US Politics 47 - Biden Time (To Be Litigious)

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Scot, I've been a Democrat for a long time. Who else will I support? The Republicans? Why should I ditch my and not fight to keep it from its continual rightward drift?

Rightward drift? What fucking world are you living in, my friend? 

[alguien]

3 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Dude, what the fuck are you smoking, are you even paying attention to what is going on? You're literally talking about how the left is starting up the circular firing squad, when the establishment and the right wing of the democratic party started attacking and blaming the left for their failures the day after the election, just like we all knew was going to happen if something went wrong. In response, AOC said that the people in the House who lost their races largely ran campaigns that used out of date tactics. Then came the tsunami people attacking her, and Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Talib, and Bernie. What do you expect those of us on the left to do, hang our heads and apologize for existing? Fuck that, and it's people like you who only see the left's part in this who are going to fuck us all over in the end.

Deep breaths, big boy. Deep breaths. First of all, I meant "left" in a general sense, like the whole Democratic party. That was not aimed at you. 

Second, your hissy fit won't mean shit if we don't have the senate and is baffling counterproductive. I'm pretty far left and you're making us look like a bunch of assholes. FTR, I agree that it's way too early to play any blame games, but I also don't see the use in getting angry about it. 

[alguien]

8 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Here's a list of things Biden can do without the senate.

I love this--thank you! I still think not having the Senate could drastically handicap us, but this is great info. 

[ThinkerX]

US is fundamentally center-right, not center-left.  Political types forget that are in dire peril.  Change is possible - worker protection, women getting the right to vote - but it is a long, slow process.    

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Scot, I've been a Democrat for a long time. Who else will I support? The Republicans? Why should I ditch my party and not fight to keep it from its continual rightward drift? I find it kind of offensive how those of us "too far left" are treated as though we just showed up in 2016.

What “rightward drift” are you seeing from Democrats?  Please be specific, what rightward leaning policies are being advocated by Democratic Representatives or Senators?

[Lollygag]

52 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

The fact that the Democrats run from the socialist label is part of the problem. Remember when Dems used to run from the term liberal? Reframing what a word means is part of politics. If Dems, as a united front, say that socialism isn't bad, that it actually offers some solutions to what ails this nation, you can transform the narrative around the term.

Guess, what, I don't care about the own the libs types. They are firmly entrenched in the Republican party and are therefore not a persuadable group of voters. As such, if I'm determining policy positions, I'm not going to care about them. I'm also not going to care about the wealthy because they're going to keep voting for whoever keeps cutting their taxes, or in some case, are going to vote for me because they fall into the liberal side of things. Do not let other people's voters determine how you position yourself.

I don't disagree with the first paragraph (Buttigieg is doing this on Fox News right now), but unwinding decades of brainwashing that goes back to very real and bad events earlier last century won't happen over night and we're clearly not at that place now. Add to that certain groups do not trust the Federal government including rural folks and a substantial percentage of the black community. I don't agree with the effectiveness of this hidden premise in American socialist circles that's way too similar to the evangelicals with their come to Jesus thing.

I favor the position of taking the moderate tone (calming their fearful lizard brain), ditching the socialist label, and then remarketing progressive issues with a better sales pitch than dying on the socialist purity sword and getting nothing. Polls show even conservatives like prog issues if you can get past the label obstacle.

52 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Ok, well lets talk about the role Democrats play in this shit. If Republicans say something is bad, some people, a lot of people, will believe them. If the Republicans and the Democrats say something is bad, you're going to have an even larger portion of people are going to believe it. You have an entire wing of the Democratic party, including many of the leaders of the party, who are actively attacking people within their own coalition, which only gives the Republican's attacks more potency, just like when Democrats use Republican talking points against universal healthcare because you've taken away the partisan divide.

I'm not ok with the center oversimplifying what we know is a very dynamic, complex and not understood political shift and scapegoating others, but they're being told that socialists and defund the police are why they're losing voters and we know this stuff is an issue. It's still gaslighting to say it doesn't matter.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

US is fundamentally center-right, not center-left.  Political types forget that are in dire peril.  Change is possible - worker protection, women getting the right to vote - but it is a long, slow process.    

No it's not. The left just isn't as good at messaging. People actually prefer Democratically policies across the board. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Maybe she did for the cameras, but her presence in the community is nothing compared to Keith's. And I can't tell if she actually does anything positive for the district. She gets attention and that's about it. The Lincoln Project can claim the same and actually point to doing something with it.

What did the Lincoln Project do other than pocket a bunch of money?

You know what she didn't do?  Get hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq cheerleading a war based on lies.  

[The Anti-Targ]

13 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Here's a list of things Biden can do without the senate.

They'd probably have a hard time carrying out all those policies within the first term just because of time. So, perhaps ignore the Senate and the House entirely and just focus on that list. Give Harris the job of energetically beating up on the Senate for being obstructive.

I didn't go through the list, but here's two things I would like to ask for if they are not on there: Grade A equivalence to be finalised; reconfirming our food systems agreement with FDA and explicitly retaining pet food and shellfish and adding infant formula. Thanks heaps.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

US is fundamentally center-right, not center-left.

No.  This is lazy, dumb, outdated, reductionist canard.  You can't just place the American electorate's comprehensive ideological position as a dot on a one or even two dimensional space.  Those "in the middle" or "swing" voters have widely varying attitudes depending on the issue.  It's not that they're holistically anything - personally and between each other - it's that they lean decidedly right on some issues and decidedly left on other issues.  So where they vote is dependent on the conditions and salient issues of the current political environment.  It's also, as this election made clear, a matter of turnout on both sides and how to motivate low-propensity voters - which clearly can be activated on both sides.

The American public is not center-right, center-left, or center-center.  It's at once all of those things and none of them.  I now pronounce median voter theorem dead.  And now your watch has ended, Dr. Downs.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

What did the Lincoln Project do other than pocket a bunch of money?

You know what she didn't do?  Get hundreds of thousands of people killed in Iraq cheerleading a war based on lies.  

Well for starters they were actually visible. Omar didn't do any local ads, didn't help the local party, and on the whole wasn't helpful at all here. Hence why I, like many others who are very active in our local politics, call her a ghost. She's not a very good Congresswoman. 

And that comparison is silly. 

[Rippounet]

26 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

For a lot, yes. But not all. Elections are won and lost by the ability to peel a bit here, a bit there

Yes, but there's no reason to believe that this is best achieved by collectively rejecting what remains a simple label used as a political weapon.

It strikes me as a weird thing, in the aftermath of a victory, to suggest that the most radical elements of a party should renounce some of their convictions. Taking a step back, it would be true of almost any party I can think of. Why would it be assumed that the radical elements didn't play their part in the victory? Why would it be assumed that rejecting them or demanding more restraint from them would actually translate into electoral gains?
Moderation certainly is required to make electoral gains in some places. It does not follow that the party as a whole needs some discipline to moderate its image. You're assuming that it is possible, that it would work, and that it would gain more votes than it would lose. That's a lot of assumptions. And that's not even getting to the point of whether this is actually desirable in terms of policy.
I'd be curious to know what specific kind of gains would the Democrats make with this strategy. Which candidates do you think were recently harmed by the accusation of socialism, that wouldn't be if they didn't have to associate with actual socialists? What kind of demographics are you aiming for?
Say you want to win Florida, or Texas, will the voters you're after be convinced by your attempt to change your image? Will the right-wing media they consume be unable to continue such attacks?

[Lollygag]

48 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

6 hours ago, Lollygag said:

In terms of party, AOC has said that she and Biden shouldn't even be in the same party, Bernie's not even a Dem, he's openly talked about a hostile takeover of the Democrats, and he's not ruled out primarying Biden/Harris in 2024. It's not accurate that AOC, etc are only just representing their district. They are organizing to primary other Democrats around the country. Openly. It makes zero sense to do this stuff and then be upset about people inevitably reacting to that.

 

I would love to see some citations supporting any of this. Sanders talking about "hostile takeovers" or AOC saying Biden isn't a democrat. Unless you mean when she said in another country he wouldn't be considered left--which is absolutely true, and her point was about the Democratic party, not Biden. 

ETA: Seeing all this nonsense about AOC and "too far left!!"--I say progressives vote Green next cycle since they are not needed in the current Democratic party.

It's as though we haven't been members of the party for a long time, but instead, we've materialized out of thin air.

For hostile takeover - it's upthread. AOC and Biden here: Biden is the Democrat, not AOC.

As I was saying upthread, there's a lot less controversy over progressives than socialists and it's not accurate to equate them in this case. Republicans are demonizing socialists, not progressives. They're more likely to see progressives as whiny sissies who will make them drink Starbucks every day (Tucker) be PC, cancel culture everything and make them generally uncomfortable rather than existential evil like socialists.

36 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

Here's a WaPo piece on the 90 years of Republicans calling Dems socialists.  I know Bernie is like 90 years old, but I'm going to say all this predates him. 

For those who would become Trumpists, this is how it's gone for since I can remember: Bush, Voinovich, Kasich and DeWine are traitor RINO's on a good day. On a bad day, DeWine's a socialist. On the worst day, he's a frothing commie who should be impeached/kidnapped/tried/executed. They know DeWine isn't a literal socialist or commie, it's just a way to express anger with the worst insult they can come up with.

Being a literal self-proclaimed socialist is different especially with the history of Bernie. And they know that.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There is no party in the US that represents my, and other centrists, views. I’m supporting Democrats because I have no alternatives.  The Republican Party is full on reactionary proto-fascists, the Liberatians are... crazy.  The Democratic Party is all thats left, and I’m seeing people in that party making sincere arguments for command style economics.  

Don’t push away those who support you for failure to meet some “political” litmus test.

This isn't a political litmus test. People like me are on the verge of being homeless if we lose our jobs, or if we get sick. For you it may be different, but those of us begging for help are not playing some game of "you're not left enough." Income inequality has substantially increased since the 1980s. The rich pay nothing in taxes. And I mean the filthy rich. Look at the Patriotic Millionaires. They go into great detail about how their not being taxed is destroying this country. Not that long ago, this wasn't such a crazy thing for Democrats to point out. 

14 minutes ago, alguien said:

I love this--thank you! I still think not having the Senate could drastically handicap us, but this is great info. 

I want the Senate too--but Biden has the room to get some meaningful things done. And I'm optimistic he will.

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What “rightward drift” are you seeing from Democrats?  Please be specific, what rightward leaning policies are being advocated by Democratic Representatives or Senators?

Scot, I've typed these things up so many times here, I just don't have the energy to do so anymore. It's fairly easy, look at Democratic policies pre-Bill Clinton, and then post-Bill Clinton. Neoliberalism is classic conservatism, and that's why you're finding it quite comfortable in a once left leaning party.

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

They'd probably have a hard time carrying out all those policies within the first term just because of time. So, perhaps ignore the Senate and the House entirely and just focus on that list. Give Harris the job of energetically beating up on the Senate for being obstructive.

I didn't go through the list, but here's two things I would like to ask for if they are not on there: Grade A equivalence to be finalised; reconfirming our food systems agreement with FDA and explicitly retaining pet food and shellfish and adding infant formula. Thanks heaps.

I agree--but they could roll back a lot of Trump's worst moves, and get some things in place for working people. I'm hopeful. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

4 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

For hostile takeover - it's upthread. AOC and Biden here: Biden is the Democrat, not AOC.

As I was saying upthread, there's a lot less controversy over progressives than socialists and it's not accurate to equate them in this case. Republicans are demonizing socialists, not progressives. They're more likely to see progressives as whiny sissies who will make them drink Starbucks every day (Tucker) be PC, cancel culture everything and make them generally uncomfortable rather than existential evil like socialists.

For those who would become Trumpists, this is how it's gone for since I can remember: Bush, Voinovich, Kasich and DeWine are traitor RINO's on a good day. On a bad day, DeWine's a socialist. On the worst day, he's a frothing commie who should be impeached/kidnapped/tried/executed. They know DeWine isn't a literal socialist or commie, it's just a way to express anger with the worst insult they can come up with.

Being a literal self-proclaimed socialist is different especially with the history of Bernie. And they know that.

Your source says nothing about hostile takeovers, or Sanders who you said advocated for that. AOC said what I already mentioned: she and Biden wouldn't be in the same party in another country. AOC is the Democrat as much as Biden. She always has been. I really can't follow your point. 

And we've argued about the "literal" socialist that is Bernie Sanders before--and you ignore about 90 percent of why that's not true.

[ants]

9 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Ocasio-Cortez Strikes Cautious Tone After Biden Win, Speaks Of Divisions Among Dems
The congresswoman warned the Democratic Party to not turn its back on the progressive, grassroots movements that she said helped it win the presidency.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-biden-democratic-party_n_5fa773fbc5b66009569b4349

In fairness though, if the Republicans hold the senate what do the left expect/want?  And I mean that honestly.  My policy preferences are far more in line with AOC than Biden/Harris.  But if the Republicans hold the senate, I can't see how anything leftwards leaning gets passed.  

Hell, I'm not sure if a stimulus package will be passed!  

Edit: I see from further quotes she wants left wingers fairly represented in cabinet etc.  That is absolutely fair.  

[ThinkerX]

34 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No it's not. The left just isn't as good at messaging. People actually prefer Democratically policies across the board. 

still leaves the rift between the democratic moderates and the democratic left to account for - witness the perpetual spats about Sanders splitting the party, leftists costing democrats elections, and what not.

[Myshkin]

Been trolling around Twitter today (now that they’ve let me back on) and I’m starting to see something really funny happening. It goes like this:

• Voter fraud! They stole the election from God-Emperor Trump!

• We cannot trust the electoral process anymore! Voting is a sham!

• Wait, what’s that? There are still two races that could determine control of the Senate? 

• Never mind everything I just said (although the election was definitely stolen) and please please please pretty please donate money to Georgia Republicans, and definitely don’t forget to vote!

And the responses to the pleas are even more heartening, with the typical response ranging from “it doesn’t matter, they’re just gonna steal it anyway” to “why should I throw money away on a rigged election?”

[Martell Spy]

20 minutes ago, ants said:

In fairness though, if the Republicans hold the senate what do the left expect/want?  And I mean that honestly.  My policy preferences are far more in line with AOC than Biden/Harris.  But if the Republicans hold the senate, I can't see how anything leftwards leaning gets passed.  

Hell, I'm not sure if a stimulus package will be passed!  

The reason this argument is happening is the Left and moderates both want to have sway in the transition and cabinet selection.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

still leaves the rift between the democratic moderates and the democratic left to account for - witness the perpetual spats about Sanders splitting the party, leftists costing democrats elections, and what not.

Because people can't just grow the fuck up. The difference between the far left and the center left is pretty small. They just have different strategies and both sides can be unreasonable with one another, although I would blame the left more than the center-left. Furthermore, the center right actually has more in common with the center-left than it does with the far-right. You just have to apply the baby oil very carefully for them to understand that. And the far-right can just go fuck themselves. Point is, democratic policies are actually pretty popular. But you've got to sell something the left and the center-right can both agree to, which is why being a pragmatist is the way to go.