Options

Democratic Electoral Prospects and the Role of Red State/Blue Dog Democrats in the Party

124»

Posts

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    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.

    I think "unable" is probably charitable. Liebermann isn't a progressive in his heart of hearts.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Agreed. Blue Dogs aren't saints here. They are flakes that we have to cater to, though.

  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    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.
    Nobody is arguing to pass all this legislation in one term. But while you craft one thing with a focus, other members of the government can start the groundwork on the other legislation pieces.

  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Knight_ wrote: »
    they passed the public option in the house, and backed off of it to get to 60 in the senate because the dems couldn't get the entire caucus on board.

    they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.

    they backed off specifically to get Joe Lieberman on board, a guy they had so thoroughly disrespected in his Senate campaign that he nearly decided to vote with the Republicans. Which kinda brings this back around - if you can't make room for the blue dogs, you end up with Republicans instead.

    Tea Party purity testing doesn't always work - even for the Tea Party! Leftwing Democrats need to get comfortable making coalitions within their own house.

  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    they passed the public option in the house, and backed off of it to get to 60 in the senate because the dems couldn't get the entire caucus on board.

    they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.

    they backed off specifically to get Joe Lieberman on board, a guy they had so thoroughly disrespected in his Senate campaign that he nearly decided to vote with the Republicans. Which kinda brings this back around - if you can't make room for the blue dogs, you end up with Republicans instead.

    Tea Party purity testing doesn't always work - even for the Tea Party! Leftwing Democrats need to get comfortable making coalitions within their own house.
    Republicans continue to operate in a block, as demonstrated by the Kavanaugh vote. You say Tea Party purity testing "doesn't always work," and yet here we are with Republican officials doing everything the Tea Party always dreamed of.

  • Options
    ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    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.
    Nobody is arguing to pass all this legislation in one term. But while you craft one thing with a focus, other members of the government can start the groundwork on the other legislation pieces.

    You started off by saying you don't have to pick and choose. If you can't do them all at once, then you do! Even if you could knock out one a term, how long do you think you'll have power?

  • Options
    EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    they passed the public option in the house, and backed off of it to get to 60 in the senate because the dems couldn't get the entire caucus on board.

    they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.

    they backed off specifically to get Joe Lieberman on board, a guy they had so thoroughly disrespected in his Senate campaign that he nearly decided to vote with the Republicans. Which kinda brings this back around - if you can't make room for the blue dogs, you end up with Republicans instead.

    Tea Party purity testing doesn't always work - even for the Tea Party! Leftwing Democrats need to get comfortable making coalitions within their own house.
    Republicans continue to operate in a block, as demonstrated by the Kavanaugh vote. You say Tea Party purity testing "doesn't always work," and yet here we are with Republican officials doing everything the Tea Party always dreamed of.

    I feel like there have been a number of upsets over this last year and a half with Republicans from left leaning states voting against the bloc.

  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    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.
    Nobody is arguing to pass all this legislation in one term. But while you craft one thing with a focus, other members of the government can start the groundwork on the other legislation pieces.

    You started off by saying you don't have to pick and choose. If you can't do them all at once, then you do! Even if you could knock out one a term, how long do you think you'll have power?
    You still don't have to pick and choose. But Democrats do so when it's election time and the party needs one message to push. They will promote one thing at the expense of others.

  • Options
    wazillawazilla Having a late dinner Registered User regular
    Joe Lieberman (I) would not have voted for a public option. So I fail to see how we brute force the public option through the Senate? End the filibuster? Does Reid have the votes? I dunno!

    I also don't know why the myth keeps persisting that if we just tried harder we'd have gotten a public option or whatever. The filibuster was in place, Joe Lieberman was the gatekeeper for the whole bill, the guy that endorsed John McCain in the 2008 election.

    Also didn't the House version of the bill have a public option? The political will exists within the democratic party, but the political reality of the time was simply such that it wasn't going to happen.

    I do not have any memory of the 2006 Connecticut Senate race but apparently the democrats ran a guy against Lieberman and he got smoked (~10 point loss). Lieberman got almost 50% of the vote with a Republican on the ticket as well. Maybe we could have tried harder in 2006? But it doesn't seem like the wise people of Connecticut chose Lieberman by accident, and certainly not because he had a D next to his name... because he didn't...

    I don't mean to make this about Obamacare or past elections, but it is important, I think, that we be realistic about what was possible and who was responsible when trying to determine how conservative democrats fit into the party and what role they play.

    Psn:wazukki
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    they passed the public option in the house, and backed off of it to get to 60 in the senate because the dems couldn't get the entire caucus on board.

    they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.

    they backed off specifically to get Joe Lieberman on board, a guy they had so thoroughly disrespected in his Senate campaign that he nearly decided to vote with the Republicans. Which kinda brings this back around - if you can't make room for the blue dogs, you end up with Republicans instead.

    Tea Party purity testing doesn't always work - even for the Tea Party! Leftwing Democrats need to get comfortable making coalitions within their own house.

    He lost his voters by supporting Iraq. The national Democratic Party did nothing to support Lamont. In fact, the opposite, much to the chagrin of liberal activists.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Enc wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    they passed the public option in the house, and backed off of it to get to 60 in the senate because the dems couldn't get the entire caucus on board.

    they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.

    they backed off specifically to get Joe Lieberman on board, a guy they had so thoroughly disrespected in his Senate campaign that he nearly decided to vote with the Republicans. Which kinda brings this back around - if you can't make room for the blue dogs, you end up with Republicans instead.

    Tea Party purity testing doesn't always work - even for the Tea Party! Leftwing Democrats need to get comfortable making coalitions within their own house.
    Republicans continue to operate in a block, as demonstrated by the Kavanaugh vote. You say Tea Party purity testing "doesn't always work," and yet here we are with Republican officials doing everything the Tea Party always dreamed of.

    I feel like there have been a number of upsets over this last year and a half with Republicans from left leaning states voting against the bloc.
    John McCain died and with his death so too went Republicans having a few defectors. Jeff Flake is too much of a coward to fill those shoes.

  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    they passed the public option in the house, and backed off of it to get to 60 in the senate because the dems couldn't get the entire caucus on board.

    they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.

    they backed off specifically to get Joe Lieberman on board, a guy they had so thoroughly disrespected in his Senate campaign that he nearly decided to vote with the Republicans. Which kinda brings this back around - if you can't make room for the blue dogs, you end up with Republicans instead.

    Tea Party purity testing doesn't always work - even for the Tea Party! Leftwing Democrats need to get comfortable making coalitions within their own house.
    Republicans continue to operate in a block, as demonstrated by the Kavanaugh vote. You say Tea Party purity testing "doesn't always work," and yet here we are with Republican officials doing everything the Tea Party always dreamed of.

    I mean it specifically doesn't always work, because sometimes you get Christine O'Donnell running for Senate.

  • Options
    EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    Enc wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    they passed the public option in the house, and backed off of it to get to 60 in the senate because the dems couldn't get the entire caucus on board.

    they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.

    they backed off specifically to get Joe Lieberman on board, a guy they had so thoroughly disrespected in his Senate campaign that he nearly decided to vote with the Republicans. Which kinda brings this back around - if you can't make room for the blue dogs, you end up with Republicans instead.

    Tea Party purity testing doesn't always work - even for the Tea Party! Leftwing Democrats need to get comfortable making coalitions within their own house.
    Republicans continue to operate in a block, as demonstrated by the Kavanaugh vote. You say Tea Party purity testing "doesn't always work," and yet here we are with Republican officials doing everything the Tea Party always dreamed of.

    I feel like there have been a number of upsets over this last year and a half with Republicans from left leaning states voting against the bloc.
    John McCain died and with his death so too went Republicans having a few defectors. Jeff Flake is too much of a coward to fill those shoes.

    Right, but the fact that McCain, Murkowski, Flake, Collins, etc. were ever at all considered to be possible to break against the bloc is evidence that the Tea Party doesn't totally control the narrative. There have been lots of cases over the last year of internal republican discussions breaking down and the whole "they don't know how to govern" discussions coming up about various groups not agreeing with their own tent.

  • Options
    ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    ChaosHat wrote: »
    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.
    Nobody is arguing to pass all this legislation in one term. But while you craft one thing with a focus, other members of the government can start the groundwork on the other legislation pieces.

    You started off by saying you don't have to pick and choose. If you can't do them all at once, then you do! Even if you could knock out one a term, how long do you think you'll have power?
    You still don't have to pick and choose. But Democrats do so when it's election time and the party needs one message to push. They will promote one thing at the expense of others.

    What? You still have to pick one thing to get done. You can't get them all done otherwise you're going to have three stooges syndrome and they'll all get stuck in the door. Something has to go first.

    Unless you're saying you don't have to pick and choose because you could decide by drawing legislative priorities out of a hat but then you're still choosing which one to do first to the exclusion of the others!

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    That just means Democrats have an internal problem, which isn't an argument in their defense.

    Yes the age old problem of not having a supermajority.

    Or so little discipline that your supermajorities are borderline useless.

    There is no whipping in the Senate. Welcome to the american political system.

    Every time you complain about the establishment and seek ways to work outside of it, you only strengthen this facet of the american political system.

    To have party discipline, you need whipping. To have whipping, you need the party leadership to be able to lean on it's members and enforce a unified political vision upon them.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    they passed the public option in the house, and backed off of it to get to 60 in the senate because the dems couldn't get the entire caucus on board.

    they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.

    they backed off specifically to get Joe Lieberman on board, a guy they had so thoroughly disrespected in his Senate campaign that he nearly decided to vote with the Republicans. Which kinda brings this back around - if you can't make room for the blue dogs, you end up with Republicans instead.

    Tea Party purity testing doesn't always work - even for the Tea Party! Leftwing Democrats need to get comfortable making coalitions within their own house.

    You keep trying to spin this bullshit. It's not gonna fly. Lieberman was never gonna vote for the ACA the House passed.

  • Options
    spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    shryke wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    they passed the public option in the house, and backed off of it to get to 60 in the senate because the dems couldn't get the entire caucus on board.

    they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.

    they backed off specifically to get Joe Lieberman on board, a guy they had so thoroughly disrespected in his Senate campaign that he nearly decided to vote with the Republicans. Which kinda brings this back around - if you can't make room for the blue dogs, you end up with Republicans instead.

    Tea Party purity testing doesn't always work - even for the Tea Party! Leftwing Democrats need to get comfortable making coalitions within their own house.

    You keep trying to spin this bullshit. It's not gonna fly. Lieberman was never gonna vote for the ACA the House passed.

    With the way Democrats treated him, we're lucky he voted for it at all. Turns out the guy has some integrity and maybe Connecticut Democratic primary voters were dead wrong when they tried to run him out in favor of a weaker, more liberal candidate.

    spool32 on
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    they passed the public option in the house, and backed off of it to get to 60 in the senate because the dems couldn't get the entire caucus on board.

    they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.

    they backed off specifically to get Joe Lieberman on board, a guy they had so thoroughly disrespected in his Senate campaign that he nearly decided to vote with the Republicans. Which kinda brings this back around - if you can't make room for the blue dogs, you end up with Republicans instead.

    Tea Party purity testing doesn't always work - even for the Tea Party! Leftwing Democrats need to get comfortable making coalitions within their own house.

    The one where he lost a primary and ran as a spoiler Independent and won, or a previous one?


    Cause if the first one... dude, come on. Come on.

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    they passed the public option in the house, and backed off of it to get to 60 in the senate because the dems couldn't get the entire caucus on board.

    they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.

    they backed off specifically to get Joe Lieberman on board, a guy they had so thoroughly disrespected in his Senate campaign that he nearly decided to vote with the Republicans. Which kinda brings this back around - if you can't make room for the blue dogs, you end up with Republicans instead.

    Tea Party purity testing doesn't always work - even for the Tea Party! Leftwing Democrats need to get comfortable making coalitions within their own house.

    You keep trying to spin this bullshit. It's not gonna fly. Lieberman was never gonna vote for the ACA the House passed.

    With the way Democrats treated him, we're lucky he voted for it at all. Turns out the guy has some integrity and maybe Connecticut Democratic primary voters were dead wrong when they tried to run him out in favor of a weaker, more liberal candidate.

    This is just you projecting various grievances onto the situation and not actually an explanation of how one thing lead to the other.

    You just want to stroke off Lieberman for "having integrity" (please) but not actually explain why you think he would have voted for the House bill if he hadn't lost his primary.

  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    That just means Democrats have an internal problem, which isn't an argument in their defense.

    Yes the age old problem of not having a supermajority.

    Or so little discipline that your supermajorities are borderline useless.

    There is no whipping in the Senate. Welcome to the american political system.

    Every time you complain about the establishment and seek ways to work outside of it, you only strengthen this facet of the american political system.

    To have party discipline, you need whipping. To have whipping, you need the party leadership to be able to lean on it's members and enforce a unified political vision upon them.

    The lack of a formal whip should not give anyone the impression that parties can't lean on Senators with incredible pressure when they decide to. McConnell's ability to do so is a large reason we're here. Alternatively, our Senate leadership these last few decades has almost relished letting Senators do whatever they want.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    they passed the public option in the house, and backed off of it to get to 60 in the senate because the dems couldn't get the entire caucus on board.

    they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.

    they backed off specifically to get Joe Lieberman on board, a guy they had so thoroughly disrespected in his Senate campaign that he nearly decided to vote with the Republicans. Which kinda brings this back around - if you can't make room for the blue dogs, you end up with Republicans instead.

    Tea Party purity testing doesn't always work - even for the Tea Party! Leftwing Democrats need to get comfortable making coalitions within their own house.

    You keep trying to spin this bullshit. It's not gonna fly. Lieberman was never gonna vote for the ACA the House passed.

    With the way Democrats treated him, we're lucky he voted for it at all. Turns out the guy has some integrity and maybe Connecticut Democratic primary voters were dead wrong when they tried to run him out in favor of a weaker, more liberal candidate.

    ...Spool is the thesis of your Political History Of Joe Lieberman "Behold, the untold power of my vengeance, foul betrayers. Now you shall learn obedience, lest I rain upon you the unending torment of my wrath"?

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    they passed the public option in the house, and backed off of it to get to 60 in the senate because the dems couldn't get the entire caucus on board.

    they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.

    they backed off specifically to get Joe Lieberman on board, a guy they had so thoroughly disrespected in his Senate campaign that he nearly decided to vote with the Republicans. Which kinda brings this back around - if you can't make room for the blue dogs, you end up with Republicans instead.

    Tea Party purity testing doesn't always work - even for the Tea Party! Leftwing Democrats need to get comfortable making coalitions within their own house.

    You keep trying to spin this bullshit. It's not gonna fly. Lieberman was never gonna vote for the ACA the House passed.

    With the way Democrats treated him, we're lucky he voted for it at all. Turns out the guy has some integrity and maybe Connecticut Democratic primary voters were dead wrong when they tried to run him out in favor of a weaker, more liberal candidate.

    ...Spool is the thesis of your Political History Of Joe Lieberman "Behold, the untold power of my vengeance, foul betrayers. Now you shall learn obedience, lest I rain upon you the unending torment of my wrath"?

    Well if you read it in the droppy dog voice....

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    The lack of a formal whip should not give anyone the impression that parties can't lean on Senators with incredible pressure when they decide to. McConnell's ability to do so is a large reason we're here.

    McConnell has shown himself perfectly willing to water down bills to get the Senate GOP on board.

    If anything, the Koch brothers and other outside groups are vastly more important when it comes to putting pressure on GOP senators.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    That just means Democrats have an internal problem, which isn't an argument in their defense.

    Yes the age old problem of not having a supermajority.

    Or so little discipline that your supermajorities are borderline useless.

    There is no whipping in the Senate. Welcome to the american political system.

    Every time you complain about the establishment and seek ways to work outside of it, you only strengthen this facet of the american political system.

    To have party discipline, you need whipping. To have whipping, you need the party leadership to be able to lean on it's members and enforce a unified political vision upon them.

    The lack of a formal whip should not give anyone the impression that parties can't lean on Senators with incredible pressure when they decide to. McConnell's ability to do so is a large reason we're here. Alternatively, our Senate leadership these last few decades has almost relished letting Senators do whatever they want.

    Oh Sammich, do you really expect us to believe things like

    uh

    [checks notes]

    "Social Pressure"

    or uh

    [checks more notes]

    "Committee assignments"

    exist in the...

    [pulls out book of notes]


    "Senate"

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Lanz wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    That just means Democrats have an internal problem, which isn't an argument in their defense.

    Yes the age old problem of not having a supermajority.

    Or so little discipline that your supermajorities are borderline useless.

    There is no whipping in the Senate. Welcome to the american political system.

    Every time you complain about the establishment and seek ways to work outside of it, you only strengthen this facet of the american political system.

    To have party discipline, you need whipping. To have whipping, you need the party leadership to be able to lean on it's members and enforce a unified political vision upon them.

    The lack of a formal whip should not give anyone the impression that parties can't lean on Senators with incredible pressure when they decide to. McConnell's ability to do so is a large reason we're here. Alternatively, our Senate leadership these last few decades has almost relished letting Senators do whatever they want.

    Oh Sammich, do you really expect us to believe things like

    uh

    [checks notes]

    "Social Pressure"

    or uh

    [checks more notes]

    "Committee assignments"

    exist in the...

    [pulls out book of notes]


    "Senate"

    Has McConnel shown much willingness to care less about seniority when it comes to committee assignments compared to previous majority Senate leaders?

    Couscous on
  • Options
    wazillawazilla Having a late dinner Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Knight_ wrote: »
    they passed the public option in the house, and backed off of it to get to 60 in the senate because the dems couldn't get the entire caucus on board.

    they didn't back off to compromise with the GOP like you're implying.

    they backed off specifically to get Joe Lieberman on board, a guy they had so thoroughly disrespected in his Senate campaign that he nearly decided to vote with the Republicans. Which kinda brings this back around - if you can't make room for the blue dogs, you end up with Republicans instead.

    Tea Party purity testing doesn't always work - even for the Tea Party! Leftwing Democrats need to get comfortable making coalitions within their own house.

    You keep trying to spin this bullshit. It's not gonna fly. Lieberman was never gonna vote for the ACA the House passed.

    With the way Democrats treated him, we're lucky he voted for it at all. Turns out the guy has some integrity and maybe Connecticut Democratic primary voters were dead wrong when they tried to run him out in favor of a weaker, more liberal candidate.

    Well Murphy occupies his seat now and I'm glad he doesn't have any of Lieberman's integrity.

    Psn:wazukki
  • Options
    TubeTube Registered User admin
    The ultimate definition of integrity for a Democrat is to be a Republican.

  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    That just means Democrats have an internal problem, which isn't an argument in their defense.

    Yes the age old problem of not having a supermajority.

    Or so little discipline that your supermajorities are borderline useless.

    There is no whipping in the Senate. Welcome to the american political system.

    Every time you complain about the establishment and seek ways to work outside of it, you only strengthen this facet of the american political system.

    To have party discipline, you need whipping. To have whipping, you need the party leadership to be able to lean on it's members and enforce a unified political vision upon them.

    The lack of a formal whip should not give anyone the impression that parties can't lean on Senators with incredible pressure when they decide to. McConnell's ability to do so is a large reason we're here. Alternatively, our Senate leadership these last few decades has almost relished letting Senators do whatever they want.

    Yeah, McConnell sure got that ACA repeal passed. Top notch whipping right there. The truth is Senate Republicans are scared of primaries, not leadership. You see this more obviously in the House, which is why the Republican-controlled House is incapable of doing anything. Ryan has no leverage on them. Things like Citizens United only made this issue even worse. (as did, historically, things like open primaries) The pressure they have is negative campaign ads and committee assignments and considering americans hate the political establishment, the first is barely a threat.

    I know these wranglings and such seems normal to americans because that's the way your political system has always worked but it's extremely weak compared to other systems where shit like the above just would not happen unless your governing party was incredibly weak.

    Which ties back into the whole issue that Democrats need to run people in red districts and states to win and pass shit and the way those democrats can be difficult to control.

  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    That just means Democrats have an internal problem, which isn't an argument in their defense.

    Yes the age old problem of not having a supermajority.

    Or so little discipline that your supermajorities are borderline useless.

    There is no whipping in the Senate. Welcome to the american political system.

    Every time you complain about the establishment and seek ways to work outside of it, you only strengthen this facet of the american political system.

    To have party discipline, you need whipping. To have whipping, you need the party leadership to be able to lean on it's members and enforce a unified political vision upon them.

    The lack of a formal whip should not give anyone the impression that parties can't lean on Senators with incredible pressure when they decide to. McConnell's ability to do so is a large reason we're here. Alternatively, our Senate leadership these last few decades has almost relished letting Senators do whatever they want.

    Yeah, McConnell sure got that ACA repeal passed. Top notch whipping right there. The truth is Senate Republicans are scared of primaries, not leadership. You see this more obviously in the House, which is why the Republican-controlled House is incapable of doing anything. Ryan has no leverage on them. Things like Citizens United only made this issue even worse. (as did, historically, things like open primaries) The pressure they have is negative campaign ads and committee assignments and considering americans hate the political establishment, the first is barely a threat.

    I know these wranglings and such seems normal to americans because that's the way your political system has always worked but it's extremely weak compared to other systems where shit like the above just would not happen unless your governing party was incredibly weak.

    Which ties back into the whole issue that Democrats need to run people in red districts and states to win and pass shit and the way those democrats can be difficult to control.

    wait

    wasn't the problem with the ACA repeal repeatedly the House Freedom Caucus losing their shit because it wasn't extreme enough of a repeal?

    Not the Senate?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    wazillawazilla Having a late dinner Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    That just means Democrats have an internal problem, which isn't an argument in their defense.

    Yes the age old problem of not having a supermajority.

    Or so little discipline that your supermajorities are borderline useless.

    There is no whipping in the Senate. Welcome to the american political system.

    Every time you complain about the establishment and seek ways to work outside of it, you only strengthen this facet of the american political system.

    To have party discipline, you need whipping. To have whipping, you need the party leadership to be able to lean on it's members and enforce a unified political vision upon them.

    The lack of a formal whip should not give anyone the impression that parties can't lean on Senators with incredible pressure when they decide to. McConnell's ability to do so is a large reason we're here. Alternatively, our Senate leadership these last few decades has almost relished letting Senators do whatever they want.

    Yeah, McConnell sure got that ACA repeal passed. Top notch whipping right there. The truth is Senate Republicans are scared of primaries, not leadership. You see this more obviously in the House, which is why the Republican-controlled House is incapable of doing anything. Ryan has no leverage on them. Things like Citizens United only made this issue even worse. (as did, historically, things like open primaries) The pressure they have is negative campaign ads and committee assignments and considering americans hate the political establishment, the first is barely a threat.

    I know these wranglings and such seems normal to americans because that's the way your political system has always worked but it's extremely weak compared to other systems where shit like the above just would not happen unless your governing party was incredibly weak.

    Which ties back into the whole issue that Democrats need to run people in red districts and states to win and pass shit and the way those democrats can be difficult to control.

    wait

    wasn't the problem with the ACA repeal repeatedly the House Freedom Caucus losing their shit because it wasn't extreme enough of a repeal?

    Not the Senate?

    The House ultimately passed it and it was too extreme (concessions to Freedom Caucus, yes) for McCain to support.

    Psn:wazukki
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    The Freedom Caucus got really mad extremist stuff that would kill it in the Senate wasn't in there, compromised to get some more extremist stuff in it, and then it got killed in the Senate.

  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    That just means Democrats have an internal problem, which isn't an argument in their defense.

    Yes the age old problem of not having a supermajority.

    Or so little discipline that your supermajorities are borderline useless.

    There is no whipping in the Senate. Welcome to the american political system.

    Every time you complain about the establishment and seek ways to work outside of it, you only strengthen this facet of the american political system.

    To have party discipline, you need whipping. To have whipping, you need the party leadership to be able to lean on it's members and enforce a unified political vision upon them.

    The lack of a formal whip should not give anyone the impression that parties can't lean on Senators with incredible pressure when they decide to. McConnell's ability to do so is a large reason we're here. Alternatively, our Senate leadership these last few decades has almost relished letting Senators do whatever they want.

    Oh Sammich, do you really expect us to believe things like

    uh

    [checks notes]

    "Social Pressure"

    or uh

    [checks more notes]

    "Committee assignments"

    exist in the...

    [pulls out book of notes]


    "Senate"

    Has McConnel shown much willingness to care less about seniority when it comes to committee assignments compared to previous majority Senate leaders?

    from 2014:
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/will-mitch-mcconnell-face-a-senate-coup
    Adam Brandon, the executive vice president of FreedomWorks, the conservative outfit that backed McConnell’s opponent in the Kentucky primary, said in the current era, the old rules of climbing up the senatorial ladder matter less. Making nice with leadership, getting good committee assignments, and using that perch as a fundraising base is no longer necessary, as outside groups like FreedomWorks can now provide campaign reinforcements, he said.

    “You look at the fights of the last year, we haven’t seen a tremendous amount of leadership,” he said. “The leadership was coming from the reform end of the caucus. You have this whole new cadre of folks. It is small, but it sets the tone and the direction.”

    Knocking off McConnell, he added, “is definitely something people want to do.”

    Needless to say: They did not succeed, so there's something there about the levers of power McConnell has control over in the Senate, as well as within the party funding ecosystem, despite the rank and file grumbling about his supposed "ineffectiveness."

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    wazilla wrote: »
    Lanz wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    That just means Democrats have an internal problem, which isn't an argument in their defense.

    Yes the age old problem of not having a supermajority.

    Or so little discipline that your supermajorities are borderline useless.

    There is no whipping in the Senate. Welcome to the american political system.

    Every time you complain about the establishment and seek ways to work outside of it, you only strengthen this facet of the american political system.

    To have party discipline, you need whipping. To have whipping, you need the party leadership to be able to lean on it's members and enforce a unified political vision upon them.

    The lack of a formal whip should not give anyone the impression that parties can't lean on Senators with incredible pressure when they decide to. McConnell's ability to do so is a large reason we're here. Alternatively, our Senate leadership these last few decades has almost relished letting Senators do whatever they want.

    Yeah, McConnell sure got that ACA repeal passed. Top notch whipping right there. The truth is Senate Republicans are scared of primaries, not leadership. You see this more obviously in the House, which is why the Republican-controlled House is incapable of doing anything. Ryan has no leverage on them. Things like Citizens United only made this issue even worse. (as did, historically, things like open primaries) The pressure they have is negative campaign ads and committee assignments and considering americans hate the political establishment, the first is barely a threat.

    I know these wranglings and such seems normal to americans because that's the way your political system has always worked but it's extremely weak compared to other systems where shit like the above just would not happen unless your governing party was incredibly weak.

    Which ties back into the whole issue that Democrats need to run people in red districts and states to win and pass shit and the way those democrats can be difficult to control.

    wait

    wasn't the problem with the ACA repeal repeatedly the House Freedom Caucus losing their shit because it wasn't extreme enough of a repeal?

    Not the Senate?

    The House ultimately passed it and it was too extreme (concessions to Freedom Caucus, yes) for McCain to support.

    Ah right, I forgot the Great Piss-Offening of 2017

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    That just means Democrats have an internal problem, which isn't an argument in their defense.

    Yes the age old problem of not having a supermajority.

    Or so little discipline that your supermajorities are borderline useless.

    There is no whipping in the Senate. Welcome to the american political system.

    Every time you complain about the establishment and seek ways to work outside of it, you only strengthen this facet of the american political system.

    To have party discipline, you need whipping. To have whipping, you need the party leadership to be able to lean on it's members and enforce a unified political vision upon them.

    The lack of a formal whip should not give anyone the impression that parties can't lean on Senators with incredible pressure when they decide to. McConnell's ability to do so is a large reason we're here. Alternatively, our Senate leadership these last few decades has almost relished letting Senators do whatever they want.

    Yeah, McConnell sure got that ACA repeal passed. Top notch whipping right there. The truth is Senate Republicans are scared of primaries, not leadership. You see this more obviously in the House, which is why the Republican-controlled House is incapable of doing anything. Ryan has no leverage on them. Things like Citizens United only made this issue even worse. (as did, historically, things like open primaries) The pressure they have is negative campaign ads and committee assignments and considering americans hate the political establishment, the first is barely a threat.

    I know these wranglings and such seems normal to americans because that's the way your political system has always worked but it's extremely weak compared to other systems where shit like the above just would not happen unless your governing party was incredibly weak.

    Which ties back into the whole issue that Democrats need to run people in red districts and states to win and pass shit and the way those democrats can be difficult to control.

    This is silly. Every other issue we all talk about the Republicans being in lock step and when its pointed out they do things to get that that we might emulate you pick one issue where the party has had only limited success in the face of overwhelming national scorn as evidence against what you yourself would be happy to claim in any other context.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Options
    LanzLanz ...Za?Registered User regular
    edited October 2018
    Also McCain isn't there anymore, and they're already gearing up for a post-midterm ACA repeal.

    So

    There's that, in the vaunted halls of "Look at what a failure McConnell is!"

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    That just means Democrats have an internal problem, which isn't an argument in their defense.

    Yes the age old problem of not having a supermajority.

    Or so little discipline that your supermajorities are borderline useless.

    There is no whipping in the Senate. Welcome to the american political system.

    Every time you complain about the establishment and seek ways to work outside of it, you only strengthen this facet of the american political system.

    To have party discipline, you need whipping. To have whipping, you need the party leadership to be able to lean on it's members and enforce a unified political vision upon them.

    The lack of a formal whip should not give anyone the impression that parties can't lean on Senators with incredible pressure when they decide to. McConnell's ability to do so is a large reason we're here. Alternatively, our Senate leadership these last few decades has almost relished letting Senators do whatever they want.

    Yeah, McConnell sure got that ACA repeal passed. Top notch whipping right there. The truth is Senate Republicans are scared of primaries, not leadership. You see this more obviously in the House, which is why the Republican-controlled House is incapable of doing anything. Ryan has no leverage on them. Things like Citizens United only made this issue even worse. (as did, historically, things like open primaries) The pressure they have is negative campaign ads and committee assignments and considering americans hate the political establishment, the first is barely a threat.

    I know these wranglings and such seems normal to americans because that's the way your political system has always worked but it's extremely weak compared to other systems where shit like the above just would not happen unless your governing party was incredibly weak.

    Which ties back into the whole issue that Democrats need to run people in red districts and states to win and pass shit and the way those democrats can be difficult to control.

    This is silly. Every other issue we all talk about the Republicans being in lock step and when its pointed out they do things to get that that we might emulate you pick one issue where the party has had only limited success in the face of overwhelming national scorn as evidence against what you yourself would be happy to claim in any other context.

    They are in lockstep because their base enforces their will via primaries. As people talk about constantly when they bring this stuff up.

    The point of the example is that it's almost literally the only piece of legislation they had that year and it was literally their biggest priority by far. If you can't whip that vote, you can't whip. If you look at that result and go "Well, that just happens sometimes" you are missing the point of why I brought up the american experience gap here because no, in systems with actually whipping this shit doesn't just happen sometimes.

    You can actually see this shit come up in the basically only bill they passed the next year. The tax cut didn't get passed because leadership whipped their Congresspeople and Senators even harder but because the donors got on the line and said "Do this or we're done. This is what we paid for."

  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Well we're off topic and done here now.

    Geth, close the thread.

  • Options
    GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative So It Goes. Closing thread...

This discussion has been closed.