1) Is it possible to attract right-leaning voters to support you by supporting right-ish policies?
2) Is there a line between acceptable right-ish positions that a Democratic candidate can have and ones that are unacceptable?
3) Do conservative Democrats depress Democratic turnout in other states?
4) Is it possible to build a winning coalition that doesn't need any right-wing states or right-wing voters?
The answer to number 4 is no btw. Like right off the bat. The cold dead hands of people who drew state lines on maps fuck us all right now.
+5
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
Given that voters can't name their own elected representatives or their parties with any degree of certainty I'd be hard pressed to believe the behavior of other candidates in other states would have any downstream effects on their voting.
Like how many Virginia senate voters can tell you who Joe Donnelly is, where he's running, his party affiliation, and the latest controversy? I'd probably be surprised if it's in the double digits, and then even a smaller percentage of THAT will actually have their vote influenced one way or another.
1) Is it possible to attract right-leaning voters to support you by supporting right-ish policies?
2) Is there a line between acceptable right-ish positions that a Democratic candidate can have and ones that are unacceptable?
3) Do conservative Democrats depress Democratic turnout in other states?
4) Is it possible to build a winning coalition that doesn't need any right-wing states or right-wing voters?
The answer to number 4 is no btw. Like right off the bat. The cold dead hands of people who drew state lines on maps fuck us all right now.
4 is possible long term, via changing the attitudes of voters. That's a long difficult ass process though.
Given that voters can't name their own elected representatives or their parties with any degree of certainty I'd be hard pressed to believe the behavior of other candidates in other states would have any downstream effects on their voting.
Like how many Virginia senate voters can tell you who Joe Donnelly is, where he's running, his party affiliation, and the latest controversy? I'd probably be surprised if it's in the double digits, and then even a smaller percentage of THAT will actually have their vote influenced one way or another.
Agree, for the most part, but there is a certain point where it matters.
For example, Republican Steve King of Iowa is getting blasted and pointed at as an example of bad Republicans because, well, he IS one and is obviously a racist piece of shit. When something you do gets signal boosted to use as an attack on all Republicans or Democrats, it matters.
XBL: Bizazedo
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
But is that a thing for negative impact on Democrats, though? Usually the signal boost is "look just how far left this person is! So spooky!" to which left-leaning folk take as either "yeah, that's the point" or "well, that's not our guy."
I'm reminded of Alan Grayson. He was a strident and polarizing fellow, but I don't think his antics depressed voter turnout in other states.
0
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
I think you're overestimating the name recognition of Steve King by a lot. I would be willing to bet money a majority of Americans would respond to "Who is Steve King?" "Oh he's that old news guy with the suspenders right?"
1) Is it possible to attract right-leaning voters to support you by supporting right-ish policies?
2) Is there a line between acceptable right-ish positions that a Democratic candidate can have and ones that are unacceptable?
3) Do conservative Democrats depress Democratic turnout in other states?
4) Is it possible to build a winning coalition that doesn't need any right-wing states or right-wing voters?
The answer to number 4 is no btw. Like right off the bat. The cold dead hands of people who drew state lines on maps fuck us all right now.
4 is possible long term, via changing the attitudes of voters. That's a long difficult ass process though.
I don't know that this is true. If the Republican brand wasn't totally radioactive to certain groups at this point (college educated women, minorities, young people) I think a lot of people would take what they're peddling. I'm really starting to come around to the idea that America is actually a center right country overall.
Like if they weren't racist morons run by the king of racist morons you'd just lay low right now, take credit for the economy, maybe pass an actual middle class tax cut and just ride high approval ratings through this election? Maybe do a small insignificant nothing to "fix" the ACA to take credit for that now, and actually not fuck with it and make it worse? They're doing very unpopular things in a very unpopular way and they're not totally out of the running. Democrats did a legitimately good thing for people (I think those polled now would agree based on the current turn around on pre-existing conditions) and got slaughtered.
1) Is it possible to attract right-leaning voters to support you by supporting right-ish policies?
2) Is there a line between acceptable right-ish positions that a Democratic candidate can have and ones that are unacceptable?
3) Do conservative Democrats depress Democratic turnout in other states?
4) Is it possible to build a winning coalition that doesn't need any right-wing states or right-wing voters?
Four is obviously no as long as the Senate exists.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
But is that a thing for negative impact on Democrats, though? Usually the signal boost is "look just how far left this person is! So spooky!" to which left-leaning folk take as either "yeah, that's the point" or "well, that's not our guy."
I'm reminded of Alan Grayson. He was a strident and polarizing fellow, but I don't think his antics depressed voter turnout in other states.
Do you think how Bernie was handled within the party depressed voter turnout?
Phasen on
psn: PhasenWeeple
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
But is that a thing for negative impact on Democrats, though? Usually the signal boost is "look just how far left this person is! So spooky!" to which left-leaning folk take as either "yeah, that's the point" or "well, that's not our guy."
I'm reminded of Alan Grayson. He was a strident and polarizing fellow, but I don't think his antics depressed voter turnout in other states.
Do you think how Bernie was handled within the party depressed voter turnout?
Given that voters can't name their own elected representatives or their parties with any degree of certainty I'd be hard pressed to believe the behavior of other candidates in other states would have any downstream effects on their voting.
Like how many Virginia senate voters can tell you who Joe Donnelly is, where he's running, his party affiliation, and the latest controversy? I'd probably be surprised if it's in the double digits, and then even a smaller percentage of THAT will actually have their vote influenced one way or another.
I think you're right to say that people don't pay much attention to specific people or issues on the whole, but I think its wrong to assume that people don't generate vague ideas and notions about parties based on absorbed information.
Like it or not, the Democrats as a party often have a serious problem with enthusiasm and seeming to stand for anything in particular. This waxes and wanes of course, but its hard to argue that people like Donnelly don't contribute to it.
+1
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
There are a handful of red state Dems in the Senate now. When Kavanaugh was up for confirmation, most of them didn’t say “fuck no” sight unseen. They said “I’m going to meet with Kavanaugh and look at him and his record and give him a fair consideration,” and at the end of that process most of them, including Donnelly, said “After careful consideration I am voting no because x.”
I don’t think that’s because they were like “this vote could go either way for me, I gotta do my homework here.” I think it’s because this is the song and dance red state Dems typically do in order to make rejecting GOP policies more palatable to the people in their state. You can be left leaning, you can be a Democrat, but most of these guys believe you do better when you appear to be less partisan, when it looks like you’re just calling balls and strikes and sincerely doing what’s best for your constituents.
I don’t know if that’s the right strategy per se. I think with smart campaigning and a charismatic candidate there are places where a kind of left wing populism can succeed in a way that traditional liberal politics can’t. But not everybody can run that playbook. And there are red state Dems who have won their elections by margins large enough that they probably are getting some conservative votes by playing to the middle a bit. Everybody’s race is unique and at a certain level we need to trust their understanding of it, which is going to be a lot better than ours.
I do think some messages can cross the line, but that mostly what matters is your vote, and in this specific instance I don’t think Donnelly would vote for this if it came to it (which it probably won’t anyway).
I also think that the last week before midterms is the wrong time to start tearing down your candidates. Make your voice heard in the primary, and if you win, hold your guy’s feet to the fire during his term. Now is the time when we need to give our full throated support to anybody with a D next to their name.
Especially because ultimately the only way we’ll stop having to rely on Blue Dogs is by electing enough Dems that we don’t need their votes. When Donnelly or Manchin is vote 51 for our agenda, things get hairy. When they’re vote 54 we can breathe easier and pass better laws.
The role of red state Democrats is to spend money on behalf of the Republicans to vote Republican.
I'm honestly sick of the 4D Chess people have been pretending this all is. The bottom line of American politics is "are you going to help people who are in dire need of it or not?" You don't get to bargain with how much people are allowed to be abused, or exchange one group's suffering for another, etc.
When that chucklefuck Joe Donnelly says he's "open to legislation" that supports Trump's attacks on immigrants and their descendants, that's not some brilliant tactic coming into play. It's a complete betrayal of all the people affected by that kind of bullshit. There are racists among Democrats, and they go by many names; Red Dog Democrat, Blue Dog Democrat, and Centrist Democrat. Just because you state your racism politely doesn't mean you aren't racist.
/mic-drop
Edit - This thread was created when Donnelly's comments were brought up in the immigration policy thread btw, for context.
It's nice to see that othering isn't solely restricted to Republicans. I'm pretty confident that calling Democrats that view themselves as centrists racists will accomplish nothing but costing Democrats some votes.
My status as an American citizen (I was born here) is currently in danger by the administration because of racism. When a Democrat goes, "Maybe we should talk about this," that Democrat is racist. And any other Democrat that rushes to that Democrat's defense is racist. Why? Because it's easy to disregard the hardship of POC (or their descendants).
Sure, and if a Democrat does something that is racist or supports racially motivated actions, call them racist. But when you label any Democrat that is more Hillary Clinton (centrist) than Bernie Sanders (liberal) as a racist because they don't 100% agree with your policies, you're just chasing off voters.
The thought of being labeled a racist because I don't meet some "No True Scotsman" standard for being a Democrat pisses me off to the point that I don't want to vote. And I get to vote against Ted Cruz, which is the best reason to vote I've ever had.
+1
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
Given that voters can't name their own elected representatives or their parties with any degree of certainty I'd be hard pressed to believe the behavior of other candidates in other states would have any downstream effects on their voting.
Like how many Virginia senate voters can tell you who Joe Donnelly is, where he's running, his party affiliation, and the latest controversy? I'd probably be surprised if it's in the double digits, and then even a smaller percentage of THAT will actually have their vote influenced one way or another.
I think you're right to say that people don't pay much attention to specific people or issues on the whole, but I think its wrong to assume that people don't generate vague ideas and notions about parties based on absorbed information.
Like it or not, the Democrats as a party often have a serious problem with enthusiasm and seeming to stand for anything in particular. This waxes and wanes of course, but its hard to argue that people like Donnelly don't contribute to it.
I mean for low information voters you have to deal with fake news and a big game of telephone or things half heard while watching the news and making dinner or while waiting in a doctor's office or airport and at that point who knows what information will reach them or how they'll interpret it. If you're tuned in enough to be having this debate, you're fully capable of separating an Indiana senate candidate from your own.
Kara Eastman is a progressive running for Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District. Her opponent is still favored to win, but she's been campaigning heavily on Medicare for All as a pro business policy. There's something to consider in that as a viable path to replacing Blue Dogs and cynical appeals to conservatism.
Kara Eastman is a progressive running for Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District. Her opponent is still favored to win, but she's been campaigning heavily on Medicare for All as a pro business policy. There's something to consider in that as a viable path to replacing Blue Dogs and cynical appeals to conservatism.
See also:Beto.
+1
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
Nebraska's 2nd has a partisan lean of about 4 points from 538 and is pretty urban (for Nebraska). I'm not surprised that you would perform well in that district on Medicare for all. Now for Nebraska governor or senate...
Given that voters can't name their own elected representatives or their parties with any degree of certainty I'd be hard pressed to believe the behavior of other candidates in other states would have any downstream effects on their voting.
Like how many Virginia senate voters can tell you who Joe Donnelly is, where he's running, his party affiliation, and the latest controversy? I'd probably be surprised if it's in the double digits, and then even a smaller percentage of THAT will actually have their vote influenced one way or another.
I think you're right to say that people don't pay much attention to specific people or issues on the whole, but I think its wrong to assume that people don't generate vague ideas and notions about parties based on absorbed information.
Like it or not, the Democrats as a party often have a serious problem with enthusiasm and seeming to stand for anything in particular. This waxes and wanes of course, but its hard to argue that people like Donnelly don't contribute to it.
Clinton gives the Republicans plenty of ammunition to make this case, especially when he mouths such bromides as "The era of big government is over." What parts of "big government" is Clinton dismantling? Certainly not its biggest parts, Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. But if the American people are in a mood for rhetoric against big government, Clinton seems inclined to give it to them. For the Democratic left, Clinton's transgression involves not theft but betrayal. On welfare, capital punishment and civil liberties, on trade and the economy, Clinton has been more than happy to join hands with Republicans. Liberal and left Democrats argue that throughout his term Clinton has been more worried about the reactions he got from Wall Street bond traders than from trade unionists.
There is substance to this charge. His reappointment of Alan Greenspan as the chairman of the Federal Reserve ratified Republican policies at the heart of the federal economic machine. His embrace of the global economy through trade agreements such as NAFTA and GATT put him on the same side as Newt Gingrich.
The president was among the first to broach the notion of Clinton as Republican -- albeit more in frustration than pleasure. "Where are all the Democrats?" Clinton cried out at a White House meeting early in his administration, according to "The Agenda," Bob Woodward's account of the first part of the Clinton presidency. "I hope you're all aware we're all Eisenhower Republicans. We're Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?"
His exasperation aside, Clinton was on to something by suggesting that his administration was the only plausible home for the Eisenhower Republican remnant. At least since Gerald Ford lost the presidency in 1976, many Eisenhower Republicans have felt homeless. Their potential heroes, George Bush and now Bob Dole, needed to pay homage to the party's right wing because, as the late Lee Atwater noted, the conservative wing of the party had become its "nominating wing," replacing the old Eastern establishment.
Gradually, some of the most liberal Republicans came to terms with the shift and changed parties. One of the prominent switchers was Clinton's chief of staff, Leon Panetta, who converted from Republican to Democrat in the early 1970s in reaction to the Nixon administration's civil rights policies.
Kara Eastman is a progressive running for Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District. Her opponent is still favored to win, but she's been campaigning heavily on Medicare for All as a pro business policy. There's something to consider in that as a viable path to replacing Blue Dogs and cynical appeals to conservatism.
See also:Beto.
Going with the underutilized strategy of "be likable". Bold choice.
Being massively charismatic is a good strategy in any election. Beto and Gillum made good choices in opting for that one.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+9
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
I wonder if the perceived lack of stances by the Democrats has something to do with the big tent nature. When you have such a broad coalition everyone is going to have different priorities and viewpoints and they get cancelled out into just a dull, unfocused picture. The Republicans on the other hand are dominated by older white Christian males, so since they all want generally the same crap and are unified, it seems to be much sharper in contrast.
I wonder if the perceived lack of stances by the Democrats has something to do with the big tent nature. When you have such a broad coalition everyone is going to have different priorities and viewpoints and they get cancelled out into just a dull, unfocused picture. The Republicans on the other hand are dominated by older white Christian males, so since they all want generally the same crap and are unified, it seems to be much sharper in contrast.
Sometimes I think the "big tent" thing is more wishful thinking on the part of Third Way Democrats, who view themselves as the natural home of Good Republicans, and less actual reality, at least as far as core issues are concerned.
I wonder if the perceived lack of stances by the Democrats has something to do with the big tent nature. When you have such a broad coalition everyone is going to have different priorities and viewpoints and they get cancelled out into just a dull, unfocused picture. The Republicans on the other hand are dominated by older white Christian males, so since they all want generally the same crap and are unified, it seems to be much sharper in contrast.
Sometimes I think the "big tent" thing is more wishful thinking on the part of Third Way Democrats, who view themselves as the natural home of Good Republicans, and less actual reality, at least as far as core issues are concerned.
a good portion of the big tent is "thanks to the nature of US politics, we literally have no where else to go."
+1
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
I wonder if the perceived lack of stances by the Democrats has something to do with the big tent nature. When you have such a broad coalition everyone is going to have different priorities and viewpoints and they get cancelled out into just a dull, unfocused picture. The Republicans on the other hand are dominated by older white Christian males, so since they all want generally the same crap and are unified, it seems to be much sharper in contrast.
Sometimes I think the "big tent" thing is more wishful thinking on the part of Third Way Democrats, who view themselves as the natural home of Good Republicans, and less actual reality, at least as far as core issues are concerned.
I think that's definitely true, it's visible in the piece from the Post quoted above. I think though, there's no arguing that the policy priorities and preferences of college educated whites, lower class African-Americans, latinx people, Muslim people, etc are all going to vary heavily. This is why I'm again afraid that the current Democratic constituency will just fall apart if/when the Republicans awaken from their current fever dream and realize "hey minorities can be conservatives too."
I wonder if the perceived lack of stances by the Democrats has something to do with the big tent nature. When you have such a broad coalition everyone is going to have different priorities and viewpoints and they get cancelled out into just a dull, unfocused picture. The Republicans on the other hand are dominated by older white Christian males, so since they all want generally the same crap and are unified, it seems to be much sharper in contrast.
Sometimes I think the "big tent" thing is more wishful thinking on the part of Third Way Democrats, who view themselves as the natural home of Good Republicans, and less actual reality, at least as far as core issues are concerned.
Democrats are a coalition of labor, people of color, women, voting rights activists, environmentalists, religious minorities, etc...
Each of those groups has high priorities.
For example, I think @Henroid would say they do not put enough emphasis on immigration and actually fixing the problems and it has made him frustrated with the party.
Meanwhile, labor desperately wants card check, but that was also pushed off the last time we had power (well, blocked in the Senate by the GOP)
Democrats made the decision to push everything into ACA, instead of other priorities.
That's the flaw with the big tent in ChaosHat's argument.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I wonder if the perceived lack of stances by the Democrats has something to do with the big tent nature. When you have such a broad coalition everyone is going to have different priorities and viewpoints and they get cancelled out into just a dull, unfocused picture. The Republicans on the other hand are dominated by older white Christian males, so since they all want generally the same crap and are unified, it seems to be much sharper in contrast.
Sometimes I think the "big tent" thing is more wishful thinking on the part of Third Way Democrats, who view themselves as the natural home of Good Republicans, and less actual reality, at least as far as core issues are concerned.
I think that's definitely true, it's visible in the piece from the Post quoted above. I think though, there's no arguing that the policy priorities and preferences of college educated whites, lower class African-Americans, latinx people, Muslim people, etc are all going to vary heavily. This is why I'm again afraid that the current Democratic constituency will just fall apart if/when the Republicans awaken from their current fever dream and realize "hey minorities can be conservatives too."
I don't think they're going to awaken from the current fever dream
the entire post-60s shift of the parties was driven by white supremacy: The Dixiecrats filtered out of the Democratic Party and were welcomed in by the GOP's harder Right Wing, and the old Eastern Establishment became uncomfortable with the more overt white supremacy and filtered into the Democratic Party.
And from that point onward, the Republicans have pulled ever further rightward into more brazen white supremacy and fascism, with the Democrats conservative wing pulling the party rightward as they desperately chase the Republican base they just can't let go of.
Lanz on
+7
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I wonder if the perceived lack of stances by the Democrats has something to do with the big tent nature. When you have such a broad coalition everyone is going to have different priorities and viewpoints and they get cancelled out into just a dull, unfocused picture. The Republicans on the other hand are dominated by older white Christian males, so since they all want generally the same crap and are unified, it seems to be much sharper in contrast.
Sometimes I think the "big tent" thing is more wishful thinking on the part of Third Way Democrats, who view themselves as the natural home of Good Republicans, and less actual reality, at least as far as core issues are concerned.
Democrats are a coalition of labor, people of color, women, voting rights activists, environmentalists, religious minorities, etc...
Each of those groups has high priorities.
For example, I think Henroid would say they do not put enough emphasis on immigration and actually fixing the problems and it has made him frustrated with the party.
Meanwhile, labor desperately wants card check, but that was also pushed off the last time we had power (well, blocked in the Senate by the GOP)
Democrats made the decision to push everything into ACA, instead of other priorities.
That's the flaw with the big tent in ChaosHat's argument.
It isn't necessarily a priority - it often feels like "at all." I've often argued that Democrats can't just stop oppressive measures and consider the matter settled. So for instance, if Democrats simply reverse everything the Trump administration has done to Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, I would still consider the matter not solved because immigration is decades out of date and there's other law enforcement matters across the country that need to be rectified prior to Trump's acceptance of them (like in Arizona).
The other thing to keep in mind is that none of these groups / issues should be pitched as mutually exclusive. Workers' rights, for example, should never somehow be argued as "well it's this or protections for immigrants." They have nothing to do with each other and any politician that plays that game can get fucked. Republicans often push Democrats into that position with promises of voting or not filibustering, etc, and then when the Democrats take the bait the Republicans fuck around anyway.
I wonder if the perceived lack of stances by the Democrats has something to do with the big tent nature. When you have such a broad coalition everyone is going to have different priorities and viewpoints and they get cancelled out into just a dull, unfocused picture. The Republicans on the other hand are dominated by older white Christian males, so since they all want generally the same crap and are unified, it seems to be much sharper in contrast.
Sometimes I think the "big tent" thing is more wishful thinking on the part of Third Way Democrats, who view themselves as the natural home of Good Republicans, and less actual reality, at least as far as core issues are concerned.
I think that's definitely true, it's visible in the piece from the Post quoted above. I think though, there's no arguing that the policy priorities and preferences of college educated whites, lower class African-Americans, latinx people, Muslim people, etc are all going to vary heavily. This is why I'm again afraid that the current Democratic constituency will just fall apart if/when the Republicans awaken from their current fever dream and realize "hey minorities can be conservatives too."
I don't think they're going to awaken from the current fever dream
the entire post-60s shift of the parties was driven by white supremacy: The Dixiecrats filtered out of the Democratic Party and were welcomed in by the GOP's harder Right Wing, and the old Eastern Establishment became uncomfortable with the more overt white supremacy and filtered into the Democratic Party.
And from that point onward, the Republicans have pulled ever further rightward into more brazen white supremacy and fascism, with the Democrats conservative wing pulling the party rightward as they desperately chase the Republican base they just can't let go of.
The important context here is that for 24 years Democrats got absolutely trounced, except immediately post-Watergate. Since '92, the national party has slowly been drifting back to the left. The problem is our governmental structure overweights rural areas, which are more conservative, we to create a governing majority we need to either sweep every Senate in seat in every state to the left of North Carolina (and eliminate the legislative filibuster) or win some seats in more Republican states who are at best going to be like Jon Tester or Claire McCaskill.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+2
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
I wonder if the perceived lack of stances by the Democrats has something to do with the big tent nature. When you have such a broad coalition everyone is going to have different priorities and viewpoints and they get cancelled out into just a dull, unfocused picture. The Republicans on the other hand are dominated by older white Christian males, so since they all want generally the same crap and are unified, it seems to be much sharper in contrast.
Sometimes I think the "big tent" thing is more wishful thinking on the part of Third Way Democrats, who view themselves as the natural home of Good Republicans, and less actual reality, at least as far as core issues are concerned.
I think that's definitely true, it's visible in the piece from the Post quoted above. I think though, there's no arguing that the policy priorities and preferences of college educated whites, lower class African-Americans, latinx people, Muslim people, etc are all going to vary heavily. This is why I'm again afraid that the current Democratic constituency will just fall apart if/when the Republicans awaken from their current fever dream and realize "hey minorities can be conservatives too."
I don't think they're going to awaken from the current fever dream
the entire post-60s shift of the parties was driven by white supremacy: The Dixiecrats filtered out of the Democratic Party and were welcomed in by the GOP's harder Right Wing, and the old Eastern Establishment became uncomfortable with the more overt white supremacy and filtered into the Democratic Party.
And from that point onward, the Republicans have pulled ever further rightward into more brazen white supremacy and fascism, with the Democrats conservative wing pulling the party rightward as they desperately chase the Republican base they just can't let go of.
I think demographically just in my lifetime their status quo will be probably unsustainable, there just won't be enough white people. They can still be right wing fascists, but they'll probably have to ally with at least one minority group to get there. I accept that like maybe white people can maintain dominance/an advantage in the Senate but we are seeing (hopefully) that gerrymandering can't stop a big enough wave in the house. I suppose it's possible global warming will kill us all before the fever dream breaks though.
0
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
I wonder if the perceived lack of stances by the Democrats has something to do with the big tent nature. When you have such a broad coalition everyone is going to have different priorities and viewpoints and they get cancelled out into just a dull, unfocused picture. The Republicans on the other hand are dominated by older white Christian males, so since they all want generally the same crap and are unified, it seems to be much sharper in contrast.
Sometimes I think the "big tent" thing is more wishful thinking on the part of Third Way Democrats, who view themselves as the natural home of Good Republicans, and less actual reality, at least as far as core issues are concerned.
Democrats are a coalition of labor, people of color, women, voting rights activists, environmentalists, religious minorities, etc...
Each of those groups has high priorities.
For example, I think Henroid would say they do not put enough emphasis on immigration and actually fixing the problems and it has made him frustrated with the party.
Meanwhile, labor desperately wants card check, but that was also pushed off the last time we had power (well, blocked in the Senate by the GOP)
Democrats made the decision to push everything into ACA, instead of other priorities.
That's the flaw with the big tent in ChaosHat's argument.
It isn't necessarily a priority - it often feels like "at all." I've often argued that Democrats can't just stop oppressive measures and consider the matter settled. So for instance, if Democrats simply reverse everything the Trump administration has done to Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, I would still consider the matter not solved because immigration is decades out of date and there's other law enforcement matters across the country that need to be rectified prior to Trump's acceptance of them (like in Arizona).
The other thing to keep in mind is that none of these groups / issues should be pitched as mutually exclusive. Workers' rights, for example, should never somehow be argued as "well it's this or protections for immigrants." They have nothing to do with each other and any politician that plays that game can get fucked. Republicans often push Democrats into that position with promises of voting or not filibustering, etc, and then when the Democrats take the bait the Republicans fuck around anyway.
I don't entirely agree with this. There is a reason that the only major "liberal" legislative achievement of the Obama years is the ACA and Donald Trump has only one so far. Crafting good legislation takes time and even when you control the Presidency and both chambers you still have to corral your own people. Republicans have an advantage, they just want to slash and burn and you can apparently write legislation for that until the literal last minute without everyone having read the bill. You can't get to medicare for all, free college tuition, or comprehensive immigration reform without dotting the i's.
A lot of the times you do have to pick and choose. Especially considering you get one option at reconciliation, if that's the process by which you want to get some shit done, you get one go at it.
Given that voters can't name their own elected representatives or their parties with any degree of certainty I'd be hard pressed to believe the behavior of other candidates in other states would have any downstream effects on their voting.
Like how many Virginia senate voters can tell you who Joe Donnelly is, where he's running, his party affiliation, and the latest controversy? I'd probably be surprised if it's in the double digits, and then even a smaller percentage of THAT will actually have their vote influenced one way or another.
I think you're right to say that people don't pay much attention to specific people or issues on the whole, but I think its wrong to assume that people don't generate vague ideas and notions about parties based on absorbed information.
Like it or not, the Democrats as a party often have a serious problem with enthusiasm and seeming to stand for anything in particular. This waxes and wanes of course, but its hard to argue that people like Donnelly don't contribute to it.
I mean for low information voters you have to deal with fake news and a big game of telephone or things half heard while watching the news and making dinner or while waiting in a doctor's office or airport and at that point who knows what information will reach them or how they'll interpret it. If you're tuned in enough to be having this debate, you're fully capable of separating an Indiana senate candidate from your own.
This is trying to have it both ways. If most voters are so turned off that your actions and words can't effect party image in the face of lies and outside noise then there's no reason to think that flirting with conservatism would be any different.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I wonder if the perceived lack of stances by the Democrats has something to do with the big tent nature. When you have such a broad coalition everyone is going to have different priorities and viewpoints and they get cancelled out into just a dull, unfocused picture. The Republicans on the other hand are dominated by older white Christian males, so since they all want generally the same crap and are unified, it seems to be much sharper in contrast.
Sometimes I think the "big tent" thing is more wishful thinking on the part of Third Way Democrats, who view themselves as the natural home of Good Republicans, and less actual reality, at least as far as core issues are concerned.
Democrats are a coalition of labor, people of color, women, voting rights activists, environmentalists, religious minorities, etc...
Each of those groups has high priorities.
For example, I think Henroid would say they do not put enough emphasis on immigration and actually fixing the problems and it has made him frustrated with the party.
Meanwhile, labor desperately wants card check, but that was also pushed off the last time we had power (well, blocked in the Senate by the GOP)
Democrats made the decision to push everything into ACA, instead of other priorities.
That's the flaw with the big tent in ChaosHat's argument.
It isn't necessarily a priority - it often feels like "at all." I've often argued that Democrats can't just stop oppressive measures and consider the matter settled. So for instance, if Democrats simply reverse everything the Trump administration has done to Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, I would still consider the matter not solved because immigration is decades out of date and there's other law enforcement matters across the country that need to be rectified prior to Trump's acceptance of them (like in Arizona).
The other thing to keep in mind is that none of these groups / issues should be pitched as mutually exclusive. Workers' rights, for example, should never somehow be argued as "well it's this or protections for immigrants." They have nothing to do with each other and any politician that plays that game can get fucked. Republicans often push Democrats into that position with promises of voting or not filibustering, etc, and then when the Democrats take the bait the Republicans fuck around anyway.
I don't entirely agree with this. There is a reason that the only major "liberal" legislative achievement of the Obama years is the ACA and Donald Trump has only one so far. Crafting good legislation takes time and even when you control the Presidency and both chambers you still have to corral your own people. Republicans have an advantage, they just want to slash and burn and you can apparently write legislation for that until the literal last minute without everyone having read the bill. You can't get to medicare for all, free college tuition, or comprehensive immigration reform without dotting the i's.
A lot of the times you do have to pick and choose. Especially considering you get one option at reconciliation, if that's the process by which you want to get some shit done, you get one go at it.
Even the ACA was a half-measure at the end of the day, and none of that had to do with Republican feedback beyond "WE DON'T LIKE IT." Democrats cut back on a lot of shit (like a Public Option) when they should've just brute-forced it through - which is what Republicans are doing right now, trying to brute force whatever they can through which includes zero regard for normal procedure. Giving bad-faith actors what they want isn't going to win them over to your side. It's going to diminish your impact and they're still going to operate in bad-faith. So why pander to any of that?
The counter to a party that always acts in bad-faith and passes actively-harmful legislation with brute force tactics is a party that passes actively-helpful legislation with brute force tactics.
+6
Options
ChaosHatHop, hop, hop, HA!Trick of the lightRegistered Userregular
I agree completely that we should fight on Republican terms but I just don't think it's as possible with democratic legislation. It's much harder to build something that can withstand the next Republican attempt to destroy it.
With Medicare for all you have to line up your pay fors and determine coverage levels and reorganize government departments and figure out how this interacts at the state level, etc. Shit takes time.
+1
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
I agree completely that we should fight on Republican terms but I just don't think it's as possible with democratic legislation. It's much harder to build something that can withstand the next Republican attempt to destroy it.
Do you recall what happened last year with the ACA? The Republicans' first move was, "Ha, we're in control now! Seeya ACA!"
And then at all their town halls and public events, REPUBLICAN VOTERS were shouting at them to not get rid of the ACA. And why? Because they had some years to live with it and see the benefit. They saw the country wasn't burning down and that they were benefitting and everything was fine. The Republican Party response was to stop having town halls and such and they took their shots at the ACA anyway.
It literally takes arm-twisting to change a Republican voter's mind on things. "Shut up, this is good for you." That sounds harsh, but I'd rather twisted arms than lives lost.
Edit - Another example from the Obama administration; at one point they'd taken action to let people refinance their homes / adjust their mortgages, I forget the exact details, but it was an intervention to curb the housing crises going on. My mother, who has said all sorts of racist shit in her life and Obama was no exception, managed to go, "Hey, he did something that helped me, that's cool," for like five minutes when the paperwork came in.
I agree completely that we should fight on Republican terms but I just don't think it's as possible with democratic legislation. It's much harder to build something that can withstand the next Republican attempt to destroy it.
Do you recall what happened last year with the ACA? The Republicans' first move was, "Ha, we're in control now! Seeya ACA!"
And then at all their town halls and public events, REPUBLICAN VOTERS were shouting at them to not get rid of the ACA. And why? Because they had some years to live with it and see the benefit. They saw the country wasn't burning down and that they were benefitting and everything was fine. The Republican Party response was to stop having town halls and such and they took their shots at the ACA anyway.
It literally takes arm-twisting to change a Republican voter's mind on things. "Shut up, this is good for you." That sounds harsh, but I'd rather twisted arms than lives lost.
Edit - Another example from the Obama administration; at one point they'd taken action to let people refinance their homes / adjust their mortgages, I forget the exact details, but it was an intervention to curb the housing crises going on. My mother, who has said all sorts of racist shit in her life and Obama was no exception, managed to go, "Hey, he did something that helped me, that's cool," for like five minutes when the paperwork came in.
Yes but you still have to make something good. The ACA was signed into law in March 2010 so that's over one year crafting the legislation and then you have to start campaigning in the fall and there are recesses in the summer.
You only have so many staffers and manpower and you still need to make something that will get a majority of your party in both houses to be happy! Other things will also happen that split your attention like natural disasters, foreign policy issues, etc.
You cannot pass UBI, Medicare for All, immigration reform, voter reform, free education passed in a single Congress. Honestly you'll be lucky to get ONE landmark piece of legislation through in two years.
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited October 2018
It comes back again to the Blue Dog crowd, and the delicate balance they have to walk and the inherently problematic position they hold in the party. Needed to pass the ACA, but unable to pass the main version of the ACA they should have.
There isn't really a solution there aside from win more districts elsewhere, but most of the elsewheres at that time would have been conservative strongholds with the same problems.
Or convince those senators through the whip that sacrificing their career and future concessions for things their state might want from the GOP is the right call. Which it probably would have been for most, but I don't see most politicians being willing to fall on their swords for policy at the federal level on either side.
Enc on
0
Options
AuralynxDarkness is a perspectiveWatching the ego workRegistered Userregular
I agree completely that we should fight on Republican terms but I just don't think it's as possible with democratic legislation. It's much harder to build something that can withstand the next Republican attempt to destroy it.
Do you recall what happened last year with the ACA? The Republicans' first move was, "Ha, we're in control now! Seeya ACA!"
And then at all their town halls and public events, REPUBLICAN VOTERS were shouting at them to not get rid of the ACA. And why? Because they had some years to live with it and see the benefit. They saw the country wasn't burning down and that they were benefitting and everything was fine. The Republican Party response was to stop having town halls and such and they took their shots at the ACA anyway.
It literally takes arm-twisting to change a Republican voter's mind on things. "Shut up, this is good for you." That sounds harsh, but I'd rather twisted arms than lives lost.
Edit - Another example from the Obama administration; at one point they'd taken action to let people refinance their homes / adjust their mortgages, I forget the exact details, but it was an intervention to curb the housing crises going on. My mother, who has said all sorts of racist shit in her life and Obama was no exception, managed to go, "Hey, he did something that helped me, that's cool," for like five minutes when the paperwork came in.
Yes but you still have to make something good. The ACA was signed into law in March 2010 so that's over one year crafting the legislation and then you have to start campaigning in the fall and there are recesses in the summer.
You only have so many staffers and manpower and you still need to make something that will get a majority of your party in both houses to be happy! Other things will also happen that split your attention like natural disasters, foreign policy issues, etc.
You cannot pass UBI, Medicare for All, immigration reform, voter reform, free education passed in a single Congress. Honestly you'll be lucky to get ONE landmark piece of legislation through in two years.
Obvious-but-relevant followup: if you somehow did pass all of those things in a single Congress, you'd be running in the next several elections with the resulting disruption to people's lives and livelihoods hanging around your collective necks. Even if the results were somewhat-good (as with the ACA), it's not a burden you're going to talk people whose career is staying elected into taking up all that easily.
Posts
The answer to number 4 is no btw. Like right off the bat. The cold dead hands of people who drew state lines on maps fuck us all right now.
Like how many Virginia senate voters can tell you who Joe Donnelly is, where he's running, his party affiliation, and the latest controversy? I'd probably be surprised if it's in the double digits, and then even a smaller percentage of THAT will actually have their vote influenced one way or another.
4 is possible long term, via changing the attitudes of voters. That's a long difficult ass process though.
Agree, for the most part, but there is a certain point where it matters.
For example, Republican Steve King of Iowa is getting blasted and pointed at as an example of bad Republicans because, well, he IS one and is obviously a racist piece of shit. When something you do gets signal boosted to use as an attack on all Republicans or Democrats, it matters.
PSN: Bizazedo
CFN: Bizazedo (I don't think I suck, add me).
I'm reminded of Alan Grayson. He was a strident and polarizing fellow, but I don't think his antics depressed voter turnout in other states.
I don't know that this is true. If the Republican brand wasn't totally radioactive to certain groups at this point (college educated women, minorities, young people) I think a lot of people would take what they're peddling. I'm really starting to come around to the idea that America is actually a center right country overall.
Like if they weren't racist morons run by the king of racist morons you'd just lay low right now, take credit for the economy, maybe pass an actual middle class tax cut and just ride high approval ratings through this election? Maybe do a small insignificant nothing to "fix" the ACA to take credit for that now, and actually not fuck with it and make it worse? They're doing very unpopular things in a very unpopular way and they're not totally out of the running. Democrats did a legitimately good thing for people (I think those polled now would agree based on the current turn around on pre-existing conditions) and got slaughtered.
Four is obviously no as long as the Senate exists.
Do you think how Bernie was handled within the party depressed voter turnout?
Hmmmm, good point!
I think you're right to say that people don't pay much attention to specific people or issues on the whole, but I think its wrong to assume that people don't generate vague ideas and notions about parties based on absorbed information.
Like it or not, the Democrats as a party often have a serious problem with enthusiasm and seeming to stand for anything in particular. This waxes and wanes of course, but its hard to argue that people like Donnelly don't contribute to it.
I don’t think that’s because they were like “this vote could go either way for me, I gotta do my homework here.” I think it’s because this is the song and dance red state Dems typically do in order to make rejecting GOP policies more palatable to the people in their state. You can be left leaning, you can be a Democrat, but most of these guys believe you do better when you appear to be less partisan, when it looks like you’re just calling balls and strikes and sincerely doing what’s best for your constituents.
I don’t know if that’s the right strategy per se. I think with smart campaigning and a charismatic candidate there are places where a kind of left wing populism can succeed in a way that traditional liberal politics can’t. But not everybody can run that playbook. And there are red state Dems who have won their elections by margins large enough that they probably are getting some conservative votes by playing to the middle a bit. Everybody’s race is unique and at a certain level we need to trust their understanding of it, which is going to be a lot better than ours.
I do think some messages can cross the line, but that mostly what matters is your vote, and in this specific instance I don’t think Donnelly would vote for this if it came to it (which it probably won’t anyway).
I also think that the last week before midterms is the wrong time to start tearing down your candidates. Make your voice heard in the primary, and if you win, hold your guy’s feet to the fire during his term. Now is the time when we need to give our full throated support to anybody with a D next to their name.
Especially because ultimately the only way we’ll stop having to rely on Blue Dogs is by electing enough Dems that we don’t need their votes. When Donnelly or Manchin is vote 51 for our agenda, things get hairy. When they’re vote 54 we can breathe easier and pass better laws.
Sure, and if a Democrat does something that is racist or supports racially motivated actions, call them racist. But when you label any Democrat that is more Hillary Clinton (centrist) than Bernie Sanders (liberal) as a racist because they don't 100% agree with your policies, you're just chasing off voters.
The thought of being labeled a racist because I don't meet some "No True Scotsman" standard for being a Democrat pisses me off to the point that I don't want to vote. And I get to vote against Ted Cruz, which is the best reason to vote I've ever had.
I mean for low information voters you have to deal with fake news and a big game of telephone or things half heard while watching the news and making dinner or while waiting in a doctor's office or airport and at that point who knows what information will reach them or how they'll interpret it. If you're tuned in enough to be having this debate, you're fully capable of separating an Indiana senate candidate from your own.
See also:Beto.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1996/07/21/clinton-swipes-the-gops-lyrics/9c725e88-b5a7-46a5-bb74-8bc12b22795b/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.eec6ca67ca1b
Going with the underutilized strategy of "be likable". Bold choice.
Sometimes I think the "big tent" thing is more wishful thinking on the part of Third Way Democrats, who view themselves as the natural home of Good Republicans, and less actual reality, at least as far as core issues are concerned.
a good portion of the big tent is "thanks to the nature of US politics, we literally have no where else to go."
I think that's definitely true, it's visible in the piece from the Post quoted above. I think though, there's no arguing that the policy priorities and preferences of college educated whites, lower class African-Americans, latinx people, Muslim people, etc are all going to vary heavily. This is why I'm again afraid that the current Democratic constituency will just fall apart if/when the Republicans awaken from their current fever dream and realize "hey minorities can be conservatives too."
Democrats are a coalition of labor, people of color, women, voting rights activists, environmentalists, religious minorities, etc...
Each of those groups has high priorities.
For example, I think @Henroid would say they do not put enough emphasis on immigration and actually fixing the problems and it has made him frustrated with the party.
Meanwhile, labor desperately wants card check, but that was also pushed off the last time we had power (well, blocked in the Senate by the GOP)
Democrats made the decision to push everything into ACA, instead of other priorities.
That's the flaw with the big tent in ChaosHat's argument.
I don't think they're going to awaken from the current fever dream
the entire post-60s shift of the parties was driven by white supremacy: The Dixiecrats filtered out of the Democratic Party and were welcomed in by the GOP's harder Right Wing, and the old Eastern Establishment became uncomfortable with the more overt white supremacy and filtered into the Democratic Party.
And from that point onward, the Republicans have pulled ever further rightward into more brazen white supremacy and fascism, with the Democrats conservative wing pulling the party rightward as they desperately chase the Republican base they just can't let go of.
The other thing to keep in mind is that none of these groups / issues should be pitched as mutually exclusive. Workers' rights, for example, should never somehow be argued as "well it's this or protections for immigrants." They have nothing to do with each other and any politician that plays that game can get fucked. Republicans often push Democrats into that position with promises of voting or not filibustering, etc, and then when the Democrats take the bait the Republicans fuck around anyway.
The important context here is that for 24 years Democrats got absolutely trounced, except immediately post-Watergate. Since '92, the national party has slowly been drifting back to the left. The problem is our governmental structure overweights rural areas, which are more conservative, we to create a governing majority we need to either sweep every Senate in seat in every state to the left of North Carolina (and eliminate the legislative filibuster) or win some seats in more Republican states who are at best going to be like Jon Tester or Claire McCaskill.
I think demographically just in my lifetime their status quo will be probably unsustainable, there just won't be enough white people. They can still be right wing fascists, but they'll probably have to ally with at least one minority group to get there. I accept that like maybe white people can maintain dominance/an advantage in the Senate but we are seeing (hopefully) that gerrymandering can't stop a big enough wave in the house. I suppose it's possible global warming will kill us all before the fever dream breaks though.
I don't entirely agree with this. There is a reason that the only major "liberal" legislative achievement of the Obama years is the ACA and Donald Trump has only one so far. Crafting good legislation takes time and even when you control the Presidency and both chambers you still have to corral your own people. Republicans have an advantage, they just want to slash and burn and you can apparently write legislation for that until the literal last minute without everyone having read the bill. You can't get to medicare for all, free college tuition, or comprehensive immigration reform without dotting the i's.
A lot of the times you do have to pick and choose. Especially considering you get one option at reconciliation, if that's the process by which you want to get some shit done, you get one go at it.
This is trying to have it both ways. If most voters are so turned off that your actions and words can't effect party image in the face of lies and outside noise then there's no reason to think that flirting with conservatism would be any different.
The counter to a party that always acts in bad-faith and passes actively-harmful legislation with brute force tactics is a party that passes actively-helpful legislation with brute force tactics.
With Medicare for all you have to line up your pay fors and determine coverage levels and reorganize government departments and figure out how this interacts at the state level, etc. Shit takes time.
And then at all their town halls and public events, REPUBLICAN VOTERS were shouting at them to not get rid of the ACA. And why? Because they had some years to live with it and see the benefit. They saw the country wasn't burning down and that they were benefitting and everything was fine. The Republican Party response was to stop having town halls and such and they took their shots at the ACA anyway.
It literally takes arm-twisting to change a Republican voter's mind on things. "Shut up, this is good for you." That sounds harsh, but I'd rather twisted arms than lives lost.
Edit - Another example from the Obama administration; at one point they'd taken action to let people refinance their homes / adjust their mortgages, I forget the exact details, but it was an intervention to curb the housing crises going on. My mother, who has said all sorts of racist shit in her life and Obama was no exception, managed to go, "Hey, he did something that helped me, that's cool," for like five minutes when the paperwork came in.
they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.
Yes the age old problem of not having a supermajority.
Or so little discipline that your supermajorities are borderline useless.
Yes but you still have to make something good. The ACA was signed into law in March 2010 so that's over one year crafting the legislation and then you have to start campaigning in the fall and there are recesses in the summer.
You only have so many staffers and manpower and you still need to make something that will get a majority of your party in both houses to be happy! Other things will also happen that split your attention like natural disasters, foreign policy issues, etc.
You cannot pass UBI, Medicare for All, immigration reform, voter reform, free education passed in a single Congress. Honestly you'll be lucky to get ONE landmark piece of legislation through in two years.
There isn't really a solution there aside from win more districts elsewhere, but most of the elsewheres at that time would have been conservative strongholds with the same problems.
Or convince those senators through the whip that sacrificing their career and future concessions for things their state might want from the GOP is the right call. Which it probably would have been for most, but I don't see most politicians being willing to fall on their swords for policy at the federal level on either side.
Obvious-but-relevant followup: if you somehow did pass all of those things in a single Congress, you'd be running in the next several elections with the resulting disruption to people's lives and livelihoods hanging around your collective necks. Even if the results were somewhat-good (as with the ACA), it's not a burden you're going to talk people whose career is staying elected into taking up all that easily.