Iowa has no business being the first primary anyways (and thus setting a "narrative").
No it does have business and it’s exactly what it says on the tin- give an early boost to candidates that poll better in whiter states
But this would be an odd approach for the establishment to take, since their preferred candidates - at least in the last couple primaries - have received much of their support from black voters in southern states. Judging by Clinton and Biden, you'd think the establishment would be better served by holding South Carolina's primary first.
What? Who else are black people gonna vote for?
-DNC consultant
There are proposals to start the primary elsewhere but as far as I know no actual action on it yet
Another reason the Dems suck: their gerontocratic death grip on power and obsession with seniority as the driving force of their power hierarchy has resulted int utterly, utterly neglecting to actually prep subsequent generations of candidates for executive office
I don’t disagree, but what does it look like to “prep subsequent generations of candidacy for executive office”? What does the capital P Party do to support grass roots new blood?
I guess the Republicans do it well because we have young monsters like Matt Gaetz.
I don't think it's possible, to be honest, we (leftists) can't even get behind media figures because online leftist figureheads all hate each other and accuse each other of being racist, misogynistic, pedophiles
She I've had people in this forum call me a disgusting piece of shit and block me because I like Natalie Wynn
Meanwhile Crowder and Shapiro, who hate each other with an incredible burning fire, ally with each other no problem because they both hate minorities and that's enough for them, and both of them
I mean like I said before, the first step would be the gerontocracy actually retiring instead of holding onto their seats, even in safe districts, with a deathgrip
There’s no bench to choose from because by and large the Democrats bench has been “which Senator is next in seniority?”
Which is part of why Clinton’s faction hated Obama’s guts in 2008; he very clearly made an insurgent challenge below his rank in the pecking order, coming at the candidate who was next in line both from a seniority standpoint and also her role in helping reshape the party in the emergence of the DLC in the early 90s into what it is now
Another reason the Dems suck: their gerontocratic death grip on power and obsession with seniority as the driving force of their power hierarchy has resulted int utterly, utterly neglecting to actually prep subsequent generations of candidates for executive office
I don’t disagree, but what does it look like to “prep subsequent generations of candidacy for executive office”? What does the capital P Party do to support grass roots new blood?
I guess the Republicans do it well because we have young monsters like Matt Gaetz.
Its cradle to grave. While Dems have some of these programs, thry tend to be smaller where they exist. Republicans have entire pipeline to identify and shepard promising republicans in college, move them into internships, congressional offices etc. Then when they run for office the party makes sure they get air time, it makes sure they get committee seats etc.
If Warren split Sanders' vote off as a spoiler then it's also reasonable to say Bloomberg and friends did too. So combine the primary votes by centrists (Biden/Bloomberg/Buttigieg/Klobuchar) vs. progressives (Sanders/Warren) and the centrists still ended up with a massive delegate lead by March 14, something like 1097 to 766.
A lot of this stuff boils down to perception and how it changes votes, though. You can't just take a number from this cell and add it to this cell and this is what Sanders would have had if Warren had dropped out. Some of her votes would have gone to Sanders, some of them wouldn't, and several other voters would have treated Sanders more seriously if another candidate had his back.
See also: Why we shouldn't be doing primaries the way we do them, and why votes shouldn't be reported before the last ballot has been cast.
Like, I'm not going to tell you that Warren kept Sanders from winning, or that Sanders would have definitely won if she had dropped out and supported him. I will tell you it was a shitty thing for her to sit there and refuse to give him a shot, and it was really apparent to me that she was doing it to keep her career as an old person in the Senate. And I could be up my own ass on that, I could, but again, it's about perception.
I mean this is where my problem with the argument comes from. Yes, I agree it's about perception, but that's literally not verifiable with any data cause there aren't any surveys or anything done on this at the time it was happening. It's all conjecture. Which is fine, but it makes me deeply skeptical when someone comes out and says "this is what happened and it's True" cause it's not a verifiable claim. I'm making strong assumptions in that breakdown, but it's pretty much just as valid as your perception and there isn't really a way to bridge that.
I'm begging people to consider the viewpoints of disillusioned voters who don't spend every day poisoning their brains with politics newsfeeds.
They voted for Biden not because they liked Biden but because Trump was bad and Biden promised to make things better.
There is an issue or two they feel most strongly about, but regardless of what it us they look around and see nothing has changed for them under Biden.
Addressing climate climate change, social justice reform, pandemic response, immigration reform, marijuana legalization, protecting abortion rights, canceling student debt, protecting voting rights, on and on - it doesn't matter the issue, nothing has fundamentally changed.
If Biden, or anyone associated with him, runs, these people are not going to turn out to vote for him. Because for them, what's the point?
And you can try to argue with me about semantics or point to little crumbs given to us of what was promised as a feast, and it isn't going to matter to them at all because the excuses given don't change the end result of no material improvements for their lives.
At the end of the day votes are not owed. They are earned. And Biden and his crew hasn't earned another vote from these people. They simply will not go vote if it's down to Establishment Centrist or Trump yet again.
There's going to have to be someone running who people will believe when they say that they can improve things, if you want them to feel like it's even worth showing up at the polls.
Another reason the Dems suck: their gerontocratic death grip on power and obsession with seniority as the driving force of their power hierarchy has resulted int utterly, utterly neglecting to actually prep subsequent generations of candidates for executive office
I don’t disagree, but what does it look like to “prep subsequent generations of candidacy for executive office”? What does the capital P Party do to support grass roots new blood?
I guess the Republicans do it well because we have young monsters like Matt Gaetz.
Its cradle to grave. While Dems have some of these programs, thry tend to be smaller where they exist. Republicans have entire pipeline to identify and shepard promising republicans in college, move them into internships, congressional offices etc. Then when they run for office the party makes sure they get air time, it makes sure they get committee seats etc.
Just a random thought but it strikes that those sorts of things probably slot right in with more general old boys networks. This kind of hierarchical generational power structure is natural for conservatism.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Unfortunately I think that Sanders was never really going to do it in 2020. The 'we must win back moderate Republicans/electability' parade started EARLY.
He should stop running and start more actively grooming younger, better candidates to succeed him.
Another reason the Dems suck: their gerontocratic death grip on power and obsession with seniority as the driving force of their power hierarchy has resulted int utterly, utterly neglecting to actually prep subsequent generations of candidates for executive office
I don’t disagree, but what does it look like to “prep subsequent generations of candidacy for executive office”? What does the capital P Party do to support grass roots new blood?
I guess the Republicans do it well because we have young monsters like Matt Gaetz.
Its cradle to grave. While Dems have some of these programs, thry tend to be smaller where they exist. Republicans have entire pipeline to identify and shepard promising republicans in college, move them into internships, congressional offices etc. Then when they run for office the party makes sure they get air time, it makes sure they get committee seats etc.
Just a random thought but it strikes that those sorts of things probably slot right in with more general old boys networks. This kind of hierarchical generational power structure is natural for conservatism.
It does, but we shouldnt forget the Democrats, as a wider machine, exist very much as a network of connections too.
I mean like I said before, the first step would be the gerontocracy actually retiring instead of holding onto their seats, even in safe districts, with a deathgrip
There’s no bench to choose from because by and large the Democrats bench has been “which Senator is next in seniority?”
Which is part of why Clinton’s faction hated Obama’s guts in 2008; he very clearly made an insurgent challenge below his rank in the pecking order, coming at the candidate who was next in line both from a seniority standpoint and also her role in helping reshape the party in the emergence of the DLC in the early 90s into what it is now
Absolutely, get rid of the old ones, find some staffers who can cobble together some charisma to start running
I'm begging people to consider the viewpoints of disillusioned voters who don't spend every day poisoning their brains with politics newsfeeds.
They voted for Biden not because they liked Biden but because Trump was bad and Biden promised to make things better.
There is an issue or two they feel most strongly about, but regardless of what it us they look around and see nothing has changed for them under Biden.
Addressing climate climate change, social justice reform, pandemic response, immigration reform, marijuana legalization, protecting abortion rights, canceling student debt, protecting voting rights, on and on - it doesn't matter the issue, nothing has fundamentally changed.
If Biden, or anyone associated with him, runs, these people are not going to turn out to vote for him. Because for them, what's the point?
And you can try to argue with me about semantics or point to little crumbs given to us of what was promised as a feast, and it isn't going to matter to them at all because the excuses given don't change the end result of no material improvements for their lives.
At the end of the day votes are not owed. They are earned. And Biden and his crew hasn't earned another vote from these people. They simply will not go vote if it's down to Establishment Centrist or Trump yet again.
There's going to have to be someone running who people will believe when they say that they can improve things, if you want them to feel like it's even worth showing up at the polls.
One thing has changed that people noticed, or at least my fam has: the monthly child tax credit payments went poof. That’s not one-to-one Biden’s fault because Congress, but how many voters understand that, I wonder?
Unfortunately I think that Sanders was never really going to do it in 2020. The 'we must win back moderate Republicans/electability' parade started EARLY.
He should stop running and start more actively grooming younger, better candidates to succeed him.
I'm begging people to consider the viewpoints of disillusioned voters who don't spend every day poisoning their brains with politics newsfeeds.
They voted for Biden not because they liked Biden but because Trump was bad and Biden promised to make things better.
There is an issue or two they feel most strongly about, but regardless of what it us they look around and see nothing has changed for them under Biden.
Addressing climate climate change, social justice reform, pandemic response, immigration reform, marijuana legalization, protecting abortion rights, canceling student debt, protecting voting rights, on and on - it doesn't matter the issue, nothing has fundamentally changed.
If Biden, or anyone associated with him, runs, these people are not going to turn out to vote for him. Because for them, what's the point?
And you can try to argue with me about semantics or point to little crumbs given to us of what was promised as a feast, and it isn't going to matter to them at all because the excuses given don't change the end result of no material improvements for their lives.
At the end of the day votes are not owed. They are earned. And Biden and his crew hasn't earned another vote from these people. They simply will not go vote if it's down to Establishment Centrist or Trump yet again.
There's going to have to be someone running who people will believe when they say that they can improve things, if you want them to feel like it's even worth showing up at the polls.
To borrow the term from that twitter user I posted:
Think like a regular person, not a Politics Pervert
Unfortunately I think that Sanders was never really going to do it in 2020. The 'we must win back moderate Republicans/electability' parade started EARLY.
He should stop running and start more actively grooming younger, better candidates to succeed him.
Unfortunately I think that Sanders was never really going to do it in 2020. The 'we must win back moderate Republicans/electability' parade started EARLY.
He should stop running and start more actively grooming younger, better candidates to succeed him.
Bernie had a hard cap on support because most Democrats outside of the progressive wing can't stand him. He had a hard cap on support.
Warren had a soft cap on support because while her support with progressives was softer, she wasn't despised by most of the party and voters.
I imagine if Bernie had won a good chunk of Democratic voters would have held their nose and pulled the lever for Bernie, but I think it's hilarious that people can simultaneously decry people dropping out to boost Biden but complain Warren didn't do the same to help Bernie. Quite a double standard.
It's because the people who dropped out to support Biden had chances of winning still.
Sanders is the only politician I've seen on the front line of the Union efforts. Don't really care about 2016 but he continues to be who I thought he was.
I actually did a spreadsheet on ages of Dems and GOP in the House and Senate
Basically no difference in the senate- it’s old as fuck
In the House, the average age of the GOP was like 2-3 years younger. Proportionally by age cohort, the parties were statistically the same for 20s/30s/40s. For the 50+ cohorts, the GOP we’re much bigger than Dems in 50s/60s while the Dems were way over represented 70+ (before Don Young died)
While the energy and momentum is with progressives these days — the victory of rising star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York, buzz about Democratic Socialism and the spread of the "Abolish ICE!" movement are a few recent examples — moderates are warning that ignoring them will lead the party to disaster in the midterm elections and the 2020 presidential contest.
That anxiety has largely been kept to a whisper among the party's moderates and big donors, with some of the major fundraisers pressing operatives on what can be done to stop Sanders, I-Vt., if he runs for the White House again.
But the first-ever "Opportunity 2020" convention, organized here last week by Third Way, a moderate Democratic think tank, gave middle-of-the-road party members a safe space to come together and voice their concerns.
"The only narrative that has been articulated in the Democratic Party over the past two years is the one from the left," former Delaware Gov. Jack Markell told NBC News.
The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, co-cohosted the event and addressed attendees twice underscored that this group is not interested in the class warfare vilifying the "millionaires and billionaires" found in Sanders' stump speech.
"You're not going to make me hate somebody just because they're rich. I want to be rich!" Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday to laughs.
The invitation-only gathering brought together about 250 Democratic insiders from key swing states. Third Way unveiled the results of focus groups and polling that it says shows Americans are more receptive to an economic message built on "opportunity" rather than the left's message about inequality.
Bernie's best chance was probably in 2016, in the open primaries he drew indepedents and some cross party appeal with republicans (although it's possible some of these hated Hillary enough to vote in the opposing party's primary) and Trump was still consolidating his base at that point. He certainly would have been more competitive (and presumably campaigned) in the rust belt states.
There was appetite there for a populist message, Obama captured it in 2008 (in addition to his oratorical skills) and this is all on the wake of the market crashing due to Wall St greed, the Great Recession, mass forclosures on homes.
The moderate/third way leadership of the Democratic Party has for the most part had it's way since the election of Bill Clinton in the 90s. Since then, it has
Lost to Bush
Lost to Bush again.
Fought against Obama (and he had support from the anti-Clinton wing of the party)
Immediately dismantled the apparatus that enabled Obama to win the primary.
Proceed to lose over 1000 seats nationally over Obama's 8 years in office.
Lost to Trump. Even if they had won, expectations had been trimmed down to "well we won't win the senate, but at least we'll have congress." Well we won't hold the house, but we'll have the presidency."
Then had the gall to be like "no, actually what we need is to get back to doing the same thing as before."
The day after scraping out a win that was closer than they expected turned around and blamed progressives and BLM activists for the poor showing.
Hell, after 2016 Hillary Clinton grifted supporters one last time by charging them $30 so they could read about basically the same thing.
There is a lack of accountability and general introspection within the leadership of the Democratic Party (and it's donors class.)
Leading back to the above article this is part is worth focusing on:
The gathering here was just that — an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the rising Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see a rare opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to win over Republicans turned off by Trump.
Where are we at now? Almost record low polling for Biden, gridlock in the senate from his own party, a depressed base (especially amongst youth, one of the largest potential voting groups) looking down the barrel of an all time shellacking in the upcoming midterms.
One Democratic donor, Barry Goodman, told The Post that he and other donors are just hoping former President Donald Trump runs again in 2024, regardless if Biden runs.
Goodman, who served on Biden's finance committee for his 2020 campaign, said they are "praying that Trump runs."
"I think no matter who runs, a Democrat beats him," he told the outlet. "At the end of the day, people are not going to put that despot in office one more time."
Kelor on
+13
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Also, Warren was not a traitor to "the cause" because she never had anything to do with "the cause". She was a Reaganite who later decided she liked Keynes or something. She has nothing to do with leftism or socialism or the working class or anything; she's just another liberal.
the campaign roasted whatever credibility it had by moderating its language on m4a and accepting that super pac ad blitz
She literally never moderated on M4A. I saw her speak in Atlanta in February of 2019 and she was advocating a two-step process that, but the way, still got us to M4A faster than Bernie's plan.
That this became the received wisdom despite being an obvious lie is approximately the most frustrating thing possible.
Her revamped plan to first pass a massive healthcare bill to create a public option then a phase in a second overhaul later to single payer sounds like just getting maybe a public option and then oh whoops sorry dont have the political capital for single payer
Her revamped plan to first pass a massive healthcare bill to create a public option then a phase in a second overhaul later to single payer sounds like just getting maybe a public option and then oh whoops sorry dont have the political capital for single payer
I feel like if Democrats were serious about any of their policy agenda they would have rolled it into the NDAA and let the Republicans explain to voters why its worth cutting funding to troops to not pay for infrastructure
Sanders is the only politician I've seen on the front line of the Union efforts. Don't really care about 2016 but he continues to be who I thought he was.
From what I understand, Biden is actually pretty good on unions.
To get back on the actual topic a bit more, that shift in her health care plan coincided with her campaign bringing on a bunch of Clintonworld people. Its right around the time she started taking shots at Sanders too.
"What do we want? A phased in two part health care reform" is just peak Democrats. Like when Jim asks Dwight why his fantasy is to be a co-owner of a bed and breakfast.
Sanders is the only politician I've seen on the front line of the Union efforts. Don't really care about 2016 but he continues to be who I thought he was.
From what I understand, Biden is actually pretty good on unions.
To get back on the actual topic a bit more, that shift in her health care plan coincided with her campaign bringing on a bunch of Clintonworld people. Its right around the time she started taking shots at Sanders too.
"What do we want? A phased in two part health care reform" is just peak Democrats. Like when Jim asks Dwight why his fantasy is to be a co-owner of a bed and breakfast.
Sanders is the only politician I've seen on the front line of the Union efforts. Don't really care about 2016 but he continues to be who I thought he was.
From what I understand, Biden is actually pretty good on unions.
Also, Warren was not a traitor to "the cause" because she never had anything to do with "the cause". She was a Reaganite who later decided she liked Keynes or something. She has nothing to do with leftism or socialism or the working class or anything; she's just another liberal.
the campaign roasted whatever credibility it had by moderating its language on m4a and accepting that super pac ad blitz
She literally never moderated on M4A. I saw her speak in Atlanta in February of 2019 and she was advocating a two-step process that, but the way, still got us to M4A faster than Bernie's plan.
That this became the received wisdom despite being an obvious lie is approximately the most frustrating thing possible.
Even so, at least a couple of them tried to preserve some wiggle room. Warren started out the year by portraying her support for Medicare for All as a statement about aspirations rather than a commitment to the particulars of the Sanders plan. In an interview with Bloomberg Television, in January, she identified “affordable health care for every American” as her goal and said that there were “different ways we can get there.” At a CNN town-hall meeting in March, she said that there were “a lot of different pathways” to universal coverage, and added, “What we’re all looking for is the lowest cost way to make sure that everybody gets covered.”
But, unlike in many other policy areas, Warren didn’t propose an over-all health-care-reform plan of her own, as Harris did, or back away from the commitment to eliminate private insurance, as Booker did, sort of. Warren was rolling out so many proposals that her campaign started selling T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan “warren has a plan for that.” But in the area of health care she confined herself to relatively narrow proposals, including measures to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, expand rural health-care programs, and tackle the opioid crisis. (That’s not to say that these proposals weren’t important individually, merely that they didn’t add up to a comprehensive reform plan.)
At the first Democratic debate, in June, Warren said, “I’m with Bernie on Medicare,” and she also raised her hand when the candidates were asked to indicate whether they favored getting rid of private health insurance. But she didn’t emphasize this in her over-all pitch, and she didn’t get pressed on it. Things changed after she began vying for the lead with Joe Biden in the polls. Front-runners get treated differently than mere contenders: the media scrutinizes everything they say and do, and their fellow-candidates try to take them down. During Tuesday’s debate, Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar zeroed in on Warren’s apparent reluctance to acknowledge explicitly that taxes would go up as part of a Medicare for All plan. “We owe it to the American people to tell them where we will send the invoice,” Klobuchar said. In response to these criticisms, Warren restated her support for Medicare for All, but also tweaked it slightly, saying, “I will not sign a bill into law that does not lower costs for middle-class families.”
The debate left Warren with a dilemma. Should she stick to her current position, which is at least partly designed to avoid giving Trump and the Republicans a talking point—“Warren wants to raise your taxes”—or should she refine it in some way? Some progressives believe she is in the right place. “Democratic voters want to beat Trump and appreciate Democratic politicians who are savvy,” Adam Green, a co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told The Hill on Wednesday. “I don’t see why we would give the insurance companies rope to hang Democrats with a deceptive talking point. The bottom line is that Medicare for All will function like a tax cut for families.” Felicia Wong, the president of the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank, also defended Warren’s approach. In an e-mail to me, Wong wrote, “Senator Warren has started with the basics: Everyone needs health care. And everyone agrees that the system isn’t working. So we need a big national conversation about structuring government as a public provider. That’s an upstream fight. And that is the campaign Sen. Warren is running.”
DES MOINES — In warm-up remarks introducing Senator Elizabeth Warren at campaign rallies, young volunteers often say they are supporting her because of her plan to transform the health care system through a single-payer “Medicare for all” program. It happened in Des Moines on Saturday and Oklahoma City last week, and in western Iowa cities like Clarinda and Council Bluffs on Sunday.
But Ms. Warren herself is barely speaking of the proposal. After months of attacks from other candidates, and questions and some blowback from both liberals and moderates, the most ambitious and expensive of Ms. Warren’s many plans — and the one most likely to transform the lives of voters — is just a passing mention in her standard stump speech, rarely explored in depth unless a questioner brings it up.
“I expected her to talk more about the health care for all stuff, definitely,” said Max Goldman, 53, who attended Ms. Warren’s rally in Clarinda. Referring to her campaign, he added, “I think they know it’s controversial.”
Austin Thornton, a 32-year-old Iowan who works in film production, said he noticed Ms. Warren largely outsourced Medicare for all to another speaker. Mr. Thornton said it was a notable difference between her events and those he attended for Senator Bernie Sanders, who is vying with Ms. Warren for liberal voters in Iowa and elsewhere.
“Bernie, he’s strong on Medicare for all, and she didn’t really bring it up,” Mr. Thornton said. “She was a little more scattered on it than I expected.
…
Yet this approach, which includes shorter opening remarks and more time for audience questions, has also allowed Ms. Warren to keep her own health care plan at arm’s length at a time when she has been facing significant scrutiny. It is a clear indication that, in a tight multicandidate race in Iowa, Ms. Warren has not become fully comfortable with staking her candidacy on her plan for health care, even as many Democrats cite the issue as their top priority.”
Which matches pretty much with my memory: The center candidates started pulling Republican Talking points, as the center is wont to do, against Warren and Sanders about the cost implications of Medicare for All (Taxes might have to go up to pay for it, but are ultimately offset by the savings families will face by not having to shell out insurance premiums and service/Rx co-pays any longer). Sanders held the line and Warren, being advised unfortunately by beltway hacks, folded liek a house of cards while trying to walk the knife’s edge.
Moral of the Story: Stop hiring beltway hacks to be your consultants. They are not there to help you, they are there to bleed your campaign coffers dry and move onto the next fool.
Biden showing up to give voice to unions? Using his bully pulpit to effect change on a specific case rather than platitudes? The leadership is absent from the major gains happening across the nation but I do see Bernie.
Why did Dems ever abandon unions anyway? Labor seems like it'd be real useful to you know, have on your side right now
Because the Democratic Leadership Counsel, the pivotal turning point in the center of power of the Democratic Party in the 90s under Clinton, was a project proposed and funded by the Democratic Donors who got tired of losing to Republicans in the 80s, and carried out by themselves and politicians like the Clintons.
And those democratic donors are/were very wealthy (mostly) white men for whom “union” means “I make less money and have to start ceding demands to the help”
Biden showing up to give voice to unions? Using his bully pulpit to effect change on a specific case rather than platitudes? The leadership is absent from the major gains happening across the nation but I do see Bernie.
For Biden the most I see is him praising efforts after the fact, once the battles are won. Not so much actually working towards making things easier for the movement.
To get back on the actual topic a bit more, that shift in her health care plan coincided with her campaign bringing on a bunch of Clintonworld people. Its right around the time she started taking shots at Sanders too.
"What do we want? A phased in two part health care reform" is just peak Democrats. Like when Jim asks Dwight why his fantasy is to be a co-owner of a bed and breakfast.
Sanders is the only politician I've seen on the front line of the Union efforts. Don't really care about 2016 but he continues to be who I thought he was.
From what I understand, Biden is actually pretty good on unions.
Biden showing up to give voice to unions? Using his bully pulpit to effect change on a specific case rather than platitudes? The leadership is absent from the major gains happening across the nation but I do see Bernie.
Biden showing up to give voice to unions? Using his bully pulpit to effect change on a specific case rather than platitudes? The leadership is absent from the major gains happening across the nation but I do see Bernie.
“Unions are about providing dignity and respect … That’s why I created the White House task force to make sure the choice belongs to workers alone,” the president said in a speech to the North America’s Building Trades Unions. Biden then lowered his voice and said: “By the way, Amazon here we come. … Watch. Watch.”
Biden added: “Workers who join a union gain power — the power over decisions that affect their lives. When you’ve got a union, workers’ voices are heard and heeded.”
Biden’s speech to the trades union outlined the administration’s extensive efforts to promote union membership in the U.S., including labor requirements for infrastructure projects and other steps to require federal projects to be awarded to unionized workforces. He also emphasized that the building trades and groups such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers were responsible for his election to the White House, both during the 2020 Democratic primary and as a candidate in the general election.
An Amazon spokesman declined to comment. Amazon previously said it was considering filing objections to the Staten Island vote, citing “inappropriate and undue influence” by the National Labor Relations Board. Biden has appointed leadership to the NLRB widely seen as pro-labor.
Idk, seems like they're actively doing stuff that helps unions.
Why did Dems ever abandon unions anyway? Labor seems like it'd be real useful to you know, have on your side right now
Other way around. A lot of the big unions were really racist and stuff like the Civil Rights Act and Southern Strategy got them voting for Reagan.
I would love to read your sources about this.
Reagan was a big proponent of unions back when he was an actor (hell, he was SAG president for a time), but despite the pretty words he kept saying about unions he was, in no uncertain terms, a union-buster as President.
Biden showing up to give voice to unions? Using his bully pulpit to effect change on a specific case rather than platitudes? The leadership is absent from the major gains happening across the nation but I do see Bernie.
Idk, seems like they're actively doing stuff that helps unions.
Right now it’s talking the talk. The problem, like always, is them not walking the walk.
Democratic politicians have always been happy to take credit for the work of activists who actually get this shit done, see: literally every civil rights battle.
To get back on the actual topic a bit more, that shift in her health care plan coincided with her campaign bringing on a bunch of Clintonworld people. Its right around the time she started taking shots at Sanders too.
"What do we want? A phased in two part health care reform" is just peak Democrats. Like when Jim asks Dwight why his fantasy is to be a co-owner of a bed and breakfast.
Sanders is the only politician I've seen on the front line of the Union efforts. Don't really care about 2016 but he continues to be who I thought he was.
From what I understand, Biden is actually pretty good on unions.
He also emphasized that the building trades and groups such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers were responsible for his election to the White House, both during the 2020 Democratic primary and as a candidate in the general election.
To get back on the actual topic a bit more, that shift in her health care plan coincided with her campaign bringing on a bunch of Clintonworld people. Its right around the time she started taking shots at Sanders too.
"What do we want? A phased in two part health care reform" is just peak Democrats. Like when Jim asks Dwight why his fantasy is to be a co-owner of a bed and breakfast.
Sanders is the only politician I've seen on the front line of the Union efforts. Don't really care about 2016 but he continues to be who I thought he was.
From what I understand, Biden is actually pretty good on unions.
There’s Bill Clinton, during his first campaign, doing some really racist shit, by launching his tough on crime bonafides by standing in front of a crowd of mostly black inmates, just coincidentally at Stone Mountain, the birthplace of the fucking KKK.
The point being: The democrats didn’t lose unions because, well, those unions you see they were just too darn racist.* Because the party has no fucknig problem being really fucking racist when it thinks it’ll score them back white voters.
To “solve” the Reagan-Jackson antinomy, centrist and conservative white Democrats from the South—led by political strategist Al From and including Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, Virginia Governor Chuck Robb, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, and Tennessee Senator Al Gore—established the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in 1985 with the chief aim of “mov[ing] the party—both in substance and perception—back into the mainstream of political life.”
The DLC repudiated Franklin D. Roosevelt’s development of the social welfare state through New Deal initiatives and what it perceived to be Lyndon B. Johnson’s partiality to special interest groups. No longer was the Democratic Party interested in speaking to, and representing, its core constituency since the 1960s: people of color, labor, women, the working poor, and the unemployed. Instead, the DLC couched its campaign rhetoric and policy platforms in the language of “mainstream America” and “the forgotten middle class.” The DLC was determined to make the party more palatable to the white men—especially the Southern white men—the Democratic Party had lost to the GOP after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other political victories won by people of color. If Nixon’s Southern strategy opened the GOP’s door to alienated white voters by dog-whistling an embrace of white supremacy, the DLC’s aspiration to move the party into the mainstream of political life was an attempt to court those same voters.
Though the DLC was established in 1985, it didn’t become a significant force within the Democratic Party until after Jackson’s second-place primary finish in 1988. At a DLC conference in November 1989, Louisiana Senator John Breaux told attendees that the party needed to redirect itself “toward a mainstream agenda” because “working-class white Democrats have been deserting the Democratic primary process in droves.” That same morning, Robb, now a senator, asserted:
Policies forged in the economic crisis of the 1930s and the social and cultural schisms of the 1960s are less and less relevant to the changes and challenges that are facing America domestically and internationally. . . . the national Democratic Party has in some important respects strayed from its historic mission of expanding opportunities for ordinary Americans. Instead, far too many Americans have come to believe that our party is more interested in expanding government for the benefit of special interests.
The Democratic Party had a choice: incorporate progressive “special interest” elements of Jackson’s National Rainbow Coalition platform—such as single-payer universal healthcare, living-wage policies, and alternatives to incarceration—or ingratiate itself to “ordinary Americans”—the white electorate—through scarcely hidden, racially encoded appeals to continued white political dominance. At the urging of the DLC, the Party chose the latter. Although the DLC officially closed its doors in 2011, many of its former members are now part of the Obama administration, and there is ample evidence that the DLC’s white-dominated racial legacy lives on within today’s Democratic Party.
*This is not to say there is not a history of racism within the history of the union movement. This is to say that the idea being brokered, that the Unions were wholly racist and thus abandoned good, not-racist democrats, serves as (even unintentionally) cover to ignore the racism that the Democratic Party has happily embraced in its efforts to rebuild power
Posts
What? Who else are black people gonna vote for?
-DNC consultant
There are proposals to start the primary elsewhere but as far as I know no actual action on it yet
I don’t disagree, but what does it look like to “prep subsequent generations of candidacy for executive office”? What does the capital P Party do to support grass roots new blood?
I guess the Republicans do it well because we have young monsters like Matt Gaetz.
She I've had people in this forum call me a disgusting piece of shit and block me because I like Natalie Wynn
Meanwhile Crowder and Shapiro, who hate each other with an incredible burning fire, ally with each other no problem because they both hate minorities and that's enough for them, and both of them
sec I gotta throw up rq
influence right wing politicians
There’s no bench to choose from because by and large the Democrats bench has been “which Senator is next in seniority?”
Which is part of why Clinton’s faction hated Obama’s guts in 2008; he very clearly made an insurgent challenge below his rank in the pecking order, coming at the candidate who was next in line both from a seniority standpoint and also her role in helping reshape the party in the emergence of the DLC in the early 90s into what it is now
Its cradle to grave. While Dems have some of these programs, thry tend to be smaller where they exist. Republicans have entire pipeline to identify and shepard promising republicans in college, move them into internships, congressional offices etc. Then when they run for office the party makes sure they get air time, it makes sure they get committee seats etc.
I mean this is where my problem with the argument comes from. Yes, I agree it's about perception, but that's literally not verifiable with any data cause there aren't any surveys or anything done on this at the time it was happening. It's all conjecture. Which is fine, but it makes me deeply skeptical when someone comes out and says "this is what happened and it's True" cause it's not a verifiable claim. I'm making strong assumptions in that breakdown, but it's pretty much just as valid as your perception and there isn't really a way to bridge that.
They voted for Biden not because they liked Biden but because Trump was bad and Biden promised to make things better.
There is an issue or two they feel most strongly about, but regardless of what it us they look around and see nothing has changed for them under Biden.
Addressing climate climate change, social justice reform, pandemic response, immigration reform, marijuana legalization, protecting abortion rights, canceling student debt, protecting voting rights, on and on - it doesn't matter the issue, nothing has fundamentally changed.
If Biden, or anyone associated with him, runs, these people are not going to turn out to vote for him. Because for them, what's the point?
And you can try to argue with me about semantics or point to little crumbs given to us of what was promised as a feast, and it isn't going to matter to them at all because the excuses given don't change the end result of no material improvements for their lives.
At the end of the day votes are not owed. They are earned. And Biden and his crew hasn't earned another vote from these people. They simply will not go vote if it's down to Establishment Centrist or Trump yet again.
There's going to have to be someone running who people will believe when they say that they can improve things, if you want them to feel like it's even worth showing up at the polls.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Just a random thought but it strikes that those sorts of things probably slot right in with more general old boys networks. This kind of hierarchical generational power structure is natural for conservatism.
He should stop running and start more actively grooming younger, better candidates to succeed him.
It does, but we shouldnt forget the Democrats, as a wider machine, exist very much as a network of connections too.
Absolutely, get rid of the old ones, find some staffers who can cobble together some charisma to start running
One thing has changed that people noticed, or at least my fam has: the monthly child tax credit payments went poof. That’s not one-to-one Biden’s fault because Congress, but how many voters understand that, I wonder?
Isn't Sanders like, constantly supporting younger leftist politicians in smaller races
To borrow the term from that twitter user I posted:
Think like a regular person, not a Politics Pervert
Grooming eh
Republicans 🤝 Democrats
Democrats shouldn't groom replacements
Basically no difference in the senate- it’s old as fuck
In the House, the average age of the GOP was like 2-3 years younger. Proportionally by age cohort, the parties were statistically the same for 20s/30s/40s. For the 50+ cohorts, the GOP we’re much bigger than Dems in 50s/60s while the Dems were way over represented 70+ (before Don Young died)
Party members and fundraisers gathered for an invitation-only event to figure out how to counteract the rising progressive movement.
July 22, 2018
Bernie's best chance was probably in 2016, in the open primaries he drew indepedents and some cross party appeal with republicans (although it's possible some of these hated Hillary enough to vote in the opposing party's primary) and Trump was still consolidating his base at that point. He certainly would have been more competitive (and presumably campaigned) in the rust belt states.
There was appetite there for a populist message, Obama captured it in 2008 (in addition to his oratorical skills) and this is all on the wake of the market crashing due to Wall St greed, the Great Recession, mass forclosures on homes.
The moderate/third way leadership of the Democratic Party has for the most part had it's way since the election of Bill Clinton in the 90s. Since then, it has
Lost to Bush
Lost to Bush again.
Fought against Obama (and he had support from the anti-Clinton wing of the party)
Immediately dismantled the apparatus that enabled Obama to win the primary.
Proceed to lose over 1000 seats nationally over Obama's 8 years in office.
Lost to Trump. Even if they had won, expectations had been trimmed down to "well we won't win the senate, but at least we'll have congress." Well we won't hold the house, but we'll have the presidency."
Then had the gall to be like "no, actually what we need is to get back to doing the same thing as before."
The day after scraping out a win that was closer than they expected turned around and blamed progressives and BLM activists for the poor showing.
Hell, after 2016 Hillary Clinton grifted supporters one last time by charging them $30 so they could read about basically the same thing.
There is a lack of accountability and general introspection within the leadership of the Democratic Party (and it's donors class.)
Leading back to the above article this is part is worth focusing on:
Where are we at now? Almost record low polling for Biden, gridlock in the senate from his own party, a depressed base (especially amongst youth, one of the largest potential voting groups) looking down the barrel of an all time shellacking in the upcoming midterms.
Biden is telling Obama he is going to run again in 2024 and then you have things like this being said.
She literally never moderated on M4A. I saw her speak in Atlanta in February of 2019 and she was advocating a two-step process that, but the way, still got us to M4A faster than Bernie's plan.
That this became the received wisdom despite being an obvious lie is approximately the most frustrating thing possible.
Policy by political consultant
*Looks at the ctc*
Checks out.
From what I understand, Biden is actually pretty good on unions.
"What do we want? A phased in two part health care reform" is just peak Democrats. Like when Jim asks Dwight why his fantasy is to be a co-owner of a bed and breakfast.
More just not actively bad.
When are you arguing this shift occurred?
Other way around. A lot of the big unions were really racist and stuff like the Civil Rights Act and Southern Strategy got them voting for Reagan.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/elizabeth-warrens-medicare-for-all-dilemma
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/01/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all.html
Which matches pretty much with my memory: The center candidates started pulling Republican Talking points, as the center is wont to do, against Warren and Sanders about the cost implications of Medicare for All (Taxes might have to go up to pay for it, but are ultimately offset by the savings families will face by not having to shell out insurance premiums and service/Rx co-pays any longer). Sanders held the line and Warren, being advised unfortunately by beltway hacks, folded liek a house of cards while trying to walk the knife’s edge.
Moral of the Story: Stop hiring beltway hacks to be your consultants. They are not there to help you, they are there to bleed your campaign coffers dry and move onto the next fool.
Because the Democratic Leadership Counsel, the pivotal turning point in the center of power of the Democratic Party in the 90s under Clinton, was a project proposed and funded by the Democratic Donors who got tired of losing to Republicans in the 80s, and carried out by themselves and politicians like the Clintons.
And those democratic donors are/were very wealthy (mostly) white men for whom “union” means “I make less money and have to start ceding demands to the help”
For Biden the most I see is him praising efforts after the fact, once the battles are won. Not so much actually working towards making things easier for the movement.
Bill Clinton at Stone Mountain[/Captain Dathon voice]
Biden signed a letter that Bernie read at the union strike at Kellogs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2022/04/06/biden-amazon-union-labor/
Idk, seems like they're actively doing stuff that helps unions.
I would love to read your sources about this.
Reagan was a big proponent of unions back when he was an actor (hell, he was SAG president for a time), but despite the pretty words he kept saying about unions he was, in no uncertain terms, a union-buster as President.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Right now it’s talking the talk. The problem, like always, is them not walking the walk.
Democratic politicians have always been happy to take credit for the work of activists who actually get this shit done, see: literally every civil rights battle.
Teamsters endorsing Regan after he broken another union.
https://www.nytimes.com/1984/08/31/us/teamsters-vote-to-endorse-reagan.html
This is deeply funny in context
You are missing the point of my post
There’s Bill Clinton, during his first campaign, doing some really racist shit, by launching his tough on crime bonafides by standing in front of a crowd of mostly black inmates, just coincidentally at Stone Mountain, the birthplace of the fucking KKK.
The point being: The democrats didn’t lose unions because, well, those unions you see they were just too darn racist.* Because the party has no fucknig problem being really fucking racist when it thinks it’ll score them back white voters.
https://bostonreview.net/articles/christopher-petrella-stone-mountain-white-supremacy-modern-democratic-party/
*This is not to say there is not a history of racism within the history of the union movement. This is to say that the idea being brokered, that the Unions were wholly racist and thus abandoned good, not-racist democrats, serves as (even unintentionally) cover to ignore the racism that the Democratic Party has happily embraced in its efforts to rebuild power