Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by El Guapo »

malchior wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 7:21 am I'd agree that the impact is unknown. Especially for 2022. You definitely have the maxim that the economy always wins in the United States. We also have a Democratic base that by the numbers looks demoralized and defeated. And I can't blame folks for that. The leadership has no plan. I mean look at this exchange below. The leader of Senate's first step of his plan was to lose a vote? Then use that to propel a win in November?
It's depressing, though at the same time I don't know what the better plan looks like. If you can't hypnotize Manchin to support abolishing the filibuster on this, then you can't pass anything through Congress. You can certainly appoint and confirm judges who will be more pro-choice friendly, but they're already doing that.
Black Lives Matter.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 10:37 am
malchior wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 7:21 am I'd agree that the impact is unknown. Especially for 2022. You definitely have the maxim that the economy always wins in the United States. We also have a Democratic base that by the numbers looks demoralized and defeated. And I can't blame folks for that. The leadership has no plan. I mean look at this exchange below. The leader of Senate's first step of his plan was to lose a vote? Then use that to propel a win in November?
It's depressing, though at the same time I don't know what the better plan looks like. If you can't hypnotize Manchin to support abolishing the filibuster on this, then you can't pass anything through Congress. You can certainly appoint and confirm judges who will be more pro-choice friendly, but they're already doing that.
Right but they started that project far too late. Far, far too late. There is likely no way out because they've been ignoring the big game for decades. Now the jaws are closing in. I blame the Republicans first no doubt but I have a deep well of scorn for the Democrats who ignored all the warning signs. And yet, I don't see any of the leadership taking on new ideas, stepping aside, being held accountable, nothing. There are no consequences for failure apparently. It is why I admire many other systems. They at least have some no confidence mechanism and/or seats that aren't so safe that they become havens for bad leadership.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Unagi »

If the supreme court makes this ruling... What, realistically, would even be the most optimistic 'timeline' for another supreme court to re-make a new Roe v Wade-like ruling? Or would that be absurd, and instead there would need to be some congressional way out of this? I just don't even understand what the plan or steps would be. (imagine for this question, that we even had people that would/could do it...)
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by malchior »

Unagi wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 11:16 am If the supreme court makes this ruling... What, realistically, would even be the most optimistic 'timeline' for another supreme court to re-make a new Roe v Wade-like ruling?
Impossible to predict. Let's say one of the 5 keels over and the Democrats are able to seat someone. Even in that unlikely case then a case has to make it to them. That's tough considering the best test cases have hard right appeals circuits now. And then SCOTUS would have to be willing to essentially rule against itself in a short-time span. We have no model for this that doesn't cover multi-decades. That's why decades IMO is probably the best guess.
Or would that be absurd, and instead there would need to be some congressional way out of this? I just don't even understand what the plan or steps would be. (imagine for this question, that we even had people that would/could do it...)
If the Democrats had maybe 1-2 more Senate seats they might be able to carve out a filibuster rule change for this and pass something. But the second they lose Senate it'll probably be rolled back. The problem here is that the United States is a failed Democracy at this point. That is why I caution people to stop focusing on all this tactical stuff.

The Democrats have lost the war. They didn't even put up a credible fight. You need to reset and go back to strategy. That is why I want the leadership nuked from orbit. They failed us. They failed everyone. And they haven't a clue what to do. It's time for new ideas because we have a long road ahead. Women nationwide were failed by the leadership class and I don't know how that is going to shake out.
User avatar
gbasden
Posts: 7664
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by gbasden »

malchior wrote: Thu May 12, 2022 11:37 am That is why I want the leadership nuked from orbit. They failed us. They failed everyone. And they haven't a clue what to do. It's time for new ideas because we have a long road ahead. Women nationwide were failed by the leadership class and I don't know how that is going to shake out.
The leadership of the Democratic party is a clown show, and has been for some time. I want to see them all go. We need leaders that are willing to develop a long term strategy and fight for it, rather than just continually wringing their hands.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8486
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Alefroth »

The two party system works great for Republicans. For Democrats, not so much.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Holman »

Democrats' leadership is still suffering from the trauma of the Reagan Revolution.

They're scared to own and extend the triumphs of the New Deal and the Great Society because someone might call them "liberal," which they've agreed is a bad word.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Daehawk
Posts: 63524
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:11 am

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Daehawk »

--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by malchior »

It's not a surprise. Joe Manchin's interest in that ad was Joe Manchin rather than the actual candidate. He always is seeking the approval of elite centrists as a serious bipartisan guy. In the end it didn't matter and I wouldn't doubt Manchin knew it didn't matter. The MAGA candidate beat Manchin's "buddy" easily.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Blackhawk »

Manchin wants people to think he's centrist? That's hilarious.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Unagi »

Blackhawk wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:24 am Manchin wants people to think he's centrist? That's hilarious.
I mean, he kinda is... He's a Republican that was willing to give Democrats procedural control of the Senate.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43487
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Blackhawk »

Unagi wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:49 am
Blackhawk wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:24 am Manchin wants people to think he's centrist? That's hilarious.
I mean, he kinda is... He's a Republican that was willing to give Democrats procedural control of the Senate.
:-| :eusa-think: :-? :obscene-drinkingfaded:
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41243
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by El Guapo »

Blackhawk wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:56 am
Unagi wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:49 am
Blackhawk wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:24 am Manchin wants people to think he's centrist? That's hilarious.
I mean, he kinda is... He's a Republican that was willing to give Democrats procedural control of the Senate.
:-| :eusa-think: :-? :obscene-drinkingfaded:
Yeah, I mean for West Virginia he's practically Bernie Sanders. West Virginians reelected him in 2018 by a 49 - 46% margin of victory, while voting for Trump by a 68% - 29% margin in 2020 and by a 68% - 26% margin in 2016.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 8608
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Little Raven »

This could easily go in the Republican thread, but this thread is like 1/10 the size and needs the love more.

In the last couple of years, Democrats and Republicans have switched places on corporations.
I’m so disoriented that I don’t know if left and right have switched positions, or if no one really has a position anymore.

I was 29 when Mitt Romney proclaimed, during the primary in the 2012 presidential campaign, that “corporations are people, my friend.” So: old enough to know exactly how this sort of statement would play with a press corps enamored of the Republican front-runner’s Democratic opponent. As NPR noted, this statement was a “gift to political foes.” An easily condensed, easily dunked-upon sound bite, Romney’s gaffe revealed him to be a tool of the corporate class he had enriched as a vulture capitalist at Bain. Corporations aren’t people, which is why corporate speech needs to be regulated, which is why Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United are so grotesque. This, anyway, was the Democratic view.

And this set of assumptions was why progressive activists and politicians felt so comfortable—nay, righteous—during that same campaign season going after Chick-fil-A, the fast-food purveyor that rubbed the morality of its owners in the face of nonbelievers by donating to causes deemed anti-LGBTQ. Conservatives were outraged when Chicago pols, New York pols, and the San Antonio, Texas, airport went to war against Chick-fil-A. The government has no right to tell a business or its officers how to spend their money; government neutrality in all matters speech is a fundamental First Amendment principle. This, anyway, was the Republican view.

Now it’s Democrats who—feeling a bit adrift, having lost control of the courts and seemingly unable to pass meaningful federal legislation—take solace in the idea that corporations are people, nothing more than the avatars of their employees and customers. That’s why Disney personnel were outraged when CEO Bob Chapek argued that the company shouldn’t weigh in on Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Bill, which proponents say is necessary to protect children from age-inappropriate sex education and opponents decry as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill that would force teachers back in the closet. In hindsight, Chapek was right that the Mouse House would be used as a cudgel in the culture war to the detriment of both the cause and the corporation. But that didn’t matter to Disney’s rank and file. What mattered was the company taking a stand and doing the right thing.

Meanwhile it’s Republicans—many of whom slammed efforts to silence Chick-fil-A—who were excited to see Florida Governor Ron DeSantis using the levers of government to stifle Disney’s criticism of the legislation. The right wing’s sense of cultural impotence and its frustration with the success of accountability-free “woke capital” to change the country’s cultural direction prompted a reactionary move. The party of “corporations are people” is furious that the people who make up those corporations would push their employer to act in their perceived interests.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Isgrimnur »

Tell me what the rules are, and I'll tell you how I'll play the game.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70097
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by LordMortis »

Little Raven wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 12:55 pm This could easily go in the Republican thread, but this thread is like 1/10 the size and needs the love more.

In the last couple of years, Democrats and Republicans have switched places on corporations.
I’m so disoriented that I don’t know if left and right have switched positions, or if no one really has a position anymore.

I was 29 when Mitt Romney proclaimed, during the primary in the 2012 presidential campaign, that “corporations are people, my friend.” So: old enough to know exactly how this sort of statement would play with a press corps enamored of the Republican front-runner’s Democratic opponent. As NPR noted, this statement was a “gift to political foes.” An easily condensed, easily dunked-upon sound bite, Romney’s gaffe revealed him to be a tool of the corporate class he had enriched as a vulture capitalist at Bain. Corporations aren’t people, which is why corporate speech needs to be regulated, which is why Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United are so grotesque. This, anyway, was the Democratic view.

And this set of assumptions was why progressive activists and politicians felt so comfortable—nay, righteous—during that same campaign season going after Chick-fil-A, the fast-food purveyor that rubbed the morality of its owners in the face of nonbelievers by donating to causes deemed anti-LGBTQ. Conservatives were outraged when Chicago pols, New York pols, and the San Antonio, Texas, airport went to war against Chick-fil-A. The government has no right to tell a business or its officers how to spend their money; government neutrality in all matters speech is a fundamental First Amendment principle. This, anyway, was the Republican view.

Now it’s Democrats who—feeling a bit adrift, having lost control of the courts and seemingly unable to pass meaningful federal legislation—take solace in the idea that corporations are people, nothing more than the avatars of their employees and customers. That’s why Disney personnel were outraged when CEO Bob Chapek argued that the company shouldn’t weigh in on Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Bill, which proponents say is necessary to protect children from age-inappropriate sex education and opponents decry as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill that would force teachers back in the closet. In hindsight, Chapek was right that the Mouse House would be used as a cudgel in the culture war to the detriment of both the cause and the corporation. But that didn’t matter to Disney’s rank and file. What mattered was the company taking a stand and doing the right thing.

Meanwhile it’s Republicans—many of whom slammed efforts to silence Chick-fil-A—who were excited to see Florida Governor Ron DeSantis using the levers of government to stifle Disney’s criticism of the legislation. The right wing’s sense of cultural impotence and its frustration with the success of accountability-free “woke capital” to change the country’s cultural direction prompted a reactionary move. The party of “corporations are people” is furious that the people who make up those corporations would push their employer to act in their perceived interests.
From everything I see and read, "the right" believe that corporations are being held hostage by political activist investors on wallstreet and are free to be the people they want to be. This comes from political activist investors who claim not to be political activist investors as well as the senators and house reps they sleep with. They are vowing to end ESG through legislation and capital management groups because people don't want ESG according to them. Vanguard and Blackrock are leftist tools that are holding both their investors and the corporations they invest in hostage.

But oh yeah, the government that governs best is the government that governs least is dead and only exists as a rallying cry.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28906
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Holman »

LordMortis wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 6:04 pm But oh yeah, the government that governs best is the government that governs least is dead and only exists as a rallying cry.
It's also an obsolete idea.

In the absence of government regulation, we're governed by the corporations and economic institutions that determine the conditions of our lives and opportunities far more than any public legislative body ever did.

The small-government dream doesn't mean freedom from government; it means government by private corporations.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Isgrimnur »

I, for one, welcome our new AT&T overlords.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 16433
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Zarathud »

If money is speech, liberal investors are going to demand corporations use their money to speak according to liberal values.

There is interesting and growing investment research that companies that don’t follow liberal policies are more likely to face scandals and perform poorly because of the short-sightedness. Partly because liberals are a more profitable part in the economy.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by malchior »

Isgrimnur wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 12:58 pm Tell me what the rules are, and I'll tell you how I'll play the game.
Exactly. I'll also expand that this piece is a bit of a rant-y mess. It is what comes out where the author hasn't quite got a grasp of the schism we face. We are locked in a fundamental battle between liberal and illiberal forces. He unfortunately commits crimes against reality and tries to frame this struggle entirely within the confines of what was the liberal framework prior to pre-Citizen's United. He sort of acknowledges reality by saying the Democrats are reacting to the loss of courts and inability to pass legislation but never quite gets to the core of the problem. To wit, that one political party in a mathematically locked 2 party system has gone entirely off the rails and the entire system is reeling/unraveling.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Grifman »

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Kurth »

I thought this piece in the NYT was worth a read (disclaimer: author is a friend):
The Vanishing Moderate Democrat Their positions are popular. So why are they going extinct?
I think he nails a number of the problems with the Democratic Party, but it’s depressing that there’s not much in the way offered for solutions.

I’m not sure I agree that “Don’t Do Dumb Stuff” cannot stand as party platform these days.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by malchior »

User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 8608
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Little Raven »

The Great Realignment continues.
Shifts in the demographics of the two parties' supporters — taking place before our eyes — are arguably the biggest political story of our time.

The big picture: Republicans are becoming more working class and a little more multiracial. Democrats are becoming more elite and a little more white.

Why it matters: Democrats' hopes for retaining power rest on nonwhite voters remaining a reliable part of the party's coalition. Democrats' theory of the case collapses if Republicans make even incremental gains with those voters.

...

What's happening: Democratic strategists say the party's biggest vulnerability is assuming that the priorities of progressive activists are the same as those of working-class voters.
  • Progressive activists led the push to cut police budgets. Communities of color have borne the brunt of higher crime.
  • Hispanics living on the U.S.-Mexico border are more likely to favor tougher border security measures that Republicans have championed.
  • The recall of liberal school board members and a district attorney in San Francisco was fueled by disillusioned Asian-American Democrats.
Reality check: Suburban districts still make up the majority of congressional battlegrounds, and the GOP’s Trumpified brand remains a threat to limit their gains.
  • Republican candidates holding extreme views on abortion or echoing Trump’s election lies are still toxic in the suburbs.
  • Since the Supreme Court’s abortion ruling, Democrats have made small gains in national polls.
The bottom line: The GOP is trading soccer moms for Walmart dads.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by malchior »

The data supports this hypothesis. The problem is that almost none of it is actually happening. There has been no widespread defunding of police. The Democrats haven't embraced it in any volume. Crime is simply higher *everywhere*. In any case, this is like CRT. A made up issue with dubious causation/effect. The Democrats have to figure out a way to communicate against these bullshit storylines.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Smoove_B »

Republicans: "Democrats are defunding the police! Chaos in the streets!"
Democrats: Please do enjoy $3+ billion for law enforcement, plus another $450 million for things like police cars.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by malchior »

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 11:35 pm Republicans: "Democrats are defunding the police! Chaos in the streets!"
Democrats: Please do enjoy $3+ billion for law enforcement, plus another $450 million for things like police cars.
Sort of like how the Border Patrol busts a drug run and that's somehow evidence that Biden is allowing drugs to flow into the country. Or how we are seeing the highest number of border arrests in history but he has opened the borders. We live in a time of great disinformation. And the populace is just too stupid or too checked out to care.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Unagi »

United States of Apathy

Enlarge Image

If a viewer can find their county in there, and it's colored Black - just getting people to simply vote could turn it blue. Arizona, yeesh. Tennessee looks ripe too. Of course, people also don't vote if they are fine with how things are in their state, so... I'm sure it's not nearly as 'open' as I'd like to think.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8486
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Alefroth »

AK, GA, SC, WV!, maybe OK?
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 29816
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by stessier »

That map just means more people didn't vote than did for a particular party. I question that you could find enough blue votes in the non-voters in SC to flip it - it was 55 - 43 in 2020.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Unagi »

stessier wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 3:51 pm That map just means more people didn't vote than did for a particular party. I question that you could find enough blue votes in the non-voters in SC to flip it - it was 55 - 43 in 2020.
Yeah, there are going to be plenty of people that don't get up to adjust the pool temperature because they find the water just fine.
:(

But it's also unclear how many of these people are under the illusion that they would never be allowed to change the temperature.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by malchior »

Unagi wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 8:21 amBut it's also unclear how many of these people are under the illusion that they would never be allowed to change the temperature.
Is it an illusion? No matter who we vote for we get the oligarchs calling all the shots. I get why people are apathetic. Our leaders are terrible. For President our choice in 2020 was between an insane, idiotic autocrat with ridiculous judgement or a weak-kneed wimp with incredibly poor judgement. Waiting in the wings now? The GOP is loaded up with autocrats who are christofascist friendly or actual believers. And the other party has essentially no bench at all. There aren't really any electable non-shitty leaders in the wings. Cool. It doesn't mean one couldn't appear but one of the best of his generation ended up being mostly stymied by the system. We have every right to be fed up with the system that consistently produces these terrible outcomes. This is why sometimes I sympathize with the Drazzil's of the world. They have a right to be angry. We all do.
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19317
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Jaymann »

Though they are often criticized for doing nothing, the House Democrats just passed the Women's Health Protection Act. This was necessary and important.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by malchior »

Jaymann wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 10:09 am Though they are often criticized for doing nothing, the House Democrats just passed the Women's Health Protection Act. This was necessary and important.
I disagree. I mean passing this bill is all fine and well. It's not entirely pointless. They could try to run on it. I however unfortunately think it won't move many folks in light of everything happening. The real problem is they already lost the war. They need to do a whole lot more to begin to build credibility that they are getting into the fight.
Last edited by malchior on Sat Jul 16, 2022 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Unagi »

We absolutely should all be furious.
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Pyperkub »

Alefroth wrote:AK, GA, SC, WV!, maybe OK?
No way in hell for OK. I still remember 2012, when we were visiting relatives there and Obama won.

The newspaper headline was Republicans win the House. Lower on the page, Obama wins.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Grifman »

Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Kurth »

And our genius democrats continues to lead with this: Democrats aid a far-right House candidate in Michigan against a Republican who voted for impeachment.

Such idiocy. You've got a Republican who isn't an anti-democratic, election-denying, MAGA soldier -- someone from the other side who actually voted to impeach Trump -- and our Democratic leadership (thanks, Sen. Patrick Maloney - guy is a total asshat) decides we'll jump into the race and boost the right-wing guy trying to unseat the moderate Republican. Idiocy.
By law, elected Democrats must stay at arm’s length from the super PAC, known as the House Majority PAC, that was responsible for the ad in Mr. Valadao’s race. But with the Gibbs ad, the campaign committee responsible for it is run by a member of Democratic leadership, Representative Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, and the group is far more integrated into official actions.

The Democratic campaign committee refused to comment on the advertisement. But the intent was clear. Mr. Meijer’s redrawn district has shifted from one that narrowly voted for Mr. Trump in 2020 to one that President Biden would have carried by nine percentage points.

The tone of the current ad is bright, but if Mr. Gibbs were to win the primary, the next effort from Democrats is likely to be considerably darker. Mr. Gibbs, who was an aide to former Housing Secretary Ben Carson, could not win confirmation in 2020 to direct Mr. Trump’s Office of Personnel Management over comments he made accusing Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, of taking part in a “Satanic ritual,” and calling Democrats the party of “‘Islam, gender-bending, anti-police, ‘u racist!’”

More recently, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Meijer clashed over the legitimacy of Mr. Biden’s 2020 victory, which Mr. Gibbs baselessly called “simply mathematically impossible.”

In Pennsylvania, the state’s Democratic Party singled out State Senator Doug Mastriano during his successful quest for the Republican nomination for governor, despite his propagation of false claims about the 2020 election and his presence in Washington during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. Polling last month showed that Mr. Mastriano’s race against Attorney General Josh Shapiro, the Democratic nominee, appeared to be a dead heat.

Democrats believe that Michigan’s Third District, with its new boundaries, is one of the few in the country that they can take from a Republican, and they are willing to risk electing a Trump-backed election denier with a history of inflammatory remarks to make it easier on their favored candidate, Hillary Scholten.

After Mr. Meijer’s impeachment vote, Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House majority leader, praised Mr. Meijer for what he called “a very impressive display of courage and integrity.”

“Guess that doesn’t count for much when a marginally increased chance of flipping a House seat is on the table,” Mr. Meijer quipped in a text message on Monday.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by malchior »

I wrote a long takedown of that Bulwark piece and the board ate it. I'll re-summarize it because IMO the piece is written for a diehard centrist or never Trumper echo chamber. I'll caveat that I agree that running far left candidates in rural swing districts feels dubious. I also don't disagree that Democrats need to figure out how to communicate with rural swing voters. However, I argue the picture painted is highly misleading. They make a very pointed argument that there is some movement to run progressives there that is hurting the Democrats. The problem? It doesn't exist in any meaningful form. The piece is mostly misinformation.

To dig in there, let's start with this passage:
Research demonstrates that moderates do better and are more popular than extreme and ideological candidates. The record of the past few years drives that point home: Justice Democrats and Our Revolution, organizations that have been stalwarts of the progressive left’s post-2016 insurgency, have supported more than 100 candidates since 2018 but have yet to flip a single swing district.
This passage is supported with a link to a substack with a very curious headline which is why I started questioning the article.
The only Justice Democrats-backed candidate to run in a swing district was the most critical under-performer of 2020.
Wait. Record scratch moment. The beginning of the paragraph talks about 100 candidates but if I follow their citation it talks about a *single* candidate who lost in a swing district in 2020. And that substack citation is in itself arguing something pretty thin. They claim that candidate was the most critical under-performer of 2020? That person lost ... checks Ballotpedia - 50.8 - 46.2. Hardly a beatdown. This...is starting to feel misleading.

Ok, they said about 100 candidates since 2018. Let's dig in more then. Let's look at 2018. The Democrats had targeted lots of swing districts in 2018 to take the House back. The progressives mostly embodied by Cenk Uygur's Justice Democrats recruited 12 candidates (AOC was the only one who won) and backed 66 other candidates. Ok now we're talking. Lots of candidates. Surely all of these were in swing districts and support the claim?! We'll focus on the 66 because the 11 out 12 recruited candidates lost primaries in non-swing districts to moderates.

Here's the breakdown on the 66 Justice Democrats backed candidates:
-44 progressives lose the primary to a moderate
-7 progressives win against moderates and win their general against a R. All in safe D enclaves. (note: this included most of "The Squad")
-16 progressives lose their general in 15 GOP strongholds (*with a fun note afterwards)
-1 is the same NE-2 district they went on to lose again in 2020 with the same candidate.
The progressive lost that election 51%-49%. Again hardly a thumping.

* The exception here was California-50 which was Duncan Hunter's district. He was under indictment and won. He went on to be convicted! The progressive lost by ~3%. The progressive only made it onto the ballot because of a jungle primary. Not very representative of anything except another datapoint that deplorable GOP voters will even elect someone facing charges.

Anyway, so the entire case that they can't win swing districts is premised on a single progressive losing in the same swing district in 2018 and 2020. That's quite the funnel down from that 100 candidates talks. Oh wait what about Bernie Sander's 'Our Revolution'. Maybe that'll change things? Nope. They endorsed less candidates than the Justice Democrats and its mostly overlapped.

An accurate and truthful account is that moderates won the vast majority primaries in those swing districts and progressives only make the field where a moderate doesn't care to waste their time losing in a safe GOP seat. Progressives also were able to win in safe D enclaves.

Anyway, I'm going to say this piece is hacky and misleading. This is exactly the type of misinformation meant to cast progressives as wacky libs by never Trumpers and centrists and tell you it is backed by science or something. It's horse shit of the highest order. Worse the author complains that the progressives are running around making fact free arguments when they are themselves making fact free arguments. If I was feeling generous to them I could have shrugged at an argument that the progressives diluted support. It's a different bullshit argument but they could try to make it. This however is just a centrist fairy tale.
User avatar
Grifman
Posts: 21196
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:17 pm

Re: Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

Post by Grifman »

He speaks the truth:



Dems suck at the culture war.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Post Reply