This discussion about moderate dems has reminded me something. Please not I do not quote the following to gain likes or something crass, I do it to help illustrate a point I want to make.
First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
Of course the Civil Rights Movement is a very different thing than what's going on with Pelosi and the house, I am not trying to make an 1-1 argument. My point is that King's frustration with what he called white moderates feels very similar to my own frustration with Dem moderates in Congress. We have children being kidnapped, thrown in dungeons (prisons have more amenities than these kids have), tortured and sexually abused, and our allies in the battle against this cannot even fight to offer these kids any relief, let alone the possibility of freedom (I reject in it's entirety that passing the border spending bill without stipulations is any kind of good, there is 0% chance it helps). The moderates do this because they do not want to risk their constituency getting mad at them. Pelosi supports them because she wants to hold together the broader Dem coalition within the house. This is very infuriating, but unfortunately, I don't think Pelosi's reading of the situation is entirely wrong. I think Dem senators are probably right in their understanding of their constituency.
That's the situation right now. What action is the best or even least bad, I don't know. For anyone with morals and awareness of the situation, it's enraging and depressing. I keep thinking about another MLK quote and how it 100% applies to this situation.
"Pelosi is just going where the votes are" ignores the role leadership has played in making sure the wind only blows one way.
What does that even mean?
Leading up to the 2008 election leadership in the Democratic party actively pushed as hard as they could for centrist and covservative candidates in the primaries and then when it comes time to vote on the ACA its all "well we got what we could with the people we had"
Pelosi doesnt push mediocre centrism out of pragmatism. She pushes mediocre centrism because shes a mediocre centrist.
But that still doesn't support your thesis because if leadership was pushing for centrist candidates in primaries it's because they thought they had the best chance to win. It's still about going where the votes are. Because the votes in question are not in Congress, they are the votes of actual voters. Because the entire point is to support the candidates they think can win seats.
Their theory of how one does that is arguably flawed, but it's the actual goal.
Unfounded assumption.
Not unfounded at all. They talk about this constantly. I quoted a few instances from Pelosi last page if you want to see. It's your assumption that is unfounded. It runs against the way Pelosi and leadership in general has always talked about these campaigns.
eg -
do not risk alienating the moderate voters who flocked to the party in 2018 by drifting too far
You seem to believe that Dem leadership will push as far left as they think they can.
If you buy reality based on how they sell their motives and actions after the fact you deserve to be taken for a ride.
"Pelosi is just going where the votes are" ignores the role leadership has played in making sure the wind only blows one way.
What does that even mean?
Leading up to the 2008 election leadership in the Democratic party actively pushed as hard as they could for centrist and covservative candidates in the primaries and then when it comes time to vote on the ACA its all "well we got what we could with the people we had"
Pelosi doesnt push mediocre centrism out of pragmatism. She pushes mediocre centrism because shes a mediocre centrist.
But that still doesn't support your thesis because if leadership was pushing for centrist candidates in primaries it's because they thought they had the best chance to win. It's still about going where the votes are. Because the votes in question are not in Congress, they are the votes of actual voters. Because the entire point is to support the candidates they think can win seats.
Their theory of how one does that is arguably flawed, but it's the actual goal.
Unfounded assumption.
Not unfounded at all. They talk about this constantly. I quoted a few instances from Pelosi last page if you want to see. It's your assumption that is unfounded. It runs against the way Pelosi and leadership in general has always talked about these campaigns.
eg -
do not risk alienating the moderate voters who flocked to the party in 2018 by drifting too far
You seem to believe that Dem leadership will push as far left as they think they can.
If you buy reality based on how they sell their motives and actions after the fact you deserve to be taken for a ride.
That's just dodging the issue. There's a direct quote from Pelosi recently on her view on these issues. You don't have to invent some other motivation here, she's literally said what it is. She's trying to position the party to appeal to the voters that helped the Democrats win seats in 2018 and in her mind going too far to the left alienates them. This would then follow through to who they support in primaries, which was what your initial contention was about. So, again, there's a direct quote supporting the assumption I'm making above that you called unfounded.
"Pelosi is just going where the votes are" ignores the role leadership has played in making sure the wind only blows one way.
What does that even mean?
Leading up to the 2008 election leadership in the Democratic party actively pushed as hard as they could for centrist and covservative candidates in the primaries and then when it comes time to vote on the ACA its all "well we got what we could with the people we had"
Pelosi doesnt push mediocre centrism out of pragmatism. She pushes mediocre centrism because shes a mediocre centrist.
But that still doesn't support your thesis because if leadership was pushing for centrist candidates in primaries it's because they thought they had the best chance to win. It's still about going where the votes are. Because the votes in question are not in Congress, they are the votes of actual voters. Because the entire point is to support the candidates they think can win seats.
Their theory of how one does that is arguably flawed, but it's the actual goal.
Unfounded assumption.
Not unfounded at all. They talk about this constantly. I quoted a few instances from Pelosi last page if you want to see. It's your assumption that is unfounded. It runs against the way Pelosi and leadership in general has always talked about these campaigns.
eg -
do not risk alienating the moderate voters who flocked to the party in 2018 by drifting too far
You seem to believe that Dem leadership will push as far left as they think they can.
If you buy reality based on how they sell their motives and actions after the fact you deserve to be taken for a ride.
That's just dodging the issue. There's a direct quote from Pelosi recently on her view on these issues. You don't have to invent some other motivation here, she's literally said what it is. She's trying to position the party to appeal to the voters that helped the Democrats win seats in 2018 and in her mind going too far to the left alienates them. This would then follow through to who they support in primaries, which was what your initial contention was about. So, again, there's a direct quote supporting the assumption I'm making above that you called unfounded.
You quoted me talking about the 2008 election Shryke. In which leadership pushed for centrists even in safe seats and then we wound up with the ACA because of it.
"Pelosi is just going where the votes are" ignores the role leadership has played in making sure the wind only blows one way.
What does that even mean?
Leading up to the 2008 election leadership in the Democratic party actively pushed as hard as they could for centrist and covservative candidates in the primaries and then when it comes time to vote on the ACA its all "well we got what we could with the people we had"
Pelosi doesnt push mediocre centrism out of pragmatism. She pushes mediocre centrism because shes a mediocre centrist.
But that still doesn't support your thesis because if leadership was pushing for centrist candidates in primaries it's because they thought they had the best chance to win. It's still about going where the votes are. Because the votes in question are not in Congress, they are the votes of actual voters. Because the entire point is to support the candidates they think can win seats.
Their theory of how one does that is arguably flawed, but it's the actual goal.
Unfounded assumption.
Not unfounded at all. They talk about this constantly. I quoted a few instances from Pelosi last page if you want to see. It's your assumption that is unfounded. It runs against the way Pelosi and leadership in general has always talked about these campaigns.
eg -
do not risk alienating the moderate voters who flocked to the party in 2018 by drifting too far
You seem to believe that Dem leadership will push as far left as they think they can.
If you buy reality based on how they sell their motives and actions after the fact you deserve to be taken for a ride.
That's just dodging the issue. There's a direct quote from Pelosi recently on her view on these issues. You don't have to invent some other motivation here, she's literally said what it is. She's trying to position the party to appeal to the voters that helped the Democrats win seats in 2018 and in her mind going too far to the left alienates them. This would then follow through to who they support in primaries, which was what your initial contention was about. So, again, there's a direct quote supporting the assumption I'm making above that you called unfounded.
You quoted me talking about the 2008 election Shryke.
"Pelosi is just going where the votes are" ignores the role leadership has played in making sure the wind only blows one way.
What does that even mean?
Leading up to the 2008 election leadership in the Democratic party actively pushed as hard as they could for centrist and covservative candidates in the primaries and then when it comes time to vote on the ACA its all "well we got what we could with the people we had"
Pelosi doesnt push mediocre centrism out of pragmatism. She pushes mediocre centrism because shes a mediocre centrist.
But that still doesn't support your thesis because if leadership was pushing for centrist candidates in primaries it's because they thought they had the best chance to win. It's still about going where the votes are. Because the votes in question are not in Congress, they are the votes of actual voters. Because the entire point is to support the candidates they think can win seats.
Their theory of how one does that is arguably flawed, but it's the actual goal.
Unfounded assumption.
Not unfounded at all. They talk about this constantly. I quoted a few instances from Pelosi last page if you want to see. It's your assumption that is unfounded. It runs against the way Pelosi and leadership in general has always talked about these campaigns.
eg -
do not risk alienating the moderate voters who flocked to the party in 2018 by drifting too far
You seem to believe that Dem leadership will push as far left as they think they can.
If you buy reality based on how they sell their motives and actions after the fact you deserve to be taken for a ride.
That's just dodging the issue. There's a direct quote from Pelosi recently on her view on these issues. You don't have to invent some other motivation here, she's literally said what it is. She's trying to position the party to appeal to the voters that helped the Democrats win seats in 2018 and in her mind going too far to the left alienates them. This would then follow through to who they support in primaries, which was what your initial contention was about. So, again, there's a direct quote supporting the assumption I'm making above that you called unfounded.
You quoted me talking about the 2008 election Shryke.
Why would that be any different?
Like I said, you seem to think that leadership pushes for the leftmost policy they can get and if they actively fight for centrism and against leftism well its just being smart
I mean I really shouldnt have to rehash this. A constant defense of Pelosi is she does the best she can with what she's given. You make this argument all the time Shryke. It ignores that leadership has an active hand in what its given and routinely chooses to lean on the side of pro business centrism. They dont just wake up and find out they have to deal with blue dogs.
"Pelosi is just going where the votes are" ignores the role leadership has played in making sure the wind only blows one way.
What does that even mean?
Leading up to the 2008 election leadership in the Democratic party actively pushed as hard as they could for centrist and covservative candidates in the primaries and then when it comes time to vote on the ACA its all "well we got what we could with the people we had"
Pelosi doesnt push mediocre centrism out of pragmatism. She pushes mediocre centrism because shes a mediocre centrist.
But that still doesn't support your thesis because if leadership was pushing for centrist candidates in primaries it's because they thought they had the best chance to win. It's still about going where the votes are. Because the votes in question are not in Congress, they are the votes of actual voters. Because the entire point is to support the candidates they think can win seats.
Their theory of how one does that is arguably flawed, but it's the actual goal.
Unfounded assumption.
Not unfounded at all. They talk about this constantly. I quoted a few instances from Pelosi last page if you want to see. It's your assumption that is unfounded. It runs against the way Pelosi and leadership in general has always talked about these campaigns.
eg -
do not risk alienating the moderate voters who flocked to the party in 2018 by drifting too far
You seem to believe that Dem leadership will push as far left as they think they can.
If you buy reality based on how they sell their motives and actions after the fact you deserve to be taken for a ride.
I don't think that is what shryke or anyone else is saying. Honestly that could be taken as even supporting shryke, though I know that's not your intention. if they are not pushing as far left as they think they can, that means they follow the votes they can get out of their constituency.
I do want to see Pelosi lead and push more left than what I see happening, but the core part of the problem is, and always has been, the American electorate.
Nobeard on
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
"Pelosi is just going where the votes are" ignores the role leadership has played in making sure the wind only blows one way.
What does that even mean?
Leading up to the 2008 election leadership in the Democratic party actively pushed as hard as they could for centrist and covservative candidates in the primaries and then when it comes time to vote on the ACA its all "well we got what we could with the people we had"
Pelosi doesnt push mediocre centrism out of pragmatism. She pushes mediocre centrism because shes a mediocre centrist.
But that still doesn't support your thesis because if leadership was pushing for centrist candidates in primaries it's because they thought they had the best chance to win. It's still about going where the votes are. Because the votes in question are not in Congress, they are the votes of actual voters. Because the entire point is to support the candidates they think can win seats.
Their theory of how one does that is arguably flawed, but it's the actual goal.
Unfounded assumption.
Not unfounded at all. They talk about this constantly. I quoted a few instances from Pelosi last page if you want to see. It's your assumption that is unfounded. It runs against the way Pelosi and leadership in general has always talked about these campaigns.
eg -
do not risk alienating the moderate voters who flocked to the party in 2018 by drifting too far
You seem to believe that Dem leadership will push as far left as they think they can.
If you buy reality based on how they sell their motives and actions after the fact you deserve to be taken for a ride.
That's just dodging the issue. There's a direct quote from Pelosi recently on her view on these issues. You don't have to invent some other motivation here, she's literally said what it is. She's trying to position the party to appeal to the voters that helped the Democrats win seats in 2018 and in her mind going too far to the left alienates them. This would then follow through to who they support in primaries, which was what your initial contention was about. So, again, there's a direct quote supporting the assumption I'm making above that you called unfounded.
You quoted me talking about the 2008 election Shryke. In which leadership pushed for centrists even in safe seats and then we wound up with the ACA because of it.
And then we would have gotten nothing more progressive, because the ACA as is passed the Senate by the skin of its teeth.
"Pelosi is just going where the votes are" ignores the role leadership has played in making sure the wind only blows one way.
What does that even mean?
Leading up to the 2008 election leadership in the Democratic party actively pushed as hard as they could for centrist and covservative candidates in the primaries and then when it comes time to vote on the ACA its all "well we got what we could with the people we had"
Pelosi doesnt push mediocre centrism out of pragmatism. She pushes mediocre centrism because shes a mediocre centrist.
But that still doesn't support your thesis because if leadership was pushing for centrist candidates in primaries it's because they thought they had the best chance to win. It's still about going where the votes are. Because the votes in question are not in Congress, they are the votes of actual voters. Because the entire point is to support the candidates they think can win seats.
Their theory of how one does that is arguably flawed, but it's the actual goal.
Unfounded assumption.
Not unfounded at all. They talk about this constantly. I quoted a few instances from Pelosi last page if you want to see. It's your assumption that is unfounded. It runs against the way Pelosi and leadership in general has always talked about these campaigns.
eg -
do not risk alienating the moderate voters who flocked to the party in 2018 by drifting too far
You seem to believe that Dem leadership will push as far left as they think they can.
If you buy reality based on how they sell their motives and actions after the fact you deserve to be taken for a ride.
I don't think that is what shryke or anyone else is saying. Honestly that could be taken as even supporting shryke, though I know that's not your intention. if they are not pushing as far left as they think they can, that means they follow the votes they can get out of their constituency.
I do want to see Pelosi lead and push more left than what I see happening, but the core part of the problem is, and always has been, the American voters.
Has it been? Seems to me the party's greatest electoral failings are when it leans really hard on third way types.
"Pelosi is just going where the votes are" ignores the role leadership has played in making sure the wind only blows one way.
What does that even mean?
Leading up to the 2008 election leadership in the Democratic party actively pushed as hard as they could for centrist and covservative candidates in the primaries and then when it comes time to vote on the ACA its all "well we got what we could with the people we had"
Pelosi doesnt push mediocre centrism out of pragmatism. She pushes mediocre centrism because shes a mediocre centrist.
But that still doesn't support your thesis because if leadership was pushing for centrist candidates in primaries it's because they thought they had the best chance to win. It's still about going where the votes are. Because the votes in question are not in Congress, they are the votes of actual voters. Because the entire point is to support the candidates they think can win seats.
Their theory of how one does that is arguably flawed, but it's the actual goal.
Unfounded assumption.
Not unfounded at all. They talk about this constantly. I quoted a few instances from Pelosi last page if you want to see. It's your assumption that is unfounded. It runs against the way Pelosi and leadership in general has always talked about these campaigns.
eg -
do not risk alienating the moderate voters who flocked to the party in 2018 by drifting too far
You seem to believe that Dem leadership will push as far left as they think they can.
If you buy reality based on how they sell their motives and actions after the fact you deserve to be taken for a ride.
That's just dodging the issue. There's a direct quote from Pelosi recently on her view on these issues. You don't have to invent some other motivation here, she's literally said what it is. She's trying to position the party to appeal to the voters that helped the Democrats win seats in 2018 and in her mind going too far to the left alienates them. This would then follow through to who they support in primaries, which was what your initial contention was about. So, again, there's a direct quote supporting the assumption I'm making above that you called unfounded.
You quoted me talking about the 2008 election Shryke.
Why would that be any different?
Like I said, you seem to think that leadership pushes for the leftmost policy they can get and if they actively fight for centrism and against leftism well its just being smart
That's doesn't address the question though. There's a direct quote from Pelosi on her position on this very issue. Yeah, it's from a week or two ago. But so what? What are you basing the idea that it wasn't the same back in 2006/2008/2010/etc on?
This is the same thing she and the rest of leadership have been doing this whole time. Pushing candidates they think can win. I see no reason why this would have changed in the intervening years.
I'm so disappointed that the successes of 2018 are being attributed to moderates, with so much direct evidence to the contrary and not much corroborating it.
I'm so disappointed that the successes of 2018 are being attributed to moderates, with so much direct evidence to the contrary and not much corroborating it.
Moderates picking up most of the seats is probably a big one.
I'm so disappointed that the successes of 2018 are being attributed to moderates, with so much direct evidence to the contrary and not much corroborating it.
5. Thinking about the change from 2016 to 2018, it is clear that both mobilization and persuasion were critically important in producing this scale of victory for Democrats. When it comes to turnout, the composition of the electorate roughly “broke even” with 2016, much different than the past two midterms. But “breaking even” doesn’t explain the amount and geography of gains that Democrats saw. A large portion of gains came from people who voted in both elections, switching from supporting Trump in 2016 to supporting Democrats in 2018. We show some of the math behind this, including how that conclusion changes in different areas of the country.
This doesn't directly address whether they are "moderates" but I don't think it would be out of line to suggest that that's how one might describe a lot of those cross-over voters they mention. (I can't remember if they do a more thorough breakdown by political leanings later in the piece)
And that's not to say that Pelosi et all isn't ignoring the first group mentioned there (ie - newly mobilized voters). But it is also not accurate to ignore the second (ie - voters who moved from R to D).
That you continue to put so much stock in a politician's self justification for their choices baffles me.
Nor is "candidates they think can win" incompatible with pushing centrism because theyre centrists.
We can believe what a politician tells us motivates them, especially when it matches the evidence at hand, or we can just pull whatever motivation we want from out of our asses. I would suggest the first one is the better choice.
Pelosi has been quite explicit about what her thinking on this issue is and it matches up with her actions. There's no reason to dismiss it, even if it contradicts the narrative one might want to tell.
I'm so disappointed that the successes of 2018 are being attributed to moderates, with so much direct evidence to the contrary and not much corroborating it.
Its how its always going to be if youre the one pushing the party. They laugh or ignore you until the pressure is overhwelming and then of course they support these things, how could you imply otherwise as they wrap themselves in that struggle's flag.
That you continue to put so much stock in a politician's self justification for their choices baffles me.
Nor is "candidates they think can win" incompatible with pushing centrism because theyre centrists.
We can believe what a politician tells us motivates them, especially when it matches the evidence at hand, or we can just pull whatever motivation we want from out of our asses. I would suggest the first one is the better choice.
Pelosi has been quite explicit about what her thinking on this issue is and it matches up with her actions. There's no reason to dismiss it, even if it contradicts the narrative one might want to tell.
Pelosi has been exceedingly clear on what her political beliefs are.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+1
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
edited July 2019
Pelosi is a well-intentioned technocrat with a deep-set cowering response, understandably ingrained after two terms of Reagan, two terms of Bush and the 1994 and 2010 midterms. Thats what all the Sanders people don't understand because they are too young: the deep heartbreak Pelosi experienced from watching America's working-class go Ayn Rand/Lester Maddox/Pinkerton due to Commie scares, racism, homophobia and infantile, moist-eyed pablum wrapped in a flag.
Democrats need to learn how to get visceral, simple, atavistic and dishonest, without actually changing their policies.
Just lie constantly about what you want to do and who you are and who you care the most about,and you will win the "median morons". It's marketing and packaging, not ingredients, not content, or delivery, or value chain, or who is the producer. You can sell far-left stuff if you mindlessly call it "ANTI-SOCIALISM FOR GOOD-OLD PATRIOTS HOO-RAH MATLOCK AWESOME JOBS DOWN AT THE PLANT/FACTORY WOOOOOO". Pelosi simply can't be the one to engeineer that strategy because of decades of "oogah-boogah frumpy lady from San Fransisco who wants ultra-open borders". And she can't be the engineer of a unified, diverse base that ignores the rusty people, because she hasn't pushed that image either. She has no clear voice and is stuck between two chairs.
I understand why they act the way they do. I just haven't heard a convincing argument for why anyone should care.
Let’s also not forget that one of the consequences of all that ineffectual inaction is that Democratic Congressfolk now become multimillionaires before they retire. Cowardly and ineffectual leadership turns out be far more effective for campaign fundraising and personal wealthbuilding than being the Lions of the Working Class.
I wouldn't argue about the success or failure of a movement necessarily just through the lens of election results but more through the path of society. You can in fact drag society in a particular direction while not winning elections.
If we look at the Dem response to their abject rejection in the 80s and whether that has been successful I'd say... Absolutely not. It has not been successful for the people of the US. Society has not been dragged left, it has been dragged right and the Dems have rather pathetically followed and at times temporarily mitigated this but as a social movement they're basically saying what about the last few decades. Clinton? Obama? Centrist, arguably Centre-Right in many ways? Continuation of Imperialist foreign policy? Increased inequality? Further attacks on basic rights? Increased disenfranchisement? Concentration camps at the border?
I'm not saying the Dems are responsible for this but rather that the last few decades have been on a path that the GOP has written, largely, and the Dems have largely failed to influence. Their strategy from the 80s and 90s of only being able to win if you're a moderate Republican-lite has resulted broadly in them doing very little, stonewalled while in power, complicit when not, left responding to fascism with "we want to work with the fascists to make the camps nicer." It's not all Pelosi's fault by any means but she is absolutely emblemic of the political class of Dems who's policies and strategies led to the party being in this position. It is a failure, idealogically, strategically, a failure. The Reagan to Trump slope is Nationalist Libertarian Theo-Conservatism to textbook Fascism with a couple of plateaus where Clinton and Obama just tided things over until the next GOP executive rammed things deeper into the pit. That's pretty damning IMO. When you are a big serious party that wins popular votes and the best you can say is "under us things probably didn't get much worse, ostensibly, when we handed them back as opposed to when we picked it up" that's pretty pathetic.
+19
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I wouldn't argue about the success or failure of a movement necessarily just through the lens of election results but more through the path of society. You can in fact drag society in a particular direction while not winning elections.
If we look at the Dem response to their abject rejection in the 80s and whether that has been successful I'd say... Absolutely not. It has not been successful for the people of the US. Society has not been dragged left, it has been dragged right and the Dems have rather pathetically followed and at times temporarily mitigated this but as a social movement they're basically saying what about the last few decades. Clinton? Obama? Centrist, arguably Centre-Right in many ways? Continuation of Imperialist foreign policy? Increased inequality? Further attacks on basic rights? Increased disenfranchisement? Concentration camps at the border?
I'm not saying the Dems are responsible for this but rather that the last few decades have been on a path that the GOP has written, largely, and the Dems have largely failed to influence. Their strategy from the 80s and 90s of only being able to win if you're a moderate Republican-lite has resulted broadly in them doing very little, stonewalled while in power, complicit when not, left responding to fascism with "we want to work with the fascists to make the camps nicer." It's not all Pelosi's fault by any means but she is absolutely emblemic of the political class of Dems who's policies and strategies led to the party being in this position. It is a failure, idealogically, strategically, a failure. The Reagan to Trump slope is Nationalist Libertarian Theo-Conservatism to textbook Fascism with a couple of plateaus where Clinton and Obama just tided things over until the next GOP executive rammed things deeper into the pit. That's pretty damning IMO. When you are a big serious party that wins popular votes and the best you can say is "under us things probably didn't get much worse, ostensibly, when we handed them back as opposed to when we picked it up" that's pretty pathetic.
Yeah but that is a poor excuse. You don't get to say "we had four out of the last seven Presidential terms and we managed to do fuck all systemic change with that but you should definitely support the party leaders from the same political set!" I mean Obamacare is probably the best thing out of that and sure it's good and there's been a GOP failure to repeal but still, there's much more systemic work to do and they don't even really want to challenge it. Biden, Pelosi and Schumer are "hey you loved Barack right?!?" except without being charismatic which you could at least say he was
I'm so disappointed that the successes of 2018 are being attributed to moderates, with so much direct evidence to the contrary and not much corroborating it.
Some of the major democrat house seats gained in Texas were a result of moderates voting D instead of R in the major metropolitan suburbs.
Part of it was getting the vote out, but also those districts have been historically Republican since the 1980s.
+4
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I understand why they act the way they do. I just haven't heard a convincing argument for why anyone should care.
Because it's easier to convince somebody that they should change their actions when you actually understand why they're motivated to do what they do?
If you think Pelosi or the dems are supporting effectively centrist positions because they think going too far left will result in not achieving any of their goals and also lose them control of the House before they have a chance to accomplish anything, you can try to change their minds by communicating your support for more leftist goals. If you think that they support centrist goals because they're secretly racist and they hate liberals and just want to cynically consolidate power and are anti-worker or whatever, that's... I mean, objectively wrong, but also just a different set of arguments.
Like, if a someone disagrees with you on a policy position, and they initiate a dialog with "why do you hate America and freedom?" that's kind of a nonstarter. This is the same thing.
Pelosi is a liberal Democrat from fucking San Francisco with a progressive voting record spanning decades. She's the poster child on the right for leftist overreach. When you're talking about her being a turboconservative corporatist, maaaaaybe you're kinda misreading the board, regardless of whether you agree with her tactics.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It's also not going to pass the Senate. It's basically the same as Republicans voting to repeal Obamacare for 4+ years. Just meaningless messaging to the base that they're still totally progressive despite not taking a stand against concentration camps.
Republican meaningless messaging shifted the overton window and allowed them to seize the reins of government
Their voters saw their guys trying to do something.
the reason the house isn't trying to pass medicare-for-all or min wage jumps or serious climate change legislation isn't because it won't work, it's because it would set up the expectation that that's something they actually want
override367 on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Passing bills that will never become laws can be an effective tactic. The dumb repeal of the ACA was mostly stupid because the GOP didn't want it to pass, and didn't know what the fuck they would do if it did.
The proposed $15 minimum wage bill is actually meaningful and is something they obviously would like to pass.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yeah, ACA repeal was dumb partly because the longer it stuck around the more popular it would get. So we eventually hit a point, where the smarter republicans would be shitheels that voted for it when they could count on someone else saving their sorry asses from themselves. To a point, where the ACA repeal talk has actually bitten them in the asses.
The $15 minimum wage bill is going to be effective because there is no way the GOP weasels out of killing it. In the last Congress they could keep it dead in both chambers and make up bullshit for not improving the situation. This time, when McConnell kills it, it gets hung around their necks and is liable to hurt them next year. This is the case with a few other bills, the GOP doesn't want to pass them because the GOP is full of shitty individuals, but by doing so they GOP is harming their electoral prospects since the bills have broad appeal. Passing bills that will die can be effective because it creates a record, where people are forced to own said record one way or the other. Either they eat flack for voting against it or they eat flack as a whole party because their leadership or the POTUS from their party killed it. The GOP would rather not have voting records because a chunk of them get that any voter paying the least bit of attention will get might pissed at them.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The problem with passing messaging bills is that the media doesn't cover them (this is universal; do you remember 57 separate news cycles about the GOP passing useless ACA repeal bills? I don't).
The media would cover oversight, but Democrats have fundamentally failed to perform that function, either by dragging their feet (impeachment, tax returns) or declining to enforce subpoenas
So instead the media has two options: cover Trump and whatever Trump is talking about (this is bad for Democrats because Trump gets to set the agenda), or cover Democratic in-fighting (this is also bad for Democrats)
I truly do not understand what Pelosi wants people to think the House is doing for them. Why would anybody donate or volunteer or run to help the Dems keep the House in 2020 if the House isn't going to do a fucking thing?
"they can't do anything because of the Senate blah blah blah" bullshit
Nobody was talking about the camps until AOC used her words and her Twitter feed to raise the issue
Congresspeople went to the camps and reported on it and news spread and there have been two nationwide protests since that and things will hopefully continue to build there
That happened because a Congressperson used her position to put out an actual message
Don't tell me these people can't do anything just because they aren't doing anything right now.
The other problem is that House Democrats are incredibly still willing to work with Republicans
That's not just a lie they say to seem bipartisan, either, or they wouldn't have voted for the final version of the border bill
There seems to be a generational divide between people like Biden and Pelosi, who pride themselves on working with the opposition no matter how terrible, and the younger Dems who are more willing to say "This organization/group is evil and I'm not going to help them do a fucking thing." Does Pelosi really expect Trump to pivot??? It's madness. The president is a criminal, he literally represents on a daily basis the exact opposite of everything Democrats stand for and believe in, and yet we're somehow frightened of being seen as opposing him? Have we looked into taking Democrats off the ballot in 2020 because running against the GOP might be seen as too confrontational? Fucking madness.
i do not think anybody came out of the 57 bills trying to repeal obamacare wondering how the GOP felt about Obamacare and whether the GOP was actually committed to killing Obamacare
they got into office and tried to kill the ACA, despite it being actually pretty unpopular, and they're still trying to kill it
the message has been sent loud and clear
do i think the democratic party particularly wants to raise the minimum wage to 15? no, no i do not. not really
The centrist Democrats still want to pretend that there is mutual ground to be found with Republicans, while in reality the Republicans have rejected the values of the New Deal and the Civil Rights movement (never having embraced those values in the first place). I would go as far as saying that the Republicans have rejected the Enlightenment ideals that America was founded on, in favor of a revisionist religious founding that the founders themselves would find anathema.
There is a deep ideological divide that people like Biden, Pelosi, Obama, etc, do not want to acknowledge, because it means that mutual understanding and compromise, one of their core values, is impossible.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I wouldn't argue about the success or failure of a movement necessarily just through the lens of election results but more through the path of society. You can in fact drag society in a particular direction while not winning elections.
If we look at the Dem response to their abject rejection in the 80s and whether that has been successful I'd say... Absolutely not. It has not been successful for the people of the US. Society has not been dragged left, it has been dragged right and the Dems have rather pathetically followed and at times temporarily mitigated this but as a social movement they're basically saying what about the last few decades. Clinton? Obama? Centrist, arguably Centre-Right in many ways? Continuation of Imperialist foreign policy? Increased inequality? Further attacks on basic rights? Increased disenfranchisement? Concentration camps at the border?
I'm not saying the Dems are responsible for this but rather that the last few decades have been on a path that the GOP has written, largely, and the Dems have largely failed to influence. Their strategy from the 80s and 90s of only being able to win if you're a moderate Republican-lite has resulted broadly in them doing very little, stonewalled while in power, complicit when not, left responding to fascism with "we want to work with the fascists to make the camps nicer." It's not all Pelosi's fault by any means but she is absolutely emblemic of the political class of Dems who's policies and strategies led to the party being in this position. It is a failure, idealogically, strategically, a failure. The Reagan to Trump slope is Nationalist Libertarian Theo-Conservatism to textbook Fascism with a couple of plateaus where Clinton and Obama just tided things over until the next GOP executive rammed things deeper into the pit. That's pretty damning IMO. When you are a big serious party that wins popular votes and the best you can say is "under us things probably didn't get much worse, ostensibly, when we handed them back as opposed to when we picked it up" that's pretty pathetic.
This view entirely misunderstands the path of US politics though.
Firstly in the assement of the success of left-wing political and social ideas in the US. The very fact that people like you are shitting so much on the positions and ideas of previous Democrats is proof of that success. Look at the reaction to Clinton's statements and such from the 90s when she ran in 2016. That's what change looks like. That's real positive movement on these issue during that time. If you wanna chart the path of society, the ideas that the Democratic party either represents or that you want them to represent have been slowly making headway.
But secondly and more importantly, the Democrats didn't lose throughout the last like 4-5 decades because of their strategy. It's the other way around. Their strategy was a reaction to their constantly losing. And the core of this is pretty fucking simple: the Southern Strategy worked. Nixon's deliberate tying of white racial grievance to conservative ideology was devastatingly effective. It built a coalition that dominated US politics for decades. Still does in many ways. Democrats lost up and down the ballot. They only managed to win the Presidency twice till Obama, Carter managed only a single term by beating the guy who fucking pardoned Nixon and then got curbstomped. And then secondly with everyone's favourite Bill Clinton, the New Democrat.
Things like the New Democrats and the parties general shifts towards centrism over those decades are a reaction to their inability to win. They are what happened when the voters of the US decided that's the way they wanted the country to go. Almost entirely because the conservative appeal to white racial grievance in the wake of the civil rights era worked.
And that way of winning is probably outdated now. The electorate has shifted enough over time that other coalitions can be formed that can win. (it's a huge chunk less white, just for one) The fact that the Republicans have been leaning so hard into minority rule tactics and have lost the popular vote two times out of their last 3 wins at the Presidential level (not even touching on all the lower level elections like that) is a strong indication that the power of their strategy is waning somewhat. Certainly that's the bet a ton of presidential candidates are making in the Democratic party primary. But as much as we should criticise some politicians for varying levels of projecting old frameworks onto a the present's different electorate, we should also remember not to project our own framework built off how things are now onto previous electorates. The past is a foreign country after all.
The centrist Democrats still want to pretend that there is mutual ground to be found with Republicans, while in reality the Republicans have rejected the values of the New Deal and the Civil Rights movement (never having embraced those values in the first place). I would go as far as saying that the Republicans have rejected the Enlightenment ideals that America was founded on, in favor of a revisionist religious founding that the founders themselves would find anathema.
There is a deep ideological divide that people like Biden, Pelosi, Obama, etc, do not want to acknowledge, because it means that mutual understanding and compromise, one of their core values, is impossible.
Talking only works if both sides are willing to sit down and listen- in this case, the Republicans either can't (because Donald will throw a Trumper-tantrum) or they don't want to. I like Pelosi, I think she's got a long, wonderful history, but this is the first time she's ever faced a party that emulates its president- all the way through his toddler-like psyche of "Stop? Make me!" and "I'm going to hold my breath until I get what I want!"
There are no middle-ground votes to be had in Congress, and the Republicans won't accept anything but complete surrender and getting what they want. Either they get what they want, or they are completely willing to run the country into the ground with great big grins on their faces- because they know Pelosi would much rather compromise than see anyone get hurt.
AOC and the others are willing to let them crash the country and force them to own it, which is what is needed right now. There's little to no moderate ground to be had- either way, nothing good comes of simply yielding to nazis, anyways.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Far as I can tell, having the House lets you do three things. Passing bills for messaging purposes, oversight, and obstructing bills in order to extract policy concessions. The Democrats have been good on the first, mediocre on the second (they really don't seem to have a good handle of how to deal with Trump's Maximum No obstruction), and flat out awful on the last. These are all areas that Pelosi has a fair amount of influence, and so far things have not been going particularly well. I'm also leery of the idea that Pelosi is somehow this incredible vote wrangler that knows what's up in her caucus who also got blindsided on the border funding bill. Either the Problem Solver Caucus (the useless wankers) are really good at keeping secrets, or she's just not as plugged in as people think.
The other thing is that this particular kerfuffle grew out of the border funding bill, and I think part of the problem is that Pelosi seems to look at things very much from a one step removed, leadership type position. Does this help the party, how will this play in the next election, that stuff. The problem is that AOC is talking about people being stuffed into concentration camps and she firmly believes that you do things like trying to stop that from happening. I think that Pelosi didn't quite grasp that AOC wasn't talking about concentration camps as some sort of media play or whatever, and got caught off guard at the anger when the House passed the Senate's border funding bill.
Going to Maureen Dowd, garbage gossip columnist of the DC circuit, to complain about the situation was gawd-freaking-awful and enough to make me think that Pelosi might need replacing. Dowd's own family shouldn't be talking to Dowd, much less the Democratic Speaker of the House. And that tweet from the HouseDemocrats account is a steaming load of garbage.
Finally, I don't think that 11-dimensional chess really exists. People liked to say that Obama was a master at playing the Republicans, but really it mostly seemed like he was just being honest and they couldn't stop being incompetent racist clowns for long enough to take advantage of any of the deals he was offering. I think it's about the same with most politicians. Some might be more or less honest, but you can generally tell what they're trying to achieve. People want to think that our leaders are some Lord Vetinari type. That Trump's tweets represent some sort of planned gaming of the Democrats or that Pelosi has some plan to pull the trigger on impeachment at the exact right time to bring him down or something, when reality is that Trump is just a racist con-man with a room temperature IQ, and Pelosi pretty clearly just doesn't think that impeachment is worth it and might cost them in 2020. Same goes for the camps unfortunately, she's made it pretty clear that her priority is the 2020 election, and in this instance that means $4.6B to ICE.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+5
Options
IlpalaJust this guy, y'knowTexasRegistered Userregular
The problem with passing messaging bills is that the media doesn't cover them (this is universal; do you remember 57 separate news cycles about the GOP passing useless ACA repeal bills? I don't).
I mean, maybe not for every single one, but there were at least double digit "House votes to repeal Obamacare" headlines.
FF XIV - Qih'to Furishu (on Siren), Battle.Net - Ilpala#1975
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
I think that Pelosi's strategic consideration that 4.6 billion to ICE is the price of 2020 is utterly wrong on a strategic and moral sense and this is where she breaks with the Squad
AOC and the others actually broke with Pelosi over the initial House bill, which was money + some strings. Which I think has a much stronger strategic and moral case for it then the bill that actually passed (and that a ton more democrats voted No on).
That weird semi anonymous garbage poll on the squad's approval ratings that leadership was pushing around has made it in to the President's tweets so good job guys.
Posts
Of course the Civil Rights Movement is a very different thing than what's going on with Pelosi and the house, I am not trying to make an 1-1 argument. My point is that King's frustration with what he called white moderates feels very similar to my own frustration with Dem moderates in Congress. We have children being kidnapped, thrown in dungeons (prisons have more amenities than these kids have), tortured and sexually abused, and our allies in the battle against this cannot even fight to offer these kids any relief, let alone the possibility of freedom (I reject in it's entirety that passing the border spending bill without stipulations is any kind of good, there is 0% chance it helps). The moderates do this because they do not want to risk their constituency getting mad at them. Pelosi supports them because she wants to hold together the broader Dem coalition within the house. This is very infuriating, but unfortunately, I don't think Pelosi's reading of the situation is entirely wrong. I think Dem senators are probably right in their understanding of their constituency.
That's the situation right now. What action is the best or even least bad, I don't know. For anyone with morals and awareness of the situation, it's enraging and depressing. I keep thinking about another MLK quote and how it 100% applies to this situation.
You seem to believe that Dem leadership will push as far left as they think they can.
If you buy reality based on how they sell their motives and actions after the fact you deserve to be taken for a ride.
That's just dodging the issue. There's a direct quote from Pelosi recently on her view on these issues. You don't have to invent some other motivation here, she's literally said what it is. She's trying to position the party to appeal to the voters that helped the Democrats win seats in 2018 and in her mind going too far to the left alienates them. This would then follow through to who they support in primaries, which was what your initial contention was about. So, again, there's a direct quote supporting the assumption I'm making above that you called unfounded.
You quoted me talking about the 2008 election Shryke. In which leadership pushed for centrists even in safe seats and then we wound up with the ACA because of it.
Why would that be any different?
Like I said, you seem to think that leadership pushes for the leftmost policy they can get and if they actively fight for centrism and against leftism well its just being smart
I don't think that is what shryke or anyone else is saying. Honestly that could be taken as even supporting shryke, though I know that's not your intention. if they are not pushing as far left as they think they can, that means they follow the votes they can get out of their constituency.
I do want to see Pelosi lead and push more left than what I see happening, but the core part of the problem is, and always has been, the American electorate.
And then we would have gotten nothing more progressive, because the ACA as is passed the Senate by the skin of its teeth.
Has it been? Seems to me the party's greatest electoral failings are when it leans really hard on third way types.
That's doesn't address the question though. There's a direct quote from Pelosi on her position on this very issue. Yeah, it's from a week or two ago. But so what? What are you basing the idea that it wasn't the same back in 2006/2008/2010/etc on?
This is the same thing she and the rest of leadership have been doing this whole time. Pushing candidates they think can win. I see no reason why this would have changed in the intervening years.
Nor is "candidates they think can win" incompatible with pushing centrism because theyre centrists.
Moderates picking up most of the seats is probably a big one.
There isn't direct evidence to the contrary. I will link this again, but this is probably the best analysis done on this issue:
https://medium.com/@yghitza_48326/revisiting-what-happened-in-the-2018-election-c532feb51c0
The relevant quote as always:
This doesn't directly address whether they are "moderates" but I don't think it would be out of line to suggest that that's how one might describe a lot of those cross-over voters they mention. (I can't remember if they do a more thorough breakdown by political leanings later in the piece)
And that's not to say that Pelosi et all isn't ignoring the first group mentioned there (ie - newly mobilized voters). But it is also not accurate to ignore the second (ie - voters who moved from R to D).
The answer is, it seems, that it was both.
We can believe what a politician tells us motivates them, especially when it matches the evidence at hand, or we can just pull whatever motivation we want from out of our asses. I would suggest the first one is the better choice.
Pelosi has been quite explicit about what her thinking on this issue is and it matches up with her actions. There's no reason to dismiss it, even if it contradicts the narrative one might want to tell.
Its how its always going to be if youre the one pushing the party. They laugh or ignore you until the pressure is overhwelming and then of course they support these things, how could you imply otherwise as they wrap themselves in that struggle's flag.
Pelosi has been exceedingly clear on what her political beliefs are.
Democrats need to learn how to get visceral, simple, atavistic and dishonest, without actually changing their policies.
Just lie constantly about what you want to do and who you are and who you care the most about,and you will win the "median morons". It's marketing and packaging, not ingredients, not content, or delivery, or value chain, or who is the producer. You can sell far-left stuff if you mindlessly call it "ANTI-SOCIALISM FOR GOOD-OLD PATRIOTS HOO-RAH MATLOCK AWESOME JOBS DOWN AT THE PLANT/FACTORY WOOOOOO". Pelosi simply can't be the one to engeineer that strategy because of decades of "oogah-boogah frumpy lady from San Fransisco who wants ultra-open borders". And she can't be the engineer of a unified, diverse base that ignores the rusty people, because she hasn't pushed that image either. She has no clear voice and is stuck between two chairs.
Let’s also not forget that one of the consequences of all that ineffectual inaction is that Democratic Congressfolk now become multimillionaires before they retire. Cowardly and ineffectual leadership turns out be far more effective for campaign fundraising and personal wealthbuilding than being the Lions of the Working Class.
If we look at the Dem response to their abject rejection in the 80s and whether that has been successful I'd say... Absolutely not. It has not been successful for the people of the US. Society has not been dragged left, it has been dragged right and the Dems have rather pathetically followed and at times temporarily mitigated this but as a social movement they're basically saying what about the last few decades. Clinton? Obama? Centrist, arguably Centre-Right in many ways? Continuation of Imperialist foreign policy? Increased inequality? Further attacks on basic rights? Increased disenfranchisement? Concentration camps at the border?
I'm not saying the Dems are responsible for this but rather that the last few decades have been on a path that the GOP has written, largely, and the Dems have largely failed to influence. Their strategy from the 80s and 90s of only being able to win if you're a moderate Republican-lite has resulted broadly in them doing very little, stonewalled while in power, complicit when not, left responding to fascism with "we want to work with the fascists to make the camps nicer." It's not all Pelosi's fault by any means but she is absolutely emblemic of the political class of Dems who's policies and strategies led to the party being in this position. It is a failure, idealogically, strategically, a failure. The Reagan to Trump slope is Nationalist Libertarian Theo-Conservatism to textbook Fascism with a couple of plateaus where Clinton and Obama just tided things over until the next GOP executive rammed things deeper into the pit. That's pretty damning IMO. When you are a big serious party that wins popular votes and the best you can say is "under us things probably didn't get much worse, ostensibly, when we handed them back as opposed to when we picked it up" that's pretty pathetic.
It's a global trend, I'm afraid.
Some of the major democrat house seats gained in Texas were a result of moderates voting D instead of R in the major metropolitan suburbs.
Part of it was getting the vote out, but also those districts have been historically Republican since the 1980s.
Because it's easier to convince somebody that they should change their actions when you actually understand why they're motivated to do what they do?
If you think Pelosi or the dems are supporting effectively centrist positions because they think going too far left will result in not achieving any of their goals and also lose them control of the House before they have a chance to accomplish anything, you can try to change their minds by communicating your support for more leftist goals. If you think that they support centrist goals because they're secretly racist and they hate liberals and just want to cynically consolidate power and are anti-worker or whatever, that's... I mean, objectively wrong, but also just a different set of arguments.
Like, if a someone disagrees with you on a policy position, and they initiate a dialog with "why do you hate America and freedom?" that's kind of a nonstarter. This is the same thing.
Pelosi is a liberal Democrat from fucking San Francisco with a progressive voting record spanning decades. She's the poster child on the right for leftist overreach. When you're talking about her being a turboconservative corporatist, maaaaaybe you're kinda misreading the board, regardless of whether you agree with her tactics.
I really think that pelosi doesn't think it's possible to influence the electorate, only to be influenced
Republican meaningless messaging shifted the overton window and allowed them to seize the reins of government
Their voters saw their guys trying to do something.
the reason the house isn't trying to pass medicare-for-all or min wage jumps or serious climate change legislation isn't because it won't work, it's because it would set up the expectation that that's something they actually want
The proposed $15 minimum wage bill is actually meaningful and is something they obviously would like to pass.
The $15 minimum wage bill is going to be effective because there is no way the GOP weasels out of killing it. In the last Congress they could keep it dead in both chambers and make up bullshit for not improving the situation. This time, when McConnell kills it, it gets hung around their necks and is liable to hurt them next year. This is the case with a few other bills, the GOP doesn't want to pass them because the GOP is full of shitty individuals, but by doing so they GOP is harming their electoral prospects since the bills have broad appeal. Passing bills that will die can be effective because it creates a record, where people are forced to own said record one way or the other. Either they eat flack for voting against it or they eat flack as a whole party because their leadership or the POTUS from their party killed it. The GOP would rather not have voting records because a chunk of them get that any voter paying the least bit of attention will get might pissed at them.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
The media would cover oversight, but Democrats have fundamentally failed to perform that function, either by dragging their feet (impeachment, tax returns) or declining to enforce subpoenas
So instead the media has two options: cover Trump and whatever Trump is talking about (this is bad for Democrats because Trump gets to set the agenda), or cover Democratic in-fighting (this is also bad for Democrats)
I truly do not understand what Pelosi wants people to think the House is doing for them. Why would anybody donate or volunteer or run to help the Dems keep the House in 2020 if the House isn't going to do a fucking thing?
"they can't do anything because of the Senate blah blah blah" bullshit
Nobody was talking about the camps until AOC used her words and her Twitter feed to raise the issue
Congresspeople went to the camps and reported on it and news spread and there have been two nationwide protests since that and things will hopefully continue to build there
That happened because a Congressperson used her position to put out an actual message
Don't tell me these people can't do anything just because they aren't doing anything right now.
The other problem is that House Democrats are incredibly still willing to work with Republicans
That's not just a lie they say to seem bipartisan, either, or they wouldn't have voted for the final version of the border bill
There seems to be a generational divide between people like Biden and Pelosi, who pride themselves on working with the opposition no matter how terrible, and the younger Dems who are more willing to say "This organization/group is evil and I'm not going to help them do a fucking thing." Does Pelosi really expect Trump to pivot??? It's madness. The president is a criminal, he literally represents on a daily basis the exact opposite of everything Democrats stand for and believe in, and yet we're somehow frightened of being seen as opposing him? Have we looked into taking Democrats off the ballot in 2020 because running against the GOP might be seen as too confrontational? Fucking madness.
they got into office and tried to kill the ACA, despite it being actually pretty unpopular, and they're still trying to kill it
the message has been sent loud and clear
do i think the democratic party particularly wants to raise the minimum wage to 15? no, no i do not. not really
There is a deep ideological divide that people like Biden, Pelosi, Obama, etc, do not want to acknowledge, because it means that mutual understanding and compromise, one of their core values, is impossible.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
This view entirely misunderstands the path of US politics though.
Firstly in the assement of the success of left-wing political and social ideas in the US. The very fact that people like you are shitting so much on the positions and ideas of previous Democrats is proof of that success. Look at the reaction to Clinton's statements and such from the 90s when she ran in 2016. That's what change looks like. That's real positive movement on these issue during that time. If you wanna chart the path of society, the ideas that the Democratic party either represents or that you want them to represent have been slowly making headway.
But secondly and more importantly, the Democrats didn't lose throughout the last like 4-5 decades because of their strategy. It's the other way around. Their strategy was a reaction to their constantly losing. And the core of this is pretty fucking simple: the Southern Strategy worked. Nixon's deliberate tying of white racial grievance to conservative ideology was devastatingly effective. It built a coalition that dominated US politics for decades. Still does in many ways. Democrats lost up and down the ballot. They only managed to win the Presidency twice till Obama, Carter managed only a single term by beating the guy who fucking pardoned Nixon and then got curbstomped. And then secondly with everyone's favourite Bill Clinton, the New Democrat.
Things like the New Democrats and the parties general shifts towards centrism over those decades are a reaction to their inability to win. They are what happened when the voters of the US decided that's the way they wanted the country to go. Almost entirely because the conservative appeal to white racial grievance in the wake of the civil rights era worked.
And that way of winning is probably outdated now. The electorate has shifted enough over time that other coalitions can be formed that can win. (it's a huge chunk less white, just for one) The fact that the Republicans have been leaning so hard into minority rule tactics and have lost the popular vote two times out of their last 3 wins at the Presidential level (not even touching on all the lower level elections like that) is a strong indication that the power of their strategy is waning somewhat. Certainly that's the bet a ton of presidential candidates are making in the Democratic party primary. But as much as we should criticise some politicians for varying levels of projecting old frameworks onto a the present's different electorate, we should also remember not to project our own framework built off how things are now onto previous electorates. The past is a foreign country after all.
Talking only works if both sides are willing to sit down and listen- in this case, the Republicans either can't (because Donald will throw a Trumper-tantrum) or they don't want to. I like Pelosi, I think she's got a long, wonderful history, but this is the first time she's ever faced a party that emulates its president- all the way through his toddler-like psyche of "Stop? Make me!" and "I'm going to hold my breath until I get what I want!"
There are no middle-ground votes to be had in Congress, and the Republicans won't accept anything but complete surrender and getting what they want. Either they get what they want, or they are completely willing to run the country into the ground with great big grins on their faces- because they know Pelosi would much rather compromise than see anyone get hurt.
AOC and the others are willing to let them crash the country and force them to own it, which is what is needed right now. There's little to no moderate ground to be had- either way, nothing good comes of simply yielding to nazis, anyways.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
The other thing is that this particular kerfuffle grew out of the border funding bill, and I think part of the problem is that Pelosi seems to look at things very much from a one step removed, leadership type position. Does this help the party, how will this play in the next election, that stuff. The problem is that AOC is talking about people being stuffed into concentration camps and she firmly believes that you do things like trying to stop that from happening. I think that Pelosi didn't quite grasp that AOC wasn't talking about concentration camps as some sort of media play or whatever, and got caught off guard at the anger when the House passed the Senate's border funding bill.
Going to Maureen Dowd, garbage gossip columnist of the DC circuit, to complain about the situation was gawd-freaking-awful and enough to make me think that Pelosi might need replacing. Dowd's own family shouldn't be talking to Dowd, much less the Democratic Speaker of the House. And that tweet from the HouseDemocrats account is a steaming load of garbage.
Finally, I don't think that 11-dimensional chess really exists. People liked to say that Obama was a master at playing the Republicans, but really it mostly seemed like he was just being honest and they couldn't stop being incompetent racist clowns for long enough to take advantage of any of the deals he was offering. I think it's about the same with most politicians. Some might be more or less honest, but you can generally tell what they're trying to achieve. People want to think that our leaders are some Lord Vetinari type. That Trump's tweets represent some sort of planned gaming of the Democrats or that Pelosi has some plan to pull the trigger on impeachment at the exact right time to bring him down or something, when reality is that Trump is just a racist con-man with a room temperature IQ, and Pelosi pretty clearly just doesn't think that impeachment is worth it and might cost them in 2020. Same goes for the camps unfortunately, she's made it pretty clear that her priority is the 2020 election, and in this instance that means $4.6B to ICE.
I mean, maybe not for every single one, but there were at least double digit "House votes to repeal Obamacare" headlines.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin