverage. Instead they folded almost immediately for "concessions" that included a vote that had no chance of passing. Now they can essentially wash their hands of it because that vote didn't pass and people excusing their actions can now make strategic arguments ("What else do you want? They had a vote!") for doing nothing until after the next election, or the one after that if the blue wave crests a bit short of the goal line.
The Democrats had their shot, balked, and put thousands of people in unnecessary jeopardy because of hamfisted political manuevering. Criticism of such ineptitude should come from all corners of the party, not just ethnic subgroups or the 'far left'.
What did they squander? They got the vote. You know what shutting down the government gets you? A vote. That was the ask. That was the exchange for the hostages. That's actually more then the GOP got for their shutdowns as far as I know.
The big thing here though is this sentence: "a vote that had no chance of passing". Yeah, exactly. That's the ball game right there. If you believe a vote on fixing DACA has no chance of passing then ... what exactly are you expecting? There is no getting around this part. It's not like the votes that happened are somehow magically different then any other kind of votes you could get on the issue. The bills came up for vote and they failed. They got the votes on the issue they wanted and the votes have, in your words, "no chance of passing". So that's it as far as getting shit done goes.
What the heck is "political reality" and why is it being regarded as some absolute?
49 Dem senators no House majority and a hostile President. It's regarded as absolute because until November that isn't changing.
Okay so "political reality" means "actually passing legislation."
So people should only vote on something if they're in the position to win it?
It’s arguable, and arguable on a vote by vote basis, whether or not taking a symbolic vote is good or bad politically.
More importantly, we know that the party, the actual voters, are split on whether threatening a shutdown to even force a symbolic vote is a good idea. That seems like a losing proposition for Dems in Congress to me.
If this is the actual Democratic Party code of operations they sicken me and I'm not sure I should be supporting them until they change for the better. Screwing people over because of some mystical nonsense political "game" rules is something we all need to put into the past.
How are they screwing people over?
The votes happened dude. Despite all the yelling about the strategy and the mistakes they did or did not make depending on how you felt, the votes went to the floor.
And they failed. The Democrats don't have the votes for it because of the November 2016 elections. And that's basically it.
They can't screw anyone over here, they don't have the power.
Politics is more than the vote count on the floor. Especially when you're the minority.
Sure but if your complaint is that they need to message better that isn't "screwing people over".
Political messaging is about more then just vote counts. Actual policy is not. The only people actual effecting anyone here are Republicans. Democrats got their votes and they failed and that's literally it for what they can actually accomplish here related to people getting screwed over.
Like, I'm not sure you can emphasize this enough: the vote happened. That's what Democrats can force with enough leverage: a vote. They did. And the votes failed. They can yell and scream and take hostages and all that shit but all they can get for all that is another vote. And there is no reason to think the vote won't just fail again.
This is basically the same thing Harry was saying earlier and my response would be much the same.
Poor strategy and rhetoric on the part of Dems has a very real effect on people. Trying to separate elections policy and politics out like this like they're not somehow all the same thing only serves to absolve a party that doesn't know what it's doing of it's share of responsibility
My point is my own yo. Again, like I just said, if you wanna say they need to message better here, sure. But claiming they are screwing people over is bullshit. They got the votes to prevent people getting screwed, those votes failed.
I'm not trying to separate election policy from politics I'm separating things that actually become law from rhetoric. There are the things Democrats can do to actually solve the DACA issue (nothing) and the things they can yell about in the media (a lot).
What the heck is "political reality" and why is it being regarded as some absolute?
49 Dem senators no House majority and a hostile President. It's regarded as absolute because until November that isn't changing.
Okay so "political reality" means "actually passing legislation."
So people should only vote on something if they're in the position to win it?
It’s arguable, and arguable on a vote by vote basis, whether or not taking a symbolic vote is good or bad politically.
More importantly, we know that the party, the actual voters, are split on whether threatening a shutdown to even force a symbolic vote is a good idea. That seems like a losing proposition for Dems in Congress to me.
If this is the actual Democratic Party code of operations they sicken me and I'm not sure I should be supporting them until they change for the better. Screwing people over because of some mystical nonsense political "game" rules is something we all need to put into the past.
How are they screwing people over?
The votes happened dude. Despite all the yelling about the strategy and the mistakes they did or did not make depending on how you felt, the votes went to the floor.
And they failed. The Democrats don't have the votes for it because of the November 2016 elections. And that's basically it.
They can't screw anyone over here, they don't have the power.
Politics is more than the vote count on the floor. Especially when you're the minority.
Sure but if your complaint is that they need to message better that isn't "screwing people over".
Political messaging is about more then just vote counts. Actual policy is not. The only people actual effecting anyone here are Republicans. Democrats got their votes and they failed and that's literally it for what they can actually accomplish here related to people getting screwed over.
Like, I'm not sure you can emphasize this enough: the vote happened. That's what Democrats can force with enough leverage: a vote. They did. And the votes failed. They can yell and scream and take hostages and all that shit but all they can get for all that is another vote. And there is no reason to think the vote won't just fail again.
This is basically the same thing Harry was saying earlier and my response would be much the same.
Poor strategy and rhetoric on the part of Dems has a very real effect on people. Trying to separate elections policy and politics out like this like they're not somehow all the same thing only serves to absolve a party that doesn't know what it's doing of it's share of responsibility
My point is my own yo. Again, like I just said, if you wanna say they need to message better here, sure. But claiming they are screwing people over is bullshit. They got the votes to prevent people getting screwed, those votes failed.
I'm not trying to separate election policy from politics I'm separating things that actually become law from rhetoric. There are the things Democrats can do to actually solve the DACA issue (nothing) and the things they can yell about in the media (a lot).
The whole point to a party is to win elections. Their rhetoric costs them elections and people who aren't them suffer for it. Pretty clear line from A to B.
What the heck is "political reality" and why is it being regarded as some absolute?
49 Dem senators no House majority and a hostile President. It's regarded as absolute because until November that isn't changing.
Okay so "political reality" means "actually passing legislation."
So people should only vote on something if they're in the position to win it?
It’s arguable, and arguable on a vote by vote basis, whether or not taking a symbolic vote is good or bad politically.
More importantly, we know that the party, the actual voters, are split on whether threatening a shutdown to even force a symbolic vote is a good idea. That seems like a losing proposition for Dems in Congress to me.
If this is the actual Democratic Party code of operations they sicken me and I'm not sure I should be supporting them until they change for the better. Screwing people over because of some mystical nonsense political "game" rules is something we all need to put into the past.
How are they screwing people over?
The votes happened dude. Despite all the yelling about the strategy and the mistakes they did or did not make depending on how you felt, the votes went to the floor.
And they failed. The Democrats don't have the votes for it because of the November 2016 elections. And that's basically it.
They can't screw anyone over here, they don't have the power.
Politics is more than the vote count on the floor. Especially when you're the minority.
Sure but if your complaint is that they need to message better that isn't "screwing people over".
Political messaging is about more then just vote counts. Actual policy is not. The only people actual effecting anyone here are Republicans. Democrats got their votes and they failed and that's literally it for what they can actually accomplish here related to people getting screwed over.
Like, I'm not sure you can emphasize this enough: the vote happened. That's what Democrats can force with enough leverage: a vote. They did. And the votes failed. They can yell and scream and take hostages and all that shit but all they can get for all that is another vote. And there is no reason to think the vote won't just fail again.
This is basically the same thing Harry was saying earlier and my response would be much the same.
Poor strategy and rhetoric on the part of Dems has a very real effect on people. Trying to separate elections policy and politics out like this like they're not somehow all the same thing only serves to absolve a party that doesn't know what it's doing of it's share of responsibility
My point is my own yo. Again, like I just said, if you wanna say they need to message better here, sure. But claiming they are screwing people over is bullshit. They got the votes to prevent people getting screwed, those votes failed.
I'm not trying to separate election policy from politics I'm separating things that actually become law from rhetoric. There are the things Democrats can do to actually solve the DACA issue (nothing) and the things they can yell about in the media (a lot).
The whole point to a party is to win elections. Their rhetoric costs them elections and people who aren't them suffer for it. Pretty clear line from A to B.
There really isn't since you haven't even established that it will cost them elections. The most cynical take on what is going on here is that they think the opposite. And ebum laid out a decent reason last page for why that might be correct.
"We won't fight for you unless we know we are going to win" is not strong messaging
And the fact is once the Republicans start deportations, voting Democrat will not save anyone because they're already gone. Democrats have to fight if they want people to believe that voting for them makes a difference
Seriously, wtf are they supposed to do now instead? What power do they actually have to leverage here?
Not nearly as much as they used to have; the Democrats squandered most of it it during the shutdown.
The time to take a principled stand was back then, when the Democrats had maximum leverage. Instead they folded almost immediately for "concessions" that included a vote that had no chance of passing. Now they can essentially wash their hands of it because that vote didn't pass and people excusing their actions can now make strategic arguments ("What else do you want? They had a vote!") for doing nothing until after the next election, or the one after that if the blue wave crests a bit short of the goal line.
The Democrats had their shot, balked, and put thousands of people in unnecessary jeopardy because of hamfisted political manuevering. Criticism of such ineptitude should come from all corners of the party, not just ethnic subgroups or the 'far left'.
What did they squander? They got the vote. You know what shutting down the government gets you? A vote. That was the ask. That was the exchange for the hostages. That's actually more then the GOP got for their shutdowns as far as I know.
The big thing here though is this sentence: "a vote that had no chance of passing". Yeah, exactly. That's the ball game right there. If you believe a vote on fixing DACA has no chance of passing then ... what exactly are you expecting? There is no getting around this part. It's not like the votes that happened are somehow magically different then any other kind of votes you could get on the issue. The bills came up for vote and they failed. They got the votes on the issue they wanted and the votes have, in your words, "no chance of passing". So that's it as far as getting shit done goes.
It sure is if imagination limits all possible GOP concessions to a single vote in one chamber of congress. What about demanding executive action or a de facto extension to DACA, or grandfathering in the most obvious humanitarian cases? Attaching enough GOP pet issues for passage? Waiting longer than a weekend to try anything? Nope, we had a vote and all we could've gotten was that vote.
The Democrats took the first offer (a promise from Mitch) almost immediately because they got scared. I'm skeptical that's the only thing they could've extracted had they managed the timing and messaging of the shutdown in a more competent manner. Maybe you're correct that a doomed vote was the best they could've hoped for and they knew it. If that's the case, we have the worst of both worlds: an utter failure at appeasing the base through a DACA shutdown, and an utter failure to actually change anything in the process.
What the heck is "political reality" and why is it being regarded as some absolute?
49 Dem senators no House majority and a hostile President. It's regarded as absolute because until November that isn't changing.
Okay so "political reality" means "actually passing legislation."
So people should only vote on something if they're in the position to win it?
It’s arguable, and arguable on a vote by vote basis, whether or not taking a symbolic vote is good or bad politically.
More importantly, we know that the party, the actual voters, are split on whether threatening a shutdown to even force a symbolic vote is a good idea. That seems like a losing proposition for Dems in Congress to me.
If this is the actual Democratic Party code of operations they sicken me and I'm not sure I should be supporting them until they change for the better. Screwing people over because of some mystical nonsense political "game" rules is something we all need to put into the past.
How are they screwing people over?
The votes happened dude. Despite all the yelling about the strategy and the mistakes they did or did not make depending on how you felt, the votes went to the floor.
And they failed. The Democrats don't have the votes for it because of the November 2016 elections. And that's basically it.
They can't screw anyone over here, they don't have the power.
Politics is more than the vote count on the floor. Especially when you're the minority.
Sure but if your complaint is that they need to message better that isn't "screwing people over".
Political messaging is about more then just vote counts. Actual policy is not. The only people actual effecting anyone here are Republicans. Democrats got their votes and they failed and that's literally it for what they can actually accomplish here related to people getting screwed over.
Like, I'm not sure you can emphasize this enough: the vote happened. That's what Democrats can force with enough leverage: a vote. They did. And the votes failed. They can yell and scream and take hostages and all that shit but all they can get for all that is another vote. And there is no reason to think the vote won't just fail again.
This is basically the same thing Harry was saying earlier and my response would be much the same.
Poor strategy and rhetoric on the part of Dems has a very real effect on people. Trying to separate elections policy and politics out like this like they're not somehow all the same thing only serves to absolve a party that doesn't know what it's doing of it's share of responsibility
My point is my own yo. Again, like I just said, if you wanna say they need to message better here, sure. But claiming they are screwing people over is bullshit. They got the votes to prevent people getting screwed, those votes failed.
I'm not trying to separate election policy from politics I'm separating things that actually become law from rhetoric. There are the things Democrats can do to actually solve the DACA issue (nothing) and the things they can yell about in the media (a lot).
The whole point to a party is to win elections. Their rhetoric costs them elections and people who aren't them suffer for it. Pretty clear line from A to B.
There really isn't since you haven't even established that it will cost them elections. The most cynical take on what is going on here is that they think the opposite. And ebum laid out a decent reason last page for why that might be correct.
You think demoralizing their base won't hurt them? You think depressed turnout hasn't hurt them in the past? Elections are won on turnout. Nothing about the Democrats' actions on DACA help them here.
"We won't fight for you unless we know we are going to win" is not strong messaging
And the fact is once the Republicans start deportations, voting Democrat will not save anyone because they're already gone. Democrats have to fight if they want people to believe that voting for them makes a difference
Seriously, wtf are they supposed to do now instead? What power do they actually have to leverage here?
Not nearly as much as they used to have; the Democrats squandered most of it it during the shutdown.
The time to take a principled stand was back then, when the Democrats had maximum leverage. Instead they folded almost immediately for "concessions" that included a vote that had no chance of passing. Now they can essentially wash their hands of it because that vote didn't pass and people excusing their actions can now make strategic arguments ("What else do you want? They had a vote!") for doing nothing until after the next election, or the one after that if the blue wave crests a bit short of the goal line.
The Democrats had their shot, balked, and put thousands of people in unnecessary jeopardy because of hamfisted political manuevering. Criticism of such ineptitude should come from all corners of the party, not just ethnic subgroups or the 'far left'.
What did they squander? They got the vote. You know what shutting down the government gets you? A vote. That was the ask. That was the exchange for the hostages. That's actually more then the GOP got for their shutdowns as far as I know.
The big thing here though is this sentence: "a vote that had no chance of passing". Yeah, exactly. That's the ball game right there. If you believe a vote on fixing DACA has no chance of passing then ... what exactly are you expecting? There is no getting around this part. It's not like the votes that happened are somehow magically different then any other kind of votes you could get on the issue. The bills came up for vote and they failed. They got the votes on the issue they wanted and the votes have, in your words, "no chance of passing". So that's it as far as getting shit done goes.
It sure is if imagination limits all possible GOP concessions to a single vote in one chamber of congress. What about demanding executive action or a de facto extension to DACA, or grandfathering in the most obvious humanitarian cases? Attaching enough GOP pet issues for passage? Waiting longer than a weekend to try anything? Nope, we had a vote and all we could've gotten was that vote.
The Democrats took the first offer (a promise from Mitch) almost immediately because they got scared. I'm skeptical that's the only thing they could've extracted had they managed the timing and messaging of the shutdown in a more competent manner. Maybe you're correct that a doomed vote was the best they could've hoped for and they knew it. If that's the case, we have the worst of both worlds: an utter failure at appeasing the base through a DACA shutdown, and an utter failure to actually change anything in the process.
If the vote we got was doomed, what other kind of vote is there? There's not like a different congress with different members who think different ways. It's vote in Congress or nothing when it comes to the vote. If the vote we got was doomed, then they all are. What was a longer shutdown gonna even get you?
Demanding executive action is gonna get you nowhere because Trump doesn't care as he amply demonstrates every day since he can fix this any time and actively killed the deal that was in the works.
You keep talking about failure but you seem to be basing this on a comparison to a non-existent potential solution here. Either Congress does something or nothing happens. And Congress held the vote to do something. It failed. Democrats don't have enough seats. And votes are how Congress does stuff.
As near as I can tell, in all honesty, the defense of Democrats here seems to be "their bad rhetoric is irrelevant because they couldn't have won their vote"
What the heck is "political reality" and why is it being regarded as some absolute?
49 Dem senators no House majority and a hostile President. It's regarded as absolute because until November that isn't changing.
Okay so "political reality" means "actually passing legislation."
So people should only vote on something if they're in the position to win it?
It’s arguable, and arguable on a vote by vote basis, whether or not taking a symbolic vote is good or bad politically.
More importantly, we know that the party, the actual voters, are split on whether threatening a shutdown to even force a symbolic vote is a good idea. That seems like a losing proposition for Dems in Congress to me.
If this is the actual Democratic Party code of operations they sicken me and I'm not sure I should be supporting them until they change for the better. Screwing people over because of some mystical nonsense political "game" rules is something we all need to put into the past.
How are they screwing people over?
The votes happened dude. Despite all the yelling about the strategy and the mistakes they did or did not make depending on how you felt, the votes went to the floor.
And they failed. The Democrats don't have the votes for it because of the November 2016 elections. And that's basically it.
They can't screw anyone over here, they don't have the power.
Politics is more than the vote count on the floor. Especially when you're the minority.
Sure but if your complaint is that they need to message better that isn't "screwing people over".
Political messaging is about more then just vote counts. Actual policy is not. The only people actual effecting anyone here are Republicans. Democrats got their votes and they failed and that's literally it for what they can actually accomplish here related to people getting screwed over.
Like, I'm not sure you can emphasize this enough: the vote happened. That's what Democrats can force with enough leverage: a vote. They did. And the votes failed. They can yell and scream and take hostages and all that shit but all they can get for all that is another vote. And there is no reason to think the vote won't just fail again.
This is basically the same thing Harry was saying earlier and my response would be much the same.
Poor strategy and rhetoric on the part of Dems has a very real effect on people. Trying to separate elections policy and politics out like this like they're not somehow all the same thing only serves to absolve a party that doesn't know what it's doing of it's share of responsibility
My point is my own yo. Again, like I just said, if you wanna say they need to message better here, sure. But claiming they are screwing people over is bullshit. They got the votes to prevent people getting screwed, those votes failed.
I'm not trying to separate election policy from politics I'm separating things that actually become law from rhetoric. There are the things Democrats can do to actually solve the DACA issue (nothing) and the things they can yell about in the media (a lot).
The whole point to a party is to win elections. Their rhetoric costs them elections and people who aren't them suffer for it. Pretty clear line from A to B.
There really isn't since you haven't even established that it will cost them elections. The most cynical take on what is going on here is that they think the opposite. And ebum laid out a decent reason last page for why that might be correct.
You think demoralizing their base won't hurt them? You think depressed turnout hasn't hurt them in the past? Elections are won on turnout. Nothing about the Democrats' actions on DACA help them here.
That assumes this demoralizes the base and that the opposite doesn't turn away other voters.
Again, if you wanna read this as pure political politicking then the trade-off is "people who care enough about DACA to not vote based on the Democrats not holding hostages to get another vote on it" vs "white people who are made uncomfortable by pro-immigration talk". And it's not clear that the first group matters more then the second for winning elections.
What the heck is "political reality" and why is it being regarded as some absolute?
49 Dem senators no House majority and a hostile President. It's regarded as absolute because until November that isn't changing.
Okay so "political reality" means "actually passing legislation."
So people should only vote on something if they're in the position to win it?
It’s arguable, and arguable on a vote by vote basis, whether or not taking a symbolic vote is good or bad politically.
More importantly, we know that the party, the actual voters, are split on whether threatening a shutdown to even force a symbolic vote is a good idea. That seems like a losing proposition for Dems in Congress to me.
If this is the actual Democratic Party code of operations they sicken me and I'm not sure I should be supporting them until they change for the better. Screwing people over because of some mystical nonsense political "game" rules is something we all need to put into the past.
How are they screwing people over?
The votes happened dude. Despite all the yelling about the strategy and the mistakes they did or did not make depending on how you felt, the votes went to the floor.
And they failed. The Democrats don't have the votes for it because of the November 2016 elections. And that's basically it.
They can't screw anyone over here, they don't have the power.
Politics is more than the vote count on the floor. Especially when you're the minority.
Sure but if your complaint is that they need to message better that isn't "screwing people over".
Political messaging is about more then just vote counts. Actual policy is not. The only people actual effecting anyone here are Republicans. Democrats got their votes and they failed and that's literally it for what they can actually accomplish here related to people getting screwed over.
Like, I'm not sure you can emphasize this enough: the vote happened. That's what Democrats can force with enough leverage: a vote. They did. And the votes failed. They can yell and scream and take hostages and all that shit but all they can get for all that is another vote. And there is no reason to think the vote won't just fail again.
This is basically the same thing Harry was saying earlier and my response would be much the same.
Poor strategy and rhetoric on the part of Dems has a very real effect on people. Trying to separate elections policy and politics out like this like they're not somehow all the same thing only serves to absolve a party that doesn't know what it's doing of it's share of responsibility
My point is my own yo. Again, like I just said, if you wanna say they need to message better here, sure. But claiming they are screwing people over is bullshit. They got the votes to prevent people getting screwed, those votes failed.
I'm not trying to separate election policy from politics I'm separating things that actually become law from rhetoric. There are the things Democrats can do to actually solve the DACA issue (nothing) and the things they can yell about in the media (a lot).
The whole point to a party is to win elections. Their rhetoric costs them elections and people who aren't them suffer for it. Pretty clear line from A to B.
There really isn't since you haven't even established that it will cost them elections. The most cynical take on what is going on here is that they think the opposite. And ebum laid out a decent reason last page for why that might be correct.
You think demoralizing their base won't hurt them? You think depressed turnout hasn't hurt them in the past? Elections are won on turnout. Nothing about the Democrats' actions on DACA help them here.
That assumes this demoralizes the base and that the opposite doesn't turn away other voters.
Again, if you wanna read this as pure political politicking then the trade-off is "people who care enough about DACA to not vote based on the Democrats not holding hostages to get another vote on it" vs "white people who are made uncomfortable by pro-immigration talk". And it's not clear that the first group matters more then the second for winning elections.
I can never keep track of whether "we're a party for minorities" or not.
You're also being seriously dishonest if you think the sum total of demands here are "hold government hostage for another vote".
"We won't fight for you unless we know we are going to win" is not strong messaging
And the fact is once the Republicans start deportations, voting Democrat will not save anyone because they're already gone. Democrats have to fight if they want people to believe that voting for them makes a difference
Seriously, wtf are they supposed to do now instead? What power do they actually have to leverage here?
Not nearly as much as they used to have; the Democrats squandered most of it it during the shutdown.
The time to take a principled stand was back then, when the Democrats had maximum leverage. Instead they folded almost immediately for "concessions" that included a vote that had no chance of passing. Now they can essentially wash their hands of it because that vote didn't pass and people excusing their actions can now make strategic arguments ("What else do you want? They had a vote!") for doing nothing until after the next election, or the one after that if the blue wave crests a bit short of the goal line.
The Democrats had their shot, balked, and put thousands of people in unnecessary jeopardy because of hamfisted political manuevering. Criticism of such ineptitude should come from all corners of the party, not just ethnic subgroups or the 'far left'.
What did they squander? They got the vote. You know what shutting down the government gets you? A vote. That was the ask. That was the exchange for the hostages. That's actually more then the GOP got for their shutdowns as far as I know.
The big thing here though is this sentence: "a vote that had no chance of passing". Yeah, exactly. That's the ball game right there. If you believe a vote on fixing DACA has no chance of passing then ... what exactly are you expecting? There is no getting around this part. It's not like the votes that happened are somehow magically different then any other kind of votes you could get on the issue. The bills came up for vote and they failed. They got the votes on the issue they wanted and the votes have, in your words, "no chance of passing". So that's it as far as getting shit done goes.
It sure is if imagination limits all possible GOP concessions to a single vote in one chamber of congress. What about demanding executive action or a de facto extension to DACA, or grandfathering in the most obvious humanitarian cases? Attaching enough GOP pet issues for passage? Waiting longer than a weekend to try anything? Nope, we had a vote and all we could've gotten was that vote.
The Democrats took the first offer (a promise from Mitch) almost immediately because they got scared. I'm skeptical that's the only thing they could've extracted had they managed the timing and messaging of the shutdown in a more competent manner. Maybe you're correct that a doomed vote was the best they could've hoped for and they knew it. If that's the case, we have the worst of both worlds: an utter failure at appeasing the base through a DACA shutdown, and an utter failure to actually change anything in the process.
If the vote we got was doomed, what other kind of vote is there? There's not like a different congress with different members who think different ways. It's vote in Congress or nothing when it comes to the vote. If the vote we got was doomed, then they all are. What was a longer shutdown gonna even get you?
Demanding executive action is gonna get you nowhere because Trump doesn't care as he amply demonstrates every day since he can fix this any time and actively killed the deal that was in the works.
You keep talking about failure but you seem to be basing this on a comparison to a non-existent potential solution here. Either Congress does something or nothing happens. And Congress held the vote to do something. It failed. Democrats don't have enough seats. And votes are how Congress does stuff.
Again, there are lots of options (I listed four off the top of my head; please stop ignoring them on the way to restating your original point) besides one vote on one issue. Sometimes legislation has things both parties want in it. Even minority parties can get things they want this way.
And shifting the onus to Trump may not get him to budge, but it would put a more identifiable, villainous face on the fight than "assorted Republicans" and shift the argument to ground more favorable for Democrats. Given time, one or more more tactics might've worked and actually done something to help people who need it. But we can't know if that would've worked, because they took the first offer, a doomed offer, once they got a whiff of the first reactions to their inept opening gambit.
Every time this conversation comes up, I'm just not sure what the endgame for outrage against the Dems is (and this is more of an indictment of the current political system rather than a critique on those with the outrage). Like, getting mad obviously hasn't been working. Do you just refuse to vote for them, and potentially allow the Pubs to keep or even increase their power? Isn't that basically what got us in this situation in the first place?
Like, I get there's little drive to vote for someone who isn't bothering to look after your interests (or is not doing so as well as you think they should) but short of building a new political party, I'm not sure what the way to proceed here is.
What the heck is "political reality" and why is it being regarded as some absolute?
49 Dem senators no House majority and a hostile President. It's regarded as absolute because until November that isn't changing.
Okay so "political reality" means "actually passing legislation."
So people should only vote on something if they're in the position to win it?
It’s arguable, and arguable on a vote by vote basis, whether or not taking a symbolic vote is good or bad politically.
More importantly, we know that the party, the actual voters, are split on whether threatening a shutdown to even force a symbolic vote is a good idea. That seems like a losing proposition for Dems in Congress to me.
If this is the actual Democratic Party code of operations they sicken me and I'm not sure I should be supporting them until they change for the better. Screwing people over because of some mystical nonsense political "game" rules is something we all need to put into the past.
How are they screwing people over?
The votes happened dude. Despite all the yelling about the strategy and the mistakes they did or did not make depending on how you felt, the votes went to the floor.
And they failed. The Democrats don't have the votes for it because of the November 2016 elections. And that's basically it.
They can't screw anyone over here, they don't have the power.
Politics is more than the vote count on the floor. Especially when you're the minority.
Sure but if your complaint is that they need to message better that isn't "screwing people over".
Political messaging is about more then just vote counts. Actual policy is not. The only people actual effecting anyone here are Republicans. Democrats got their votes and they failed and that's literally it for what they can actually accomplish here related to people getting screwed over.
Like, I'm not sure you can emphasize this enough: the vote happened. That's what Democrats can force with enough leverage: a vote. They did. And the votes failed. They can yell and scream and take hostages and all that shit but all they can get for all that is another vote. And there is no reason to think the vote won't just fail again.
This is basically the same thing Harry was saying earlier and my response would be much the same.
Poor strategy and rhetoric on the part of Dems has a very real effect on people. Trying to separate elections policy and politics out like this like they're not somehow all the same thing only serves to absolve a party that doesn't know what it's doing of it's share of responsibility
My point is my own yo. Again, like I just said, if you wanna say they need to message better here, sure. But claiming they are screwing people over is bullshit. They got the votes to prevent people getting screwed, those votes failed.
I'm not trying to separate election policy from politics I'm separating things that actually become law from rhetoric. There are the things Democrats can do to actually solve the DACA issue (nothing) and the things they can yell about in the media (a lot).
The whole point to a party is to win elections. Their rhetoric costs them elections and people who aren't them suffer for it. Pretty clear line from A to B.
There really isn't since you haven't even established that it will cost them elections. The most cynical take on what is going on here is that they think the opposite. And ebum laid out a decent reason last page for why that might be correct.
You think demoralizing their base won't hurt them? You think depressed turnout hasn't hurt them in the past? Elections are won on turnout. Nothing about the Democrats' actions on DACA help them here.
That assumes this demoralizes the base and that the opposite doesn't turn away other voters.
Again, if you wanna read this as pure political politicking then the trade-off is "people who care enough about DACA to not vote based on the Democrats not holding hostages to get another vote on it" vs "white people who are made uncomfortable by pro-immigration talk". And it's not clear that the first group matters more then the second for winning elections.
I can never keep track of whether "we're a party for minorities" or not.
You're also being seriously dishonest if you think the sum total of demands here are "hold government hostage for another vote".
The demands are that something be done about DACA. That was the impetus of this current discussion. There's nothing to be done at this point on that beyond hostage taking or yelling a lot and the first is debatable.
My point was that from a purely cynical point of view, it's debatable if taking a firm stance on DACA actually helps win elections. And winning elections is the criteria you yourself set out for why their current stance "screws people over".
What the heck is "political reality" and why is it being regarded as some absolute?
49 Dem senators no House majority and a hostile President. It's regarded as absolute because until November that isn't changing.
Okay so "political reality" means "actually passing legislation."
So people should only vote on something if they're in the position to win it?
It’s arguable, and arguable on a vote by vote basis, whether or not taking a symbolic vote is good or bad politically.
More importantly, we know that the party, the actual voters, are split on whether threatening a shutdown to even force a symbolic vote is a good idea. That seems like a losing proposition for Dems in Congress to me.
If this is the actual Democratic Party code of operations they sicken me and I'm not sure I should be supporting them until they change for the better. Screwing people over because of some mystical nonsense political "game" rules is something we all need to put into the past.
How are they screwing people over?
The votes happened dude. Despite all the yelling about the strategy and the mistakes they did or did not make depending on how you felt, the votes went to the floor.
And they failed. The Democrats don't have the votes for it because of the November 2016 elections. And that's basically it.
They can't screw anyone over here, they don't have the power.
Politics is more than the vote count on the floor. Especially when you're the minority.
Sure but if your complaint is that they need to message better that isn't "screwing people over".
Political messaging is about more then just vote counts. Actual policy is not. The only people actual effecting anyone here are Republicans. Democrats got their votes and they failed and that's literally it for what they can actually accomplish here related to people getting screwed over.
Like, I'm not sure you can emphasize this enough: the vote happened. That's what Democrats can force with enough leverage: a vote. They did. And the votes failed. They can yell and scream and take hostages and all that shit but all they can get for all that is another vote. And there is no reason to think the vote won't just fail again.
This is basically the same thing Harry was saying earlier and my response would be much the same.
Poor strategy and rhetoric on the part of Dems has a very real effect on people. Trying to separate elections policy and politics out like this like they're not somehow all the same thing only serves to absolve a party that doesn't know what it's doing of it's share of responsibility
My point is my own yo. Again, like I just said, if you wanna say they need to message better here, sure. But claiming they are screwing people over is bullshit. They got the votes to prevent people getting screwed, those votes failed.
I'm not trying to separate election policy from politics I'm separating things that actually become law from rhetoric. There are the things Democrats can do to actually solve the DACA issue (nothing) and the things they can yell about in the media (a lot).
The whole point to a party is to win elections. Their rhetoric costs them elections and people who aren't them suffer for it. Pretty clear line from A to B.
There really isn't since you haven't even established that it will cost them elections. The most cynical take on what is going on here is that they think the opposite. And ebum laid out a decent reason last page for why that might be correct.
You think demoralizing their base won't hurt them? You think depressed turnout hasn't hurt them in the past? Elections are won on turnout. Nothing about the Democrats' actions on DACA help them here.
That assumes this demoralizes the base and that the opposite doesn't turn away other voters.
Again, if you wanna read this as pure political politicking then the trade-off is "people who care enough about DACA to not vote based on the Democrats not holding hostages to get another vote on it" vs "white people who are made uncomfortable by pro-immigration talk". And it's not clear that the first group matters more then the second for winning elections.
I can never keep track of whether "we're a party for minorities" or not.
You're also being seriously dishonest if you think the sum total of demands here are "hold government hostage for another vote".
The demands are that something be done about DACA. That was the impetus of this current discussion. There's nothing to be done at this point on that beyond hostage taking or yelling a lot and the first is debatable.
My point was that from a purely cynical point of view, it's debatable if taking a firm stance on DACA actually helps win elections. And winning elections is the criteria you yourself set out for why their current stance "screws people over".
I don't know how someone pays attention to politics and thinks reducing concerns about rhetoric and strategy to "yelling a lot" is cogent.
Talking about failed votes as if they're everything obscures the fact that Republican Senators could have changed their positions. Something like eight Republican Senators were willing to vote yes for one of the DACA variants in spite of Trump's opposition to it.
Like how obvious ACA repeal was stopped, because Republican Senators faced so much opposition that some of them voted against it.
Activists are pissed at Democrats because they folded so fast no pressure had a chance to build to make GOP votes switch. See enlightenedbum's theory on why they folded, in my opinion. I join these activists in being pissed.
Personally, I also think the activists deserve some blame, too. For simply not being big enough and loud enough. I think there needed to be more people being as loud and engaged as they were in the ACA fight, and I don't believe we had them.
The problem, at its core, is that the deportations are rapidly turning into Tax Cuts 2.0 for Democrats. They scream and holler and then give up at the first sign of setback. There's more than one immigration activist looking at how Democrats have failed to ramp up against tax cuts as a 2020 issue who think it'll end up being the same thing for hispanics.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Now, if after november we take the house, and we don't have dACA votes upon DACA votes (including the DAPA vote and so on), that would be absolutely upsetting. But pelosi is smarter than that, I think.
Talking about failed votes as if they're everything obscures the fact that Republican Senators could have changed their positions. Something like eight Republican Senators were willing to vote yes for one of the DACA variants in spite of Trump's opposition to it.
Like how obvious ACA repeal was stopped, because Republican Senators faced so much opposition that some of them voted against it.
Activists are pissed at Democrats because they folded so fast no pressure had a chance to build to make GOP votes switch. See enlightenedbum's theory on why they folded, in my opinion. I join these activists in being pissed.
Personally, I also think the activists deserve some blame, too. For simply not being big enough and loud enough. I think there needed to be more people being as loud and engaged as they were in the ACA fight, and I don't believe we had them.
The message on every channel over the weekend - not just FOX - was how this was all the Democrats' fault. How do you change that? How do you put the pressure where it belongs?
Talking about failed votes as if they're everything obscures the fact that Republican Senators could have changed their positions. Something like eight Republican Senators were willing to vote yes for one of the DACA variants in spite of Trump's opposition to it.
Like how obvious ACA repeal was stopped, because Republican Senators faced so much opposition that some of them voted against it.
Activists are pissed at Democrats because they folded so fast no pressure had a chance to build to make GOP votes switch. See enlightenedbum's theory on why they folded, in my opinion. I join these activists in being pissed.
Personally, I also think the activists deserve some blame, too. For simply not being big enough and loud enough. I think there needed to be more people being as loud and engaged as they were in the ACA fight, and I don't believe we had them.
The message on every channel over the weekend - not just FOX - was how this was all the Democrats' fault. How do you change that? How do you put the pressure where it belongs?
They could have had a coherent message as to why they were shutting down the government. Some of them were out there saying they didn't do it, the GOP did. Others claimed it was their doing but it was worth it etc etc.
Leadership went into it without proper preparation and gave up immediately.
"We won't fight for you unless we know we are going to win" is not strong messaging
And the fact is once the Republicans start deportations, voting Democrat will not save anyone because they're already gone. Democrats have to fight if they want people to believe that voting for them makes a difference
Seriously, wtf are they supposed to do now instead? What power do they actually have to leverage here?
Not nearly as much as they used to have; the Democrats squandered most of it it during the shutdown.
The time to take a principled stand was back then, when the Democrats had maximum leverage. Instead they folded almost immediately for "concessions" that included a vote that had no chance of passing. Now they can essentially wash their hands of it because that vote didn't pass and people excusing their actions can now make strategic arguments ("What else do you want? They had a vote!") for doing nothing until after the next election, or the one after that if the blue wave crests a bit short of the goal line.
The Democrats had their shot, balked, and put thousands of people in unnecessary jeopardy because of hamfisted political manuevering. Criticism of such ineptitude should come from all corners of the party, not just ethnic subgroups or the 'far left'.
What did they squander? They got the vote. You know what shutting down the government gets you? A vote. That was the ask. That was the exchange for the hostages. That's actually more then the GOP got for their shutdowns as far as I know.
The big thing here though is this sentence: "a vote that had no chance of passing". Yeah, exactly. That's the ball game right there. If you believe a vote on fixing DACA has no chance of passing then ... what exactly are you expecting? There is no getting around this part. It's not like the votes that happened are somehow magically different then any other kind of votes you could get on the issue. The bills came up for vote and they failed. They got the votes on the issue they wanted and the votes have, in your words, "no chance of passing". So that's it as far as getting shit done goes.
It sure is if imagination limits all possible GOP concessions to a single vote in one chamber of congress. What about demanding executive action or a de facto extension to DACA, or grandfathering in the most obvious humanitarian cases? Attaching enough GOP pet issues for passage? Waiting longer than a weekend to try anything? Nope, we had a vote and all we could've gotten was that vote.
The Democrats took the first offer (a promise from Mitch) almost immediately because they got scared. I'm skeptical that's the only thing they could've extracted had they managed the timing and messaging of the shutdown in a more competent manner. Maybe you're correct that a doomed vote was the best they could've hoped for and they knew it. If that's the case, we have the worst of both worlds: an utter failure at appeasing the base through a DACA shutdown, and an utter failure to actually change anything in the process.
If the vote we got was doomed, what other kind of vote is there? There's not like a different congress with different members who think different ways. It's vote in Congress or nothing when it comes to the vote. If the vote we got was doomed, then they all are. What was a longer shutdown gonna even get you?
Demanding executive action is gonna get you nowhere because Trump doesn't care as he amply demonstrates every day since he can fix this any time and actively killed the deal that was in the works.
You keep talking about failure but you seem to be basing this on a comparison to a non-existent potential solution here. Either Congress does something or nothing happens. And Congress held the vote to do something. It failed. Democrats don't have enough seats. And votes are how Congress does stuff.
Again, there are lots of options (I listed four off the top of my head; please stop ignoring them on the way to restating your original point) besides one vote on one issue. Sometimes legislation has things both parties want in it. Even minority parties can get things they want this way.
And shifting the onus to Trump may not get him to budge, but it would put a more identifiable, villainous face on the fight than "assorted Republicans" and shift the argument to ground more favorable for Democrats. Given time, one or more more tactics might've worked and actually done something to help people who need it. But we can't know if that would've worked, because they took the first offer, a doomed offer, once they got a whiff of the first reactions to their inept opening gambit.
Trump is already the face of this, so I don't see what you are thinking there.
I'm not ignoring your other suggestions I'm continually pointing out that they all lead back to the same spot: votes. You can't do shit here without votes in the Senate and the House and the Democrats don't have those votes.
Legislation doesn't need things both parties want if the party in power doesn't need Democratic votes. And they don't. The only play you've got is maybe a government shutdown. But unless you think you can turn a shutdown not into a vote, but into secured actual votes to pass something, you've got nothing despite all your claims. Because it still just always comes back to the same votes they already had.
"We won't fight for you unless we know we are going to win" is not strong messaging
And the fact is once the Republicans start deportations, voting Democrat will not save anyone because they're already gone. Democrats have to fight if they want people to believe that voting for them makes a difference
Seriously, wtf are they supposed to do now instead? What power do they actually have to leverage here?
Not nearly as much as they used to have; the Democrats squandered most of it it during the shutdown.
The time to take a principled stand was back then, when the Democrats had maximum leverage. Instead they folded almost immediately for "concessions" that included a vote that had no chance of passing. Now they can essentially wash their hands of it because that vote didn't pass and people excusing their actions can now make strategic arguments ("What else do you want? They had a vote!") for doing nothing until after the next election, or the one after that if the blue wave crests a bit short of the goal line.
The Democrats had their shot, balked, and put thousands of people in unnecessary jeopardy because of hamfisted political manuevering. Criticism of such ineptitude should come from all corners of the party, not just ethnic subgroups or the 'far left'.
What did they squander? They got the vote. You know what shutting down the government gets you? A vote. That was the ask. That was the exchange for the hostages. That's actually more then the GOP got for their shutdowns as far as I know.
The big thing here though is this sentence: "a vote that had no chance of passing". Yeah, exactly. That's the ball game right there. If you believe a vote on fixing DACA has no chance of passing then ... what exactly are you expecting? There is no getting around this part. It's not like the votes that happened are somehow magically different then any other kind of votes you could get on the issue. The bills came up for vote and they failed. They got the votes on the issue they wanted and the votes have, in your words, "no chance of passing". So that's it as far as getting shit done goes.
It sure is if imagination limits all possible GOP concessions to a single vote in one chamber of congress. What about demanding executive action or a de facto extension to DACA, or grandfathering in the most obvious humanitarian cases? Attaching enough GOP pet issues for passage? Waiting longer than a weekend to try anything? Nope, we had a vote and all we could've gotten was that vote.
The Democrats took the first offer (a promise from Mitch) almost immediately because they got scared. I'm skeptical that's the only thing they could've extracted had they managed the timing and messaging of the shutdown in a more competent manner. Maybe you're correct that a doomed vote was the best they could've hoped for and they knew it. If that's the case, we have the worst of both worlds: an utter failure at appeasing the base through a DACA shutdown, and an utter failure to actually change anything in the process.
If the vote we got was doomed, what other kind of vote is there? There's not like a different congress with different members who think different ways. It's vote in Congress or nothing when it comes to the vote. If the vote we got was doomed, then they all are. What was a longer shutdown gonna even get you?
Demanding executive action is gonna get you nowhere because Trump doesn't care as he amply demonstrates every day since he can fix this any time and actively killed the deal that was in the works.
You keep talking about failure but you seem to be basing this on a comparison to a non-existent potential solution here. Either Congress does something or nothing happens. And Congress held the vote to do something. It failed. Democrats don't have enough seats. And votes are how Congress does stuff.
Again, there are lots of options (I listed four off the top of my head; please stop ignoring them on the way to restating your original point) besides one vote on one issue. Sometimes legislation has things both parties want in it. Even minority parties can get things they want this way.
And shifting the onus to Trump may not get him to budge, but it would put a more identifiable, villainous face on the fight than "assorted Republicans" and shift the argument to ground more favorable for Democrats. Given time, one or more more tactics might've worked and actually done something to help people who need it. But we can't know if that would've worked, because they took the first offer, a doomed offer, once they got a whiff of the first reactions to their inept opening gambit.
Trump is already the face of this, so I don't see what you are thinking there.
I'm not ignoring your other suggestions I'm continually pointing out that they all lead back to the same spot: votes. You can't do shit here without votes in the Senate and the House and the Democrats don't have those votes.
Legislation doesn't need things both parties want if the party in power doesn't need Democratic votes. And they don't. The only play you've got is maybe a government shutdown. But unless you think you can turn a shutdown not into a vote, but into secured actual votes to pass something, you've got nothing despite all your claims. Because it still just always comes back to the same votes they already had.
And what they're doing isn't how you go about getting hispanics to vote for you.
The GOP didn't sit around with "well we sure don't have the votes to end Obamacare".
The problem, at its core, is that the deportations are rapidly turning into Tax Cuts 2.0 for Democrats. They scream and holler and then give up at the first sign of setback. There's more than one immigration activist looking at how Democrats have failed to ramp up against tax cuts as a 2020 issue who think it'll end up being the same thing for hispanics.
First sign of set back? They held the country hostage over the budget, that’s a nuclear weapon in thei arsenal. No, this get results because ultimately they know going s year or two without a budget would kill the party with their coalition.you need to stop thinking everyone on the left thinks like Republicans, who would like the government to be shut down or die.
Talking about failed votes as if they're everything obscures the fact that Republican Senators could have changed their positions. Something like eight Republican Senators were willing to vote yes for one of the DACA variants in spite of Trump's opposition to it.
Like how obvious ACA repeal was stopped, because Republican Senators faced so much opposition that some of them voted against it.
Activists are pissed at Democrats because they folded so fast no pressure had a chance to build to make GOP votes switch. See enlightenedbum's theory on why they folded, in my opinion. I join these activists in being pissed.
Personally, I also think the activists deserve some blame, too. For simply not being big enough and loud enough. I think there needed to be more people being as loud and engaged as they were in the ACA fight, and I don't believe we had them.
The message on every channel over the weekend - not just FOX - was how this was all the Democrats' fault. How do you change that? How do you put the pressure where it belongs?
They could have had a coherent message as to why they were shutting down the government. Some of them were out there saying they didn't do it, the GOP did. Others claimed it was their doing but it was worth it etc etc.
Leadership went into it without proper preparation and gave up immediately.
It’s not that easy. The Dems neither have the discipline for that, or have a massive propaganda network at their beck and call. What you’re suggesting would get them rail roaded by the media.
They “give up” because they want to continue being a mainstream political party, rather then be forced to become a regional one. Not everything in politics can be done with extremes, unless you’re considering full on revolution in the streets France style.
Edit: Think things are bad now? Imagine America being a one party state with the left reduced solely to regional parties.
I’ll wait to see how it shakes out if they take back power, but this is kind of their last chance for me. Historically democrats are great at throwing out rhetoric, but leave minority issues on the back burner, or bail at the slightest hint of resistance. I don’t blame anyone for resigning their support, because all of this reads like ‘baby please, things’ll be different this time I swear! I just need to take back Congress then everything’ll be alright I swear! I’ve changed’. Hispanics being pissed isn’t surprising because they get to choose between one party that hates them, and another party that doesn’t care that the other party hates them.
First sign of set back? They held the country hostage over the budget, that’s a nuclear weapon in thei arsenal. No, this get results because ultimately they know going s year or two without a budget would kill the party with their coalition.you need to stop thinking everyone on the left thinks like Republicans, who would like the government to be shut down or die.
Its not your "nuclear option" when you give up within hours of the work week. Its just demoralizing your own supporters.
It’s not that easy. The Dems neither have the discipline for that, or have a massive propaganda network at their beck and call. What you’re suggesting would get them rail roaded by the media.
They “give up” because they want to continue being a mainstream political party, rather then be forced to become a regional one. Not everything in politics can be done with extremes, unless you’re considering full on revolution in the streets France style.
I thought it was my role to criticize democrats. "Actually, we blow at messaging, checkmate leftists"
And this is some seriously partisan silliness. Yeah, they gave up a major issue for one of their largest blocks so they could win. Right.
Edit: Think things are bad now? Imagine America being a one party state with the left reduced solely to regional parties.
What? How the fuck do you get from Democrats Ramp up DACA Rhetoric --> One Party Rule
Harry, your determination to characterize everyone who's critical of the Democrats as far left or extremists makes this a difficult conversation.
"We won't fight for you unless we know we are going to win" is not strong messaging
And the fact is once the Republicans start deportations, voting Democrat will not save anyone because they're already gone. Democrats have to fight if they want people to believe that voting for them makes a difference
Seriously, wtf are they supposed to do now instead? What power do they actually have to leverage here?
Not nearly as much as they used to have; the Democrats squandered most of it it during the shutdown.
The time to take a principled stand was back then, when the Democrats had maximum leverage. Instead they folded almost immediately for "concessions" that included a vote that had no chance of passing. Now they can essentially wash their hands of it because that vote didn't pass and people excusing their actions can now make strategic arguments ("What else do you want? They had a vote!") for doing nothing until after the next election, or the one after that if the blue wave crests a bit short of the goal line.
The Democrats had their shot, balked, and put thousands of people in unnecessary jeopardy because of hamfisted political manuevering. Criticism of such ineptitude should come from all corners of the party, not just ethnic subgroups or the 'far left'.
What did they squander? They got the vote. You know what shutting down the government gets you? A vote. That was the ask. That was the exchange for the hostages. That's actually more then the GOP got for their shutdowns as far as I know.
The big thing here though is this sentence: "a vote that had no chance of passing". Yeah, exactly. That's the ball game right there. If you believe a vote on fixing DACA has no chance of passing then ... what exactly are you expecting? There is no getting around this part. It's not like the votes that happened are somehow magically different then any other kind of votes you could get on the issue. The bills came up for vote and they failed. They got the votes on the issue they wanted and the votes have, in your words, "no chance of passing". So that's it as far as getting shit done goes.
It sure is if imagination limits all possible GOP concessions to a single vote in one chamber of congress. What about demanding executive action or a de facto extension to DACA, or grandfathering in the most obvious humanitarian cases? Attaching enough GOP pet issues for passage? Waiting longer than a weekend to try anything? Nope, we had a vote and all we could've gotten was that vote.
The Democrats took the first offer (a promise from Mitch) almost immediately because they got scared. I'm skeptical that's the only thing they could've extracted had they managed the timing and messaging of the shutdown in a more competent manner. Maybe you're correct that a doomed vote was the best they could've hoped for and they knew it. If that's the case, we have the worst of both worlds: an utter failure at appeasing the base through a DACA shutdown, and an utter failure to actually change anything in the process.
If the vote we got was doomed, what other kind of vote is there? There's not like a different congress with different members who think different ways. It's vote in Congress or nothing when it comes to the vote. If the vote we got was doomed, then they all are. What was a longer shutdown gonna even get you?
Demanding executive action is gonna get you nowhere because Trump doesn't care as he amply demonstrates every day since he can fix this any time and actively killed the deal that was in the works.
You keep talking about failure but you seem to be basing this on a comparison to a non-existent potential solution here. Either Congress does something or nothing happens. And Congress held the vote to do something. It failed. Democrats don't have enough seats. And votes are how Congress does stuff.
Again, there are lots of options (I listed four off the top of my head; please stop ignoring them on the way to restating your original point) besides one vote on one issue. Sometimes legislation has things both parties want in it. Even minority parties can get things they want this way.
And shifting the onus to Trump may not get him to budge, but it would put a more identifiable, villainous face on the fight than "assorted Republicans" and shift the argument to ground more favorable for Democrats. Given time, one or more more tactics might've worked and actually done something to help people who need it. But we can't know if that would've worked, because they took the first offer, a doomed offer, once they got a whiff of the first reactions to their inept opening gambit.
Trump is already the face of this, so I don't see what you are thinking there.
I'm not ignoring your other suggestions I'm continually pointing out that they all lead back to the same spot: votes. You can't do shit here without votes in the Senate and the House and the Democrats don't have those votes.
Legislation doesn't need things both parties want if the party in power doesn't need Democratic votes. And they don't. The only play you've got is maybe a government shutdown. But unless you think you can turn a shutdown not into a vote, but into secured actual votes to pass something, you've got nothing despite all your claims. Because it still just always comes back to the same votes they already had.
And what they're doing isn't how you go about getting hispanics to vote for you.
The GOP didn't sit around with "well we sure don't have the votes to end Obamacare".
But I'm not talking about how you get hispanics to vote you. I'm talking about how you stop the DACA repeal from screwing people over. Actually look at the quote tree dude. It begins with the question "What power do they actually have to leverage here?". That's what I'm talking about. The fact that they have none.
"We won't fight for you unless we know we are going to win" is not strong messaging
And the fact is once the Republicans start deportations, voting Democrat will not save anyone because they're already gone. Democrats have to fight if they want people to believe that voting for them makes a difference
Seriously, wtf are they supposed to do now instead? What power do they actually have to leverage here?
Not nearly as much as they used to have; the Democrats squandered most of it it during the shutdown.
The time to take a principled stand was back then, when the Democrats had maximum leverage. Instead they folded almost immediately for "concessions" that included a vote that had no chance of passing. Now they can essentially wash their hands of it because that vote didn't pass and people excusing their actions can now make strategic arguments ("What else do you want? They had a vote!") for doing nothing until after the next election, or the one after that if the blue wave crests a bit short of the goal line.
The Democrats had their shot, balked, and put thousands of people in unnecessary jeopardy because of hamfisted political manuevering. Criticism of such ineptitude should come from all corners of the party, not just ethnic subgroups or the 'far left'.
What did they squander? They got the vote. You know what shutting down the government gets you? A vote. That was the ask. That was the exchange for the hostages. That's actually more then the GOP got for their shutdowns as far as I know.
The big thing here though is this sentence: "a vote that had no chance of passing". Yeah, exactly. That's the ball game right there. If you believe a vote on fixing DACA has no chance of passing then ... what exactly are you expecting? There is no getting around this part. It's not like the votes that happened are somehow magically different then any other kind of votes you could get on the issue. The bills came up for vote and they failed. They got the votes on the issue they wanted and the votes have, in your words, "no chance of passing". So that's it as far as getting shit done goes.
It sure is if imagination limits all possible GOP concessions to a single vote in one chamber of congress. What about demanding executive action or a de facto extension to DACA, or grandfathering in the most obvious humanitarian cases? Attaching enough GOP pet issues for passage? Waiting longer than a weekend to try anything? Nope, we had a vote and all we could've gotten was that vote.
The Democrats took the first offer (a promise from Mitch) almost immediately because they got scared. I'm skeptical that's the only thing they could've extracted had they managed the timing and messaging of the shutdown in a more competent manner. Maybe you're correct that a doomed vote was the best they could've hoped for and they knew it. If that's the case, we have the worst of both worlds: an utter failure at appeasing the base through a DACA shutdown, and an utter failure to actually change anything in the process.
If the vote we got was doomed, what other kind of vote is there? There's not like a different congress with different members who think different ways. It's vote in Congress or nothing when it comes to the vote. If the vote we got was doomed, then they all are. What was a longer shutdown gonna even get you?
Demanding executive action is gonna get you nowhere because Trump doesn't care as he amply demonstrates every day since he can fix this any time and actively killed the deal that was in the works.
You keep talking about failure but you seem to be basing this on a comparison to a non-existent potential solution here. Either Congress does something or nothing happens. And Congress held the vote to do something. It failed. Democrats don't have enough seats. And votes are how Congress does stuff.
Again, there are lots of options (I listed four off the top of my head; please stop ignoring them on the way to restating your original point) besides one vote on one issue. Sometimes legislation has things both parties want in it. Even minority parties can get things they want this way.
And shifting the onus to Trump may not get him to budge, but it would put a more identifiable, villainous face on the fight than "assorted Republicans" and shift the argument to ground more favorable for Democrats. Given time, one or more more tactics might've worked and actually done something to help people who need it. But we can't know if that would've worked, because they took the first offer, a doomed offer, once they got a whiff of the first reactions to their inept opening gambit.
Trump is already the face of this, so I don't see what you are thinking there.
I'm not ignoring your other suggestions I'm continually pointing out that they all lead back to the same spot: votes. You can't do shit here without votes in the Senate and the House and the Democrats don't have those votes.
Legislation doesn't need things both parties want if the party in power doesn't need Democratic votes. And they don't. The only play you've got is maybe a government shutdown. But unless you think you can turn a shutdown not into a vote, but into secured actual votes to pass something, you've got nothing despite all your claims. Because it still just always comes back to the same votes they already had.
And what they're doing isn't how you go about getting hispanics to vote for you.
The GOP didn't sit around with "well we sure don't have the votes to end Obamacare".
But I'm not talking about how you get hispanics to vote you. I'm talking about how you stop the DACA repeal from screwing people over. Actually look at the quote tree dude. It begins with the question "What power do they actually have to leverage here?". That's what I'm talking about. The fact that they have none.
The point being that their rhetorical choices take them farther from having any. Its what we've been saying for pages now.
First sign of set back? They held the country hostage over the budget, that’s a nuclear weapon in thei arsenal. No, this get results because ultimately they know going s year or two without a budget would kill the party with their coalition.you need to stop thinking everyone on the left thinks like Republicans, who would like the government to be shut down or die.
Its not your "nuclear option" when you give up within hours of the work week. Its just demoralizing your own supporters.
Sure it is. It’s demoralising to “supporters” who want the impossible, and refuse to take any effort the Dems do as a betrayal. Despite the context that it is literally impossible for them to get what you want right now. They can’t snap their fingers and get the votes for this. Not being able to stop a stronger opposition is not a sign that they aren’t your allies.
I thought it was my role to criticize democrats. "Actually, we blow at messaging, checkmate leftists"
And this is some seriously partisan silliness. Yeah, they gave up a major issue for one of their largest blocks so they could win. Right.
It’s not silliness, the Dems are not equal to the GOP in their operations. There is no left equiveksnt of Fox News.
They didn’t give up a major issue, they lost a major battle and are keeping their eye on the war to win. It’s not solely about winning, because sadly in this scenario winning is a million to one long shot at best.
Nothing wrong with criticism, but this is not doing that. I’m honestly not sure what the Dems could do right now to get your loyalty or respect. Even if they did what you wanted.
What? How the fuck do you get from Democrats Ramp up DACA Rhetoric --> One Party Rule
Harry, your determination to characterize everyone who's critical of the Democrats as far left or extremists makes this a difficult conversation.
That’s where extremism gets you on the left.
This isn’t being critical, this is burning the house down because the Dems failed to pull off the impossible.
edit: Your last bit is also a bit weird, since you're Far Left. Your positions haven't changed as far as I can see post-2016 primaries and Bernie (your guy) was the champion of the Far Left - who apparently only call themselves "left now, as if a name change erases their history or where they stand in the political scale on the left in America. You're definitely not a moderate, centrist or even a liberal. Fascinating how those elections made the term "Far Left" toxic to the Far Left itself.
Posts
By this standard you're complicit because you stated above a "It doesn't have to come to the government shutdown and such". Which is all the Dems are doing here: not tying it to the budget. They aren't giving up, they just aren't using this particular hammer because they don't think it will work. It's fair to disagree on that.
Not nearly as much as they used to have; the Democrats squandered most of it it during the shutdown.
The time to take a principled stand was back then, when the Democrats had maximum leverage. Instead they folded almost immediately for "concessions" that included a vote that had no chance of passing. Now they can essentially wash their hands of it because that vote didn't pass and people excusing their actions can now make strategic arguments ("What else do you want? They had a vote!") for doing nothing until after the next election, or the one after that if the blue wave crests a bit short of the goal line.
The Democrats had their shot, balked, and put thousands of people in unnecessary jeopardy because of hamfisted political manuevering. Criticism of such ineptitude should come from all corners of the party, not just ethnic subgroups or the 'far left'.
This is basically the same thing Harry was saying earlier and my response would be much the same.
Poor strategy and rhetoric on the part of Dems has a very real effect on people. Trying to separate elections policy and politics out like this like they're not somehow all the same thing only serves to absolve a party that doesn't know what it's doing of it's share of responsibility
Their stand on the budget was absolute flimsy horseshit, when they could have had a stronger hand than the one they played. Which was terrible.
And somehow it worked well enough to get a vote on the floor of the Senate. Which was good.
But DACA support still died a quick death in the Senate, especially in the face of Trump's opposition. Which is terrible, and means they lost this round. Courts have called a time-out, but that's all this is.
But regarless of whether or not they won, I'm not seeing the Democrats fight very well. I'd love to get a win, especially on an issue like DACA. But I'd take losing better if they at least fought well.
Yes, the Democrats are not in charge of any branch the government. But they are in charge of themselves. And how well they fight is up to them.
*Note, the act of fighting for something currently seems to be defined by the Republicans. It may be unwise to assume their definition correct. For example, what about outside the walls of Congress and the Senate? How much are the Democratic party engaging with the activism around Dreamers? Are they supporting it? Just trying to free-load off of it? Is there some way they can "fight" outside congress, to help increase support for Dreamers?
You say this as if there is a guarantee to have the votes to stop it. Every attempt they’ve done this has been a non starter.
Also, it’s important for the Dems to try to save everybody, and even if they did as your suggesting (which would take a miracle) I don’t think you’d like it if the Dems lose other battles you care abouti. The process. Because with politics both the big and small pictures matter - and can affect negatively on immigrant rights down the line.
This is how coalitions work, otherwise the opposition becomes the Green Party and they have no relevance here.
This is so condescending.
It’s reality. I want to save the Dreamers as much as you do, but expecting the Dems to operate as if they can wn this thing like it’s no big deal is only going to set you for disappointment. That’s not how politics works. The Dreamers are only saved by pursuading enough Republicans and avoid a Trump veto, anything less will end in failure. That’s the political consequence of the last elections, maybe in the next this won’t be as dire but until then this is the situation.
Because you haven't drawn a line between their actions and the end of DACA that implies any complicity.
The vote happened. People complained they blinked and they kinda did but they still got the vote they asked for anyway. And it failed.
I'm just not sure where the complicity is here.
Go ahead and keep blowing off steam if it makes you feel better, but don't forget - if we're divided when opportunity for action comes, they win.
What did they squander? They got the vote. You know what shutting down the government gets you? A vote. That was the ask. That was the exchange for the hostages. That's actually more then the GOP got for their shutdowns as far as I know.
The big thing here though is this sentence: "a vote that had no chance of passing". Yeah, exactly. That's the ball game right there. If you believe a vote on fixing DACA has no chance of passing then ... what exactly are you expecting? There is no getting around this part. It's not like the votes that happened are somehow magically different then any other kind of votes you could get on the issue. The bills came up for vote and they failed. They got the votes on the issue they wanted and the votes have, in your words, "no chance of passing". So that's it as far as getting shit done goes.
The only thing left after that is grandstanding.
My point is my own yo. Again, like I just said, if you wanna say they need to message better here, sure. But claiming they are screwing people over is bullshit. They got the votes to prevent people getting screwed, those votes failed.
I'm not trying to separate election policy from politics I'm separating things that actually become law from rhetoric. There are the things Democrats can do to actually solve the DACA issue (nothing) and the things they can yell about in the media (a lot).
There really isn't since you haven't even established that it will cost them elections. The most cynical take on what is going on here is that they think the opposite. And ebum laid out a decent reason last page for why that might be correct.
It sure is if imagination limits all possible GOP concessions to a single vote in one chamber of congress. What about demanding executive action or a de facto extension to DACA, or grandfathering in the most obvious humanitarian cases? Attaching enough GOP pet issues for passage? Waiting longer than a weekend to try anything? Nope, we had a vote and all we could've gotten was that vote.
The Democrats took the first offer (a promise from Mitch) almost immediately because they got scared. I'm skeptical that's the only thing they could've extracted had they managed the timing and messaging of the shutdown in a more competent manner. Maybe you're correct that a doomed vote was the best they could've hoped for and they knew it. If that's the case, we have the worst of both worlds: an utter failure at appeasing the base through a DACA shutdown, and an utter failure to actually change anything in the process.
You think demoralizing their base won't hurt them? You think depressed turnout hasn't hurt them in the past? Elections are won on turnout. Nothing about the Democrats' actions on DACA help them here.
If the vote we got was doomed, what other kind of vote is there? There's not like a different congress with different members who think different ways. It's vote in Congress or nothing when it comes to the vote. If the vote we got was doomed, then they all are. What was a longer shutdown gonna even get you?
Demanding executive action is gonna get you nowhere because Trump doesn't care as he amply demonstrates every day since he can fix this any time and actively killed the deal that was in the works.
You keep talking about failure but you seem to be basing this on a comparison to a non-existent potential solution here. Either Congress does something or nothing happens. And Congress held the vote to do something. It failed. Democrats don't have enough seats. And votes are how Congress does stuff.
That assumes this demoralizes the base and that the opposite doesn't turn away other voters.
Again, if you wanna read this as pure political politicking then the trade-off is "people who care enough about DACA to not vote based on the Democrats not holding hostages to get another vote on it" vs "white people who are made uncomfortable by pro-immigration talk". And it's not clear that the first group matters more then the second for winning elections.
I can never keep track of whether "we're a party for minorities" or not.
You're also being seriously dishonest if you think the sum total of demands here are "hold government hostage for another vote".
Again, there are lots of options (I listed four off the top of my head; please stop ignoring them on the way to restating your original point) besides one vote on one issue. Sometimes legislation has things both parties want in it. Even minority parties can get things they want this way.
And shifting the onus to Trump may not get him to budge, but it would put a more identifiable, villainous face on the fight than "assorted Republicans" and shift the argument to ground more favorable for Democrats. Given time, one or more more tactics might've worked and actually done something to help people who need it. But we can't know if that would've worked, because they took the first offer, a doomed offer, once they got a whiff of the first reactions to their inept opening gambit.
There's been a lot of pressure from the left to get candidates to take up "abolish ICE" with some promising success.
Like, I get there's little drive to vote for someone who isn't bothering to look after your interests (or is not doing so as well as you think they should) but short of building a new political party, I'm not sure what the way to proceed here is.
The demands are that something be done about DACA. That was the impetus of this current discussion. There's nothing to be done at this point on that beyond hostage taking or yelling a lot and the first is debatable.
My point was that from a purely cynical point of view, it's debatable if taking a firm stance on DACA actually helps win elections. And winning elections is the criteria you yourself set out for why their current stance "screws people over".
I don't know how someone pays attention to politics and thinks reducing concerns about rhetoric and strategy to "yelling a lot" is cogent.
Like how obvious ACA repeal was stopped, because Republican Senators faced so much opposition that some of them voted against it.
Activists are pissed at Democrats because they folded so fast no pressure had a chance to build to make GOP votes switch. See enlightenedbum's theory on why they folded, in my opinion. I join these activists in being pissed.
Personally, I also think the activists deserve some blame, too. For simply not being big enough and loud enough. I think there needed to be more people being as loud and engaged as they were in the ACA fight, and I don't believe we had them.
The message on every channel over the weekend - not just FOX - was how this was all the Democrats' fault. How do you change that? How do you put the pressure where it belongs?
They could have had a coherent message as to why they were shutting down the government. Some of them were out there saying they didn't do it, the GOP did. Others claimed it was their doing but it was worth it etc etc.
Leadership went into it without proper preparation and gave up immediately.
Trump is already the face of this, so I don't see what you are thinking there.
I'm not ignoring your other suggestions I'm continually pointing out that they all lead back to the same spot: votes. You can't do shit here without votes in the Senate and the House and the Democrats don't have those votes.
Legislation doesn't need things both parties want if the party in power doesn't need Democratic votes. And they don't. The only play you've got is maybe a government shutdown. But unless you think you can turn a shutdown not into a vote, but into secured actual votes to pass something, you've got nothing despite all your claims. Because it still just always comes back to the same votes they already had.
The GOP didn't sit around with "well we sure don't have the votes to end Obamacare".
First sign of set back? They held the country hostage over the budget, that’s a nuclear weapon in thei arsenal. No, this get results because ultimately they know going s year or two without a budget would kill the party with their coalition.you need to stop thinking everyone on the left thinks like Republicans, who would like the government to be shut down or die.
It’s not that easy. The Dems neither have the discipline for that, or have a massive propaganda network at their beck and call. What you’re suggesting would get them rail roaded by the media.
They “give up” because they want to continue being a mainstream political party, rather then be forced to become a regional one. Not everything in politics can be done with extremes, unless you’re considering full on revolution in the streets France style.
Edit: Think things are bad now? Imagine America being a one party state with the left reduced solely to regional parties.
Its not your "nuclear option" when you give up within hours of the work week. Its just demoralizing your own supporters. I thought it was my role to criticize democrats. "Actually, we blow at messaging, checkmate leftists"
And this is some seriously partisan silliness. Yeah, they gave up a major issue for one of their largest blocks so they could win. Right. What? How the fuck do you get from Democrats Ramp up DACA Rhetoric --> One Party Rule
Harry, your determination to characterize everyone who's critical of the Democrats as far left or extremists makes this a difficult conversation.
But I'm not talking about how you get hispanics to vote you. I'm talking about how you stop the DACA repeal from screwing people over. Actually look at the quote tree dude. It begins with the question "What power do they actually have to leverage here?". That's what I'm talking about. The fact that they have none.
The point being that their rhetorical choices take them farther from having any. Its what we've been saying for pages now.
Sure it is. It’s demoralising to “supporters” who want the impossible, and refuse to take any effort the Dems do as a betrayal. Despite the context that it is literally impossible for them to get what you want right now. They can’t snap their fingers and get the votes for this. Not being able to stop a stronger opposition is not a sign that they aren’t your allies.
It’s not silliness, the Dems are not equal to the GOP in their operations. There is no left equiveksnt of Fox News.
They didn’t give up a major issue, they lost a major battle and are keeping their eye on the war to win. It’s not solely about winning, because sadly in this scenario winning is a million to one long shot at best.
Nothing wrong with criticism, but this is not doing that. I’m honestly not sure what the Dems could do right now to get your loyalty or respect. Even if they did what you wanted.
That’s where extremism gets you on the left.
This isn’t being critical, this is burning the house down because the Dems failed to pull off the impossible.
edit: Your last bit is also a bit weird, since you're Far Left. Your positions haven't changed as far as I can see post-2016 primaries and Bernie (your guy) was the champion of the Far Left - who apparently only call themselves "left now, as if a name change erases their history or where they stand in the political scale on the left in America. You're definitely not a moderate, centrist or even a liberal. Fascinating how those elections made the term "Far Left" toxic to the Far Left itself.