The State of the Democratic Party II

[Corrian]

Which is fun considering like 34 Republicans signed something saying they wanted a deal on DACA in the house.

But in the end all 34 will fall in line with "Yes Daddy."

Actually, it is more like if the leadership won't do it, it doesn't matter.

[Crockerland]

Everybody on both sides of the aisle needs to calm down. The more I see of the post-9-11 mess, with all the anti-terrorist paranoia and screechy polarized politics, the more I think Kennedy was onto something when he said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. The US has the resources to be powerful and successful and provide for its people, but only if we're willing to calm the fuck down and actually do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_ina ... al_address

that wasn't kennedy, that was one of the actually good presidents

Signing equal pay into law and fighting for equality < imprisoning people based on their race and forcing Jews to stay in nazi Germany to be imprisoned in concentration camps

[Senkaku]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_ina ... al_address

that wasn't kennedy, that was one of the actually good presidents

Signing equal pay into law and fighting for equality < imprisoning people based on their race and forcing Jews to stay in nazi Germany to be imprisoned in concentration camps

Yes, we all know how equal pay has worked out. And given that he got his head blown off before he could, you know, actually follow through on his "evolved" positions on civil rights (but after he colossally botched an invasion of Cuba, got pushed around by Khrushchev at Vienna, kicked up our involvement in Vietnam, and nearly started a global thermonuclear war), I wouldn't say he's real fuckin' stellar there either.

As for FDR, yeah, those were pretty shitty things to do, I don't recall saying internment or neglect of refugees were bright ideas. Either way, we're straying from the topic a wee bit at this point.

But in the end all 34 will fall in line with "Yes Daddy."

Actually, it is more like if the leadership won't do it, it doesn't matter.

And the 34 are unwilling to actually bother trying to threaten the leadership, so yeah.

[USS Monitor]

The Cold War ending and racism and sexism being in decline was heading in the right direction.

9/11 didn't change any of that- it just started to put some very big cracks in the euphoric post-'91 triumphalist hallucinations of a truly better world. Certainly it didn't change whatever imaginary decline in racism and sexism people may have thought was occurring- that lies squarely with movements that took form well before 9/11.

It was a watershed moment and real memorable, and did result in major geopolitical changes and major changes to national security policy. That doesn't mean it actually had an effect on everything. Fobbing the blame off on 9/11 for political problems that Americans can only blame themselves for is ridiculous. If it hadn't been 9/11 it would've been some other major event.

Did I say Americans shouldn't blame themselves? No. I have no clue where you got that from.

But the reaction to 9/11 dramatically changed the national mood, and that's when a lot of the pissy paranoid attitudes that are causing problems started. If you think national security policy and big international issues are the only thing that changed, that's just deluded. I suspect what is really going on is that you're too young to have any real memory of what it's like to live in a country that isn't in the midst of a collective nervous breakdown.

There was also a shift in the style of debate about race and gender around the same time, though that came in more gradually than the paranoia, and the timing may be a coincidence. Issues that used to be discussed in terms of "rights" have been replaced with discussions in terms of "privilege," and race relations have taken a turn for the worse. It's not just that the easy issues got solved and progress has slowed down because the remaining issues are more complicated. We've actually gone backwards.

[Ngelmish]

The problem is that CHIP was in the spending bill from the start, and the other factors were all also the same.

Again, they should never have staged the fight in the first place if they were going to go this route, because now the result of those 'Shrewd tactics' boils down to "We took a stand and got...exactly what Republicans offered to give us before we took our stand!", While also appearing to abandon all those affected by DACA and giving Republicans an extremely solid platform to claim that they rolled us like chumps.

Truly an inspiring message for the upcoming elections.

I am far from one of the anti-establishment types, doesn't mean I can't view this as a major fuckup on Schumers part.

^fucking rt^

Schumer and the Dems aren't fucking playing five-dimensional chess here or some shit, they've just fucked up. Another "stand" on DACA or some other issue and they might as well ask KJU to give the party's prospects his famous anti-air gun treatment.

They ended up controlling the Republicans and the government, why roll your eyes at their accomplishments?

Yes, and now the country is reaping the whirlwind. Let's not do a decade-long left-wing backlash to the right-wing backlash to Obama, please. It won't turn out better.

No, it's not five-dimensional chess, the leverage that a minority party in congress who is out of power in the executive branch as well holds is close to nil. The Republicans thought they could goad Democrats into making policy concessions by dangling CHIP in front of them. The Republicans reauthorized CHIP for no substantial policy gain, Democrats still have DACA as a campaign issue (and keeping it standalone actually is better for them, because they aren't the ones divided on immigration anymore) and the status remains pretty quo... except that one important program has been refunded and the GOP doesn't hold other easy hostages right now.

As for the shutdown itself, should it have happened? No, I didn't think so and I didn't approve. But if it hadn't, the same screams about "spineless" Democrats would be taking place. The funny thing is, political theater is still less important than policy outcomes each time.

[Saiwania]

So we all know that the Democratic party is being run by stupid people who don't know how to win (most of us anyways). Apparently, the party will not support any candidates who fail to raise at least $250,000 via big donors. Their litmus test isn't anything related to policy at all, but who can raise the most money via their phone contacts.

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/23/dcc ... gressives/

[Ngelmish]

So we all know that the Democratic party is being run by stupid people who don't know how to win (most of us anyways). Apparently, the party will not support any candidates who fail to raise at least $250,000 via big donors. Their litmus test isn't anything related to policy at all, but who can raise the most money via their phone contacts.

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/23/dcc ... gressives/

Oh my. Do those refer to me?

Although I'm pretty sure that this is mostly a result of the official party apparatus still being pretty cash strapped (and I am more than happy to blame Obama for that), absolutely I agree that that is an asinine misuse of organization.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

9/11 didn't change any of that- it just started to put some very big cracks in the euphoric post-'91 triumphalist hallucinations of a truly better world. Certainly it didn't change whatever imaginary decline in racism and sexism people may have thought was occurring- that lies squarely with movements that took form well before 9/11.

It was a watershed moment and real memorable, and did result in major geopolitical changes and major changes to national security policy. That doesn't mean it actually had an effect on everything. Fobbing the blame off on 9/11 for political problems that Americans can only blame themselves for is ridiculous. If it hadn't been 9/11 it would've been some other major event.

Did I say Americans shouldn't blame themselves? No. I have no clue where you got that from.

But the reaction to 9/11 dramatically changed the national mood, and that's when a lot of the pissy paranoid attitudes that are causing problems started. If you think national security policy and big international issues are the only thing that changed, that's just deluded. I suspect what is really going on is that you're too young to have any real memory of what it's like to live in a country that isn't in the midst of a collective nervous breakdown.

There was also a shift in the style of debate about race and gender around the same time, though that came in more gradually than the paranoia, and the timing may be a coincidence. Issues that used to be discussed in terms of "rights" have been replaced with discussions in terms of "privilege," and race relations have taken a turn for the worse. It's not just that the easy issues got solved and progress has slowed down because the remaining issues are more complicated. We've actually gone backwards.

Interesting, how exactly have we gone backwards on race since the 90s or 00s? My understanding is that race relations is no longer seen in terms of white vs black due to heavy immigration from Asia and Latin America. I can understand how this has happened with gender issues, but with race the picture isn't as clear.

[Senkaku]

So we all know that the Democratic party is being run by stupid people who don't know how to win (most of us anyways). Apparently, the party will not support any candidates who fail to raise at least $250,000 via big donors. Their litmus test isn't anything related to policy at all, but who can raise the most money via their phone contacts.

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/23/dcc ... gressives/

...I mean, I don't believe this somehow rules out having a policy litmus test? It's not like they'll support Republicans or, like, random drug dealers who just walk in with 250 grand in a suitcase just because that's somehow the only criterion. Don't be ridiculous.

[Tyrassueb]

Jeb Bush afraid that if Republicans can't keep all the focus this year on tax cuts and a growing economy then it could well be a blue wave this November.

Guess a broken clock is right twice a day...

[Collatis]

Rising stars collide in shadow 2020 primary

[Tyrassueb]

Rising stars collide in shadow 2020 primary

If there are a fuck ton of candidates, safe money is, actually, on the progressive side since there is much less likely chance there would be many progressives if even one really enters but if 10 centrist/moderate/corporatist/establishment candidates hop in then that could very well split the vote (barring something like the DNC going around and smacking heads to knock most of them out). And with California now being so far up the listing, it most likely will come down to who wins it there. That means either a progressive with a lot of national attention or a local candidate.

[Corrian]

Rising stars collide in shadow 2020 primary

If there are a fuck ton of candidates, safe money is, actually, on the progressive side since there is much less likely chance there would be many progressives if even one really enters but if 10 centrist/moderate/corporatist/establishment candidates hop in then that could very well split the vote (barring something like the DNC going around and smacking heads to knock most of them out). And with California now being so far up the listing, it most likely will come down to who wins it there. That means either a progressive with a lot of national attention or a local candidate.

I actually thought that if Biden had run in 2016, it would either:
1. Biden wins
2. It splits the vote 3 ways and Sanders wins the nomination.

So if you have 6 non-progressives and say one progressive, I think there is a chance the progressive gets the nomination.

[Ngelmish]

Rising stars collide in shadow 2020 primary

If there are a fuck ton of candidates, safe money is, actually, on the progressive side since there is much less likely chance there would be many progressives if even one really enters but if 10 centrist/moderate/corporatist/establishment candidates hop in then that could very well split the vote (barring something like the DNC going around and smacking heads to knock most of them out). And with California now being so far up the listing, it most likely will come down to who wins it there. That means either a progressive with a lot of national attention or a local candidate.

Are you still operating from the definition of "progressive" that, among potential candidates who are being talked about right now, includes only Sanders and Warren? Because if so, I think you're going to be disappointed. But if there are others (I haven't forgotten about Brown) who you would deem both progressive and seriously likely to run, please share.

As to California, it depends on who gets momentum out of the first couple of contests. California might not be decisive if the early votes coalesce around someone who can't count on being well known there

[Tyrassueb]

If there are a fuck ton of candidates, safe money is, actually, on the progressive side since there is much less likely chance there would be many progressives if even one really enters but if 10 centrist/moderate/corporatist/establishment candidates hop in then that could very well split the vote (barring something like the DNC going around and smacking heads to knock most of them out). And with California now being so far up the listing, it most likely will come down to who wins it there. That means either a progressive with a lot of national attention or a local candidate.

Are you still operating from the definition of "progressive" that, among potential candidates who are being talked about right now, includes only Sanders and Warren? Because if so, I think you're going to be disappointed. But if there are others (I haven't forgotten about Brown) who you would deem both progressive and seriously likely to run, please share.

As to California, it depends on who gets momentum out of the first couple of contests. California might not be decisive if the early votes coalesce around someone who can't count on being well known there

Of the names being bandied about, Sanders, Warren, Brown, Hirono, Merkley and Nina Turner are the ones I've heard the most about recently (and a few of those not nearly enough) that I think are liable to run and still be strongly supported by the, yes, Sander's wing of the party and if any of them decided to run then I think the others may well bow out. Really depends, but that's my take anyway.

[Ngelmish]

Are you still operating from the definition of "progressive" that, among potential candidates who are being talked about right now, includes only Sanders and Warren? Because if so, I think you're going to be disappointed. But if there are others (I haven't forgotten about Brown) who you would deem both progressive and seriously likely to run, please share.

As to California, it depends on who gets momentum out of the first couple of contests. California might not be decisive if the early votes coalesce around someone who can't count on being well known there

Of the names being bandied about, Sanders, Warren, Brown, Hirono, Merkley and Nina Turner are the ones I've heard the most about recently (and a few of those not nearly enough) that I think are liable to run and still be strongly supported by the, yes, Sander's wing of the party and if any of them decided to run then I think the others may well bow out. Really depends, but that's my take anyway.

I'd have to do some digging on Hirono, but of that list, Warren is the only one that I'd say shows the potential to really be presidential caliber. She's also, probably, tactically the best positioned of the lot to get through a primary, but she's given more mixed signals about running than most other aspirants at this point. And I'd quibble that that's too narrow, and somewhat muddled, a definition of progressive, but at least 3 of them are seriously thinking about it, so they're fair game for speculation

[Tyrassueb]

Of the names being bandied about, Sanders, Warren, Brown, Hirono, Merkley and Nina Turner are the ones I've heard the most about recently (and a few of those not nearly enough) that I think are liable to run and still be strongly supported by the, yes, Sander's wing of the party and if any of them decided to run then I think the others may well bow out. Really depends, but that's my take anyway.

I'd have to do some digging on Hirono, but of that list, Warren is the only one that I'd say shows the potential to really be presidential caliber. She's also, probably, tactically the best positioned of the lot to get through a primary, but she's given more mixed signals about running than most other aspirants at this point. And I'd quibble that that's too narrow, and somewhat muddled, a definition of progressive, but at least 3 of them are seriously thinking about it, so they're fair game for speculation

As I said, they're the ones everyone seems to be dead-set on calling the progressive leads in the 2020. I'm not too sure of all of them but I think Sanders, Warren and Brown are the big names out there right now though I think Brown is way, way more interested in just getting reelected here in 2018 than too focused on 2020. Warren and Sanders are shoe-ins for their districts and recent news says both are really testing the waters for a run.

[Corrian]

I don't know much about the LA mayor. Would he be a good pick?

[Senkaku]

I don't know much about the LA mayor. Would he be a good pick?

Carcetti or whatever? I've heard a bit of buzz about him, but not that much, seems like an outside chance he'd go for it but who knows.

[USS Monitor]

Of the names being bandied about, Sanders, Warren, Brown, Hirono, Merkley and Nina Turner are the ones I've heard the most about recently (and a few of those not nearly enough) that I think are liable to run and still be strongly supported by the, yes, Sander's wing of the party and if any of them decided to run then I think the others may well bow out. Really depends, but that's my take anyway.

I'd have to do some digging on Hirono, but of that list, Warren is the only one that I'd say shows the potential to really be presidential caliber. She's also, probably, tactically the best positioned of the lot to get through a primary, but she's given more mixed signals about running than most other aspirants at this point. And I'd quibble that that's too narrow, and somewhat muddled, a definition of progressive, but at least 3 of them are seriously thinking about it, so they're fair game for speculation

Warren may be laying low so she doesn't attract too many smear tactics early in the election cycle when it's not necessary to be out on the national campaign trail.

[Collatis]

I don’t know much about the LA mayor. Would he be a good pick?

I like him, but mayors very rarely get far electorally outside of their city.

[San Lumen]

I don’t know much about the LA mayor. Would he be a good pick?

I like him, but mayors very rarely get far electorally outside of their city.

thats not true. Plenty of mayors have been elected to congress or statewide office.

[Collatis]

I like him, but mayors very rarely get far electorally outside of their city.

thats not true. Plenty of mayors have been elected to congress or statewide office.

Mayors of smaller cities? Sure. Mayors of major cities like New York and Los Angeles? That’s much rarer. They become permanently associated with said city. And certainly no mayor has ever been directly elected to the presidency.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Breaking this off from the Trump thread

Because she's been doing her best to do it in California, where gun owners have been forced to give up their property without compensation.

utter nonsense

No it's not. The SKS debacle and the recent ban on previously legal items that people like Telconi now have to give up or face prison time over disagree entirely. Kamala Harris has long since supported such things and that's one of many things she would rightfully be smeared with.

[Nova Anglicana]

thats not true. Plenty of mayors have been elected to congress or statewide office.

Mayors of smaller cities? Sure. Mayors of major cities like New York and Los Angeles? That’s much rarer. They become permanently associated with said city. And certainly no mayor has ever been directly elected to the presidency.

Read the article and listen to the podcast for more on Garcetti.