The Biden Presidency

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Donal

This has indeed been a big problem for progressives (or any group left of center in this country) for a long time. they didn't do the leg work. They showed up every 4 years and expected massive change. there are notable exceptions, but left-wing movements in the US tend to be more sizzle than steak.

However, that has changed. Progressives are making actual gains. Not just with candidates but with policy as well. Progressive ballot initiatives are winning in states like South Dakota, Missouri, and Florida. Progressive candidates like Katie Porter and Steve Levin flipping districts that had been red for decades. And instead of seeing a new energized voting bloc to engage, the establishment Dems attack them harder than they have ever attacked conservatives.

What progressive policies in SD and MO are you referring to? I assume the FL one was a raise to the minimum wage? I'm not aware that raising minimum wage is only a progressive issue. "Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are largely united in backing a $15 an hour federal minimum wage: 86% favor this, including nearly six-in-ten (59%) who say they strongly support it." From that source, even 43% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents also favor raising minimum wage. Claiming something that 86% of Democrats and 43% of Republicans support as a progressive issue is misleading.

And really, CA and NY are your impressive flipped districts? What's next, surprise for a progressive Dem from Hawaii?

Originally Posted by Donal

You have Democrats like Manchin, Donnely, Bredesen, and McCaskill openly attacking them in interviews. You have Democratic leadership changing the rules and consolidating power at the top. You have Congressional Democrats attacking Ilhan Omar for referencing a rap lyric to call out a lobbyist while not saying a goddamned thing about republicans practically quoting from the Protocols of Zion to scare their base. You have constant finger-wagging and lecturing from a bunch of professional second-place finishers who are still treating this like it's still the 80s.

Manchin? Seriously? The WV Senator who voted for Trump's agenda more than half the time? That's the guy you lead with? And the Dems aren't saying anything about the Republican's open racism? My goodness but this is more than misleading, that's either willfully blind or dishonest.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Claiming something that 86% of Democrats and 43% of Republicans support as a progressive issue is misleading.

Claiming something that everyone supports but only progressives have pushed for is not a progressive issue is misleading. See also: universal health care and legal weed.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Claiming something that everyone supports but only progressives have pushed for is not a progressive issue is misleading. See also: universal health care and legal weed.

Right, that's the whole point. These issues are widely popular, including with significant popularity among right wing voters too. Democrats are afraid to run on these issues though for some reason. Minimum wage hike won overwhelming support in a state where Biden and local Democrats, who notably shied away from championing the cause, took significant losses.

The best we can hope for is that there will be some token language supporting these policies on the back page of some campaign website, but we all know that these issues are not even close to being something the party will actually champion or expend political capital on.

Why aren't policies like this, which are pro-worker and enjoy wide support from the general public, not the tip of the political messaging spear for the Democratic party? Why are they relegated to some dark corner of the platform that nobody talks about or has any intention of following through on?

Because it's opposed by the donor class. The party is completely captured by wealthy interests.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Not for nothing, but progressives have gotten far more than nothing. Instead it sounds as though the very vocal minority within the Democratic Party thinks they should have gotten everything rather than far more than they would have gotten had the Dems caved and run Sanders and been beaten again.

Care to be specific? What recent news from Biden's staffing decisions leads you to believe that the progressive wing of the party is receiving concessions for their support of the party candidate?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Claiming something that everyone supports but only progressives have pushed for is not a progressive issue is misleading. See also: universal health care and legal weed.

I see. Is it your contention that only progressives, and not the Democratic party as a whole, has pushed to raise the minimum wage? I can find examples Nancy Pelosi pushing for, and praising, bills to raise the minimum wage. Is she now a progressive?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Care to be specific? What recent news from Biden's staffing decisions leads you to believe that the progressive wing of the party is receiving concessions for their support of the party candidate?

The fact that people who are 86% behind your claimed progressive polices of raising minimum wage are staffing things, rather than the people who oppose them by a majority?

Progressives really don't seem to understand that getting the closest possible to what they want is still good when compared to everything that they want being taken away, do they?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by wareyin

The fact that people who are 86% behind your claimed progressive polices of raising minimum wage are staffing things, rather than the people who oppose them by a majority?

Progressives really don't seem to understand that getting the closest possible to what they want is still good when compared to everything that they want being taken away, do they?

Please be specific. Who is being proposed to a position of power with progressive policies relevant to that position? These roles have specific missions. Are these people being selected actually going to wield power in a way to advance popular, progressive issues? If so, who?

Democrats, as a group, may support these issues, but the Democrats being selected to staff these positions are often explicitly opposed to these issues.

Like Neera Tanden, union busting, social security slashing, anti-minimum wage neo-lib being proposed for OMB. Should progressives be pleased that this austerity hawk will be in this position?

Is the Sunrise Movement wrong for crying foul that Biden has appointed US Rep. Cedric Richmond, a man thoroughly bought and paid for by the petrochemical industry, as climate liaison?

Are BLM activists wrong for being upset that Rahm Emmanuel is being considered for a role, despite his attempt to cover up a police murder while mayor?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Please be specific. Who is being proposed to a position of power with progressive policies relevant to that position? These roles have specific missions. Are these people being selected actually going to wield power in a way to advance popular, progressive issues? If so, who?

Democrats, as a group, may support these issues, but the Democrats being selected to staff these positions are often explicitly opposed to these issues.

Like Neera Tanden, union busting, social security slashing, anti-minimum wage neo-lib being proposed for OMB. Should progressives be pleased that this austerity hawk will be in this position?

Is the Sunrise Movement wrong for crying foul that Biden has appointed US Rep. Cedric Richmond, a man thoroughly bought and paid for by the petrochemical industry, as climate liaison?

Are BLM activists wrong for being upset that Rahm Emmanuel is being considered for a role, despite his attempt to cover up a police murder while mayor?

You're kind of going back and forth, here. Are these people "being considered" or are they already in place as a slap down to progressives? It's hard to be specific when arguing against such nebulous tactics.

The point that you are attempting to not understand is still clear, however. Progressives did their best to hurt Biden's chances before the general election, then grudgingly accepted that a Biden presidency would be far better for them (not to mention their goals and the country as a whole) than another 4 years of Trump. Now, having a President who will further some of their goals rather than one who actively opposes all of their goals, these same progressives are demanding a reward for having acted in their own self interest.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by wareyin

You're kind of going back and forth, here. Are these people "being considered" or are they already in place as a slap down to progressives? It's hard to be specific when arguing against such nebulous tactics.

The point that you are attempting to not understand is still clear, however. Progressives did their best to hurt Biden's chances before the general election, then grudgingly accepted that a Biden presidency would be far better for them (not to mention their goals and the country as a whole) than another 4 years of Trump. Now, having a President who will further some of their goals rather than one who actively opposes all of their goals, these same progressives are demanding a reward for having acted in their own self interest.

So did everyone else that ran during the primary. Kamala Harris basically called Biden an anti-integration bigot.

Seems that everyone that participated in the hotly contested primary is getting a concession except for the progressives. Curious.

I suppose that makes sense to you if you consider the progressives not true members of the party but rather political hostages. I tend to agree with you here, the progressives would do well to remember that the party will never grant them a seat at the table no matter how nicely they cooperate. They are political adversaries.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by wareyin

What progressive policies in SD and MO are you referring to?

In South Dakota it was marijuana legalization. Missouri passed that and a minimum wage increase in 2018. In 2020, they voted to expand Medicaid. The fact that you couldn't even look for those shows what a joke the "50 State Initiative" establishment Dems claim is.

Quote:

I assume the FL one was a raise to the minimum wage? I'm not aware that raising minimum wage is only a progressive issue. "Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are largely united in backing a $15 an hour federal minimum wage: 86% favor this, including nearly six-in-ten (59%) who say they strongly support it." From that source, even 43% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents also favor raising minimum wage. Claiming something that 86% of Democrats and 43% of Republicans support as a progressive issue is misleading.

then why did the Biden campaign and the DNC, in general, shy away from it? Why were they not down there beating that drum and putting Biden's face next to it every chance they got? Why wasn't the national party next to every state and congressional candidate attaching them to it?

Quote:

And really, CA and NY are your impressive flipped districts? What's next, surprise for a progressive Dem from Hawaii?

You understand that states are not monoliths, right? That you can have blue districts in red states and red states in blue districts? that why Peter King can hold a seat in Long Island for almost 30 years. And Jim Clyburn can hold a seat in South Carolina for the same amount of time.

How New York City can have 20 years of Republican mayors (yes, Bloomberg is a Republican).

And if the seats Levin and Proter currently hold were so easy to win, why didn't the Dems flip them until now? Are they just that inept or do they not care?

Quote:

Manchin? Seriously? The WV Senator who voted for Trump's agenda more than half the time? That's the guy you lead with?

You ignored the others. Also, why not lead with Manchin? We constantly hear about how the Dems can't pursue an actual Democratic agenda because it will cost people like Manchin their seats. What is the point of protecting his seat then? Why is it OK for him to go on the Sunday talk shows and take an unprovoked shot at progressives? What value does he bring that he must be protected at the expense of actual Democrats? All you did was validate my point.

Quote:

And the Dems aren't saying anything about the Republican's open racism? My goodness but this is more than misleading, that's either willfully blind or dishonest.

No, it is a fact. Look at how they attack progressives, inventing accusations of anti-Semitism, and didn't say a thing about republican ads featuring tropes that would have been at home in 1930s Germany.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

So did everyone else that ran during the primary. Kamala Harris basically called Biden an anti-integration bigot.

Seems that everyone that participated in the hotly contested primary is getting a concession except for the progressives. Curious.

There was a reason I didn't say "during the primary." It's because I didn't mean during the primary. I meant after the primary was over. Try re-reading it but in the context of what I actually said and meant this time.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I suppose that makes sense to you if you consider the progressives not true members of the party but rather political hostages. I tend to agree with you here, the progressives would do well to remember that the party will never grant them a seat at the table no matter how nicely they cooperate. They are political adversaries.

Toddlers, Trump, and now progressives all wish to be rewarded for acting in their own self interest. Not acting as adversaries to the Democratic Party would probably go a long way towards Dems not treating progressives as adversaries, but it is better to throw a temper tantrum unless one gets a special treat for eating the apple slices with one's lunch.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by wareyin

There was a reason I didn't say "during the primary." It's because I didn't mean during the primary. I meant after the primary was over. Try re-reading it but in the context of what I actually said and meant this time.



Toddlers, Trump, and now progressives all wish to be rewarded for acting in their own self interest. Not acting as adversaries to the Democratic Party would probably go a long way towards Dems not treating progressives as adversaries, but it is better to throw a temper tantrum unless one gets a special treat for eating the apple slices with one's lunch.

I'm curious how you think progressives tried to sandbag Biden's election during the general. By trying to pull him towards more popular policies? Are you suggesting that progressives didn't turn out for Biden?

I'm still trying to figure out your second comment. What exactly do you think political power actually means? Why should progressives even get involved if they didn't actually want things done? You understand that people don't support political campaigns from the goodness of their hearts. Voters want things. Groups wants things. They support candidates that promise to give them those things. Not getting those things is a reason to withdraw support. Political parties are not unanimous, but to be a working coalition, there has to be some give and take, not just loud demands for unity drowning out dissent.

I don't really understand how not getting appropriate recognition and a slice of power is a "tantrum" other than the wishful thinking of centrists who want the benefit of progressive support without the cost of actually delivering progressive policies.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Donal

In South Dakota it was marijuana legalization. Missouri passed that and a minimum wage increase in 2018. In 2020, they voted to expand Medicaid. The fact that you couldn't even look for those shows what a joke the "50 State Initiative" establishment Dems claim is.

Asking you to flesh out your vague handwaving is not showing what a joke anything is. So your examples are marijuana legalization, Medicaid expansion, and minimum wage increases. Minimum wage increases were passed and praised by Pelosi in the House last year, Medicaid expansion was a huge part of the ACA back in 2009/2010. Marijuana legalization was being pushed at the national level by mainstream Democrats in the House earlier this year.

The fact that you didn't know any of that was mainstream Democratic stuff is the joke, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Donal

then why did the Biden campaign and the DNC, in general, shy away from it? Why were they not down there beating that drum and putting Biden's face next to it every chance they got? Why wasn't the national party next to every state and congressional candidate attaching them to it?

Why was the House passing all of this stuff under mainstream Democratic leadership?

Originally Posted by Donal

You understand that states are not monoliths, right? That you can have blue districts in red states and red states in blue districts? that why Peter King can hold a seat in Long Island for almost 30 years. And Jim Clyburn can hold a seat in South Carolina for the same amount of time.

Yes, states are not monoliths. Finally you have said something about politics that wasn't misleading or flat out wrong. It's still silly to act like electing a Democrat to the Senate from California is exciting stuff though.

Originally Posted by Donal

How New York City can have 20 years of Republican mayors (yes, Bloomberg is a Republican).

Bloomberg and Giuliani were both Republican and Democratic at different parts of their career. I don't think New York Mayors who swap parties when convenient helps your case.

Originally Posted by Donal

And if the seats Levin and Proter currently hold were so easy to win, why didn't the Dems flip them until now? Are they just that inept or do they not care?

To be clear, you are saying that not winning a seat means your political group is either inept or doesn't care? Are you sure that's a winning message for the progressives right now?

Originally Posted by Donal

You ignored the others. Also, why not lead with Manchin? We constantly hear about how the Dems can't pursue an actual Democratic agenda because it will cost people like Manchin their seats. What is the point of protecting his seat then? Why is it OK for him to go on the Sunday talk shows and take an unprovoked shot at progressives? What value does he bring that he must be protected at the expense of actual Democrats? All you did was validate my point.

I ignored the others because they were all either out of office, or not even Google knew who they were. Manchin, a Republican in all but name, was the only active politician you listed. As he is such a bad example to use to demonstrate mainstream Democratic politicians, and he was the one you lead with, your point fails.

Originally Posted by Donal

No, it is a fact. Look at how they attack progressives, inventing accusations of anti-Semitism, and didn't say a thing about republican ads featuring tropes that would have been at home in 1930s Germany.

If you are unaware of Democrats speaking out against Republican ads and Republican actions that "would have been at home in 1930s Germany," I humbly suggest you open a newspaper, watch the news, or even any media source that is supported by advertising during the election.

[The Great Zaganza]

The problem isn't progressives, it's the predisposed obedience of Democrats to the expected disapproval of the media and the Right that makes them censors each other instead of proudly declaring that they can live with a multitude of opinions in their party.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I'm curious how you think progressives tried to sandbag Biden's election during the general. By trying to pull him towards more popular policies? Are you suggesting that progressives didn't turn out for Biden? Progressive candidates are popular, centrist equivocators got absolutely wrecked on election day. How'd that Kasich endorsement play out in Ohio?

That's odd. I remember your arguments here about Biden being senile and/or having dementia, and committing sexual assault. Have you forgotten them?

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I'm still trying to figure out your second comment. What exactly do you think political power actually means? Why should progressives even get involved if they didn't actually want things done? You understand that people don't support political campaigns from the goodness of their hearts. Voters want things. Groups wants things. They support candidates that promise to give them those things. Not getting those things is a reason to withdraw support. Political parties are not unanimous, but to be a working coalition, there has to be some give and take, not just loud demands for unity drowning out dissent

.
I don't really understand how not getting appropriate recognition and a slice of power is a "tantrum" other than the wishful thinking of centrists who want the benefit of progressive support without the cost of actually delivering progressive policies.

The progressive policies that mainstream Democrats have already been pushing nationally (in some cases for decades) that progressives are claiming as a win for progressives when they pass in a state? Seems to me that 1) Centrist Dems are already delivering those policies and 2) Getting most of what you want is better than getting none of what you want is still a concept that progressives can't grok.

[SuburbanTurkey]

[quote=wareyin;13311475]That's odd. I remember your arguments here about Biden being senile and/or having dementia, and committing sexual assault. Have you forgotten them?

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I'm still trying to figure out your second comment. What exactly do you think political power actually means? Why should progressives even get involved if they didn't actually want things done? You understand that people don't support political campaigns from the goodness of their hearts. Voters want things. Groups wants things. They support candidates that promise to give them those things. Not getting those things is a reason to withdraw support. Political parties are not unanimous, but to be a working coalition, there has to be some give and take, not just loud demands for unity drowning out dissent.




The progressive policies that mainstream Democrats have already been pushing nationally (in some cases for decades) that progressives are claiming as a win for progressives when they pass in a state? Seems to me that 1) Centrist Dems are already delivering those policies and 2) Getting most of what you want is better than getting none of what you want is still a concept that progressives can't grok.

So you think my posting to this forum was a significant and material harm to the Biden election campaign. I suppose I should take that as a compliment, but I have no illusions to my persuasive range.

Is that what this comes down to? Critics were mean to Biden? Go ahead, list all the rude twitter accounts that didn't kiss his ass to your liking.

Come on now, surely you can see how petty and pathetic this is. What actual harm do you think progressives did to Biden, and how is that at all comparable to the obvious boon they were to his campaign by turning out to vote for him?

You're being vague again. What exactly have progressives gotten from Biden, the person they voted for, that should satisfy their desire to influence politics? Again, I'm not speaking broadly in decades, I'm talking about the parade of neo-lib hacks that are are being telegraphed to ride his coat-tails into office, and the glaring lack of even a bone thrown to the progressives that supported his campaign.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

So you think my posting to this forum was a significant and material harm to the Biden election campaign. I suppose I should take that as a compliment, but I have no illusions to my persuasive range.

Is that what this comes down to? Critics were mean to Biden? Go ahead, list all the rude twitter accounts that didn't kiss his ass to your liking.

Come on now, surely you can see how petty and pathetic this is. What actual harm do you think progressives did to Biden, and how is that at all comparable to the obvious boon they were to his campaign by turning out to vote for him?

Wait, you think actively working to prevent his election was no actual harm? But since convincing others not to vote for him failed, and you eventually grudgingly held your nose and voted in your own self interest, you should be praised?

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

You're being vague again. What exactly have progressives gotten from Biden, the person they voted for, that should satisfy their desire to influence politics? Again, I'm not speaking broadly in decades, I'm talking about the parade of neo-lib hacks that are are being telegraphed to ride his coat-tails into office, and the glaring lack of even a bone thrown to the progressives that supported his campaign.

Vague? I've shown that every single policy that you guys are crying about being a progressive policy that the ebil centrist meanies won't hand over on a silver platter was already being fought for by those centrist Dems. What else are you whining about not being given?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Wait, you think actively working to prevent his election was no actual harm? But since convincing others not to vote for him failed, and you eventually grudgingly held your nose and voted in your own self interest, you should be praised?



Vague? I've shown that every single policy that you guys are crying about being a progressive policy that the ebil centrist meanies won't hand over on a silver platter was already being fought for by those centrist Dems. What else are you whining about not being given?

Perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong, I never presumed to tell anyone how to vote. Well, that's not true, I've probably more or less condemned anyone who is willing to support Trump, but I leave the Biden browbeating to my betters.

I'm a bit confused by your point? Are we talking about the progressives generally, who without a doubt were essential in Biden winning this election, or just about personalizations of my postings on this internet backwater. I understand if demonizing another's opinions on the ISF makes you feel better (it certainly does for me!), but let's not conflate your personal distaste for me personally as anything actually relevant to electoral politics.

I'll ask again. What did the progressive movement do to hinder Biden's win? What progressive leaders were out there trying to stymie his campaign? All available evidence is that they went to bat for him and really helped to drive out the base to vote, including in several key swing states that cinched the election for Biden. Do you dispute this?

Let's keep it simple shall we. Do you think progressives are being unreasonable when complaining about Biden's staff selections? Are they being uncharitable to their characterizations of these people, who have long, documented political histories, and assuming they will continue to advocate these bad policies? Is it inappropriate to complain about these people now, when there's actually a chance to change course and select another person, rather than waiting until after the damage is done?

Must the progressives wait until the Biden administration has completed it's stint in office before complaining that these people obviously don't have their best interests in mind?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I'm a bit confused by your point?

I don't believe you are. It appears convenient to pretend you are, but you don't normally seem to struggle with simple concepts so much.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Are we talking about the progressives generally, who without a doubt were essential in Biden winning this election, or just about personalizations of my postings on this internet backwater.

A bit of a false dichotomy there, huh? Are you so vain as to claim to be the one progressive using those tactics to harm a Biden campaign in the general election? And that you only did so here and nowhere else? I think not. You didn't come up with the claims, you simply ran with the claims everyone else in your circle was making.

Once that tactic failed, you grudgingly voted in your own self interest. And now you want some sort of reward and/or praise for it. "After we stopped trying to convince everyone not to vote for Biden he won, so we were essential to that win" misrepresents your role.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I'll ask again. What did the progressive movement do to hinder Biden's win? What progressive leaders were out there trying to stymie his campaign? All available evidence is that they went to bat for him and really helped to drive out the base to vote, including in several key swing states that cinched the election for Biden. Do you dispute this?

Went to bat for Biden? Who? Where? How? What exactly did they do? I certainly never saw anything.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Let's keep it simple shall we. Do you think progressives are being unreasonable when complaining about Biden's staff selections? Are they being uncharitable to their characterizations of these people, who have long, documented political histories, and assuming they will continue to advocate these bad policies? Is it inappropriate to complain about these people now, when there's actually a chance to change course and select another person, rather than waiting until after the damage is done?

Must the progressives wait until the Biden administration has completed it's stint in office before complaining that these people obviously don't have their best interests in mind?

I think the progressives are going to complain unreasonably no matter who is selected or how many more policies they support get enacted by those ebil centrist meanies. I think this because they already are, and have been doing so a long time.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Asking you to flesh out your vague handwaving is not showing what a joke anything is. So your examples are marijuana legalization, Medicaid expansion, and minimum wage increases. Minimum wage increases were passed and praised by Pelosi in the House last year, Medicaid expansion was a huge part of the ACA back in 2009/2010. Marijuana legalization was being pushed at the national level by mainstream Democrats in the House earlier this year.

"praised" and "pushed" speaking of hand waving. show me the action. Show me where they did something to make this a reality.

Quote:

The fact that you didn't know any of that was mainstream Democratic stuff is the joke, I'm afraid.

they did nothing. Not a goddamned thing about it.

Quote:

Why was the House passing all of this stuff under mainstream Democratic leadership?

Because of Progressive gains. and even then 6 Dems opposed the Raise the Wage Act vs 3 Republicans that supported it. And the marijuana legalization bills provide ways for hedge funds to buy in but not to expunge the records and free nonviolent drug offenders. Which lines up with well know progressive *checks notes* John Boehner.

Quote:

Yes, states are not monoliths. Finally you have said something about politics that wasn't misleading or flat out wrong. It's still silly to act like electing a Democrat to the Senate from California is exciting stuff though.

Did you intentionally conflate the Senate with the House of Representatives? or are you that in over your head?

Quote:

Bloomberg and Giuliani were both Republican and Democratic at different parts of their career. I don't think New York Mayors who swap parties when convenient helps your case.

When one gets welcomed with open arms by the party leadership, it does.

Quote:

To be clear, you are saying that not winning a seat means your political group is either inept or doesn't care? Are you sure that's a winning message for the progressives right now?

No, I'm asking if you think Porter and Levin flipping those seats was so easy, why didn't the Dems do it already?

Quote:

I ignored the others because they were all either out of office, or not even Google knew who they were.

Ya, you're in over your head. Maybe just watch and listen for a little while.

Quote:

Manchin, a Republican in all but name, was the only active politician you listed. As he is such a bad example to use to demonstrate mainstream Democratic politicians, and he was the one you lead with, your point fails.

No, he is just inconvenient for you.

Quote:

If you are unaware of Democrats speaking out against Republican ads and Republican actions that "would have been at home in 1930s Germany," I humbly suggest you open a newspaper, watch the news, or even any media source that is supported by advertising during the election.

Or you can support your claim, as is what you're supposed to do here.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Donal

"praised" and "pushed" speaking of hand waving. show me the action. Show me where they did something to make this a reality.

Your statement is going to look really silly in a moment:

Originally Posted by Donal

they did nothing. Not a goddamned thing about it.

Nothing at all, huh? Wait for it:

Originally Posted by Donal

Because of Progressive gains. and even then 6 Dems opposed the Raise the Wage Act vs 3 Republicans that supported it. And the marijuana legalization bills provide ways for hedge funds to buy in but not to expunge the records and free nonviolent drug offenders. Which lines up with well know progressive *checks notes* John Boehner.

D'oh! 2 paragraph breaks ago you were claiming nothing was done, now you're taking credit for it! Hoo boy, that's some Trump levels of chutzpah! Yeah, those what, 6 progressive members of Congress are why the bills passed, not the rest of the centrist Dems!

Originally Posted by Donal

Did you intentionally conflate the Senate with the House of Representatives? or are you that in over your head?

We have been discussing both, and I'm continuing to discuss both. Try not to get confused, please.

Originally Posted by Donal

When one gets welcomed with open arms by the party leadership, it does.

As this both only happened in your fevered imagination, as well as only applies to those who currently claim to be Republican, no. It doesn't.

Originally Posted by Donal

No, I'm asking if you think Porter and Levin flipping those seats was so easy, why didn't the Dems do it already?

I think that electing Dems from CA and NY is easy precisely because they have been doing so for a long time.

Originally Posted by Donal

Ya, you're in over your head. Maybe just watch and listen for a little while.

Sorry it was your list of 4 names (of whom only one appears an active politician) and no quotes, which means it isn't my responsibility to figure out what you meant to say.

Originally Posted by Donal

No, he is just inconvenient for you.

Nonsense. Manchin is not representative of centrist Dems or the Democratic party at all, and pretending that he is is simply dishonest.

Originally Posted by Donal

Or you can support your claim, as is what you're supposed to do here.

That's rich, given all the support for your claims that you've provided. Tell you what, you provide an example of the 1930s Germany ads you're complaining about, and then I can find which Dem spoke out against it. As it stands, you're asking me to prove someone spoke out against something that you haven't provided evidence had happened.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by wareyin

I don't believe you are. It appears convenient to pretend you are, but you don't normally seem to struggle with simple concepts so much.







A bit of a false dichotomy there, huh? Are you so vain as to claim to be the one progressive using those tactics to harm a Biden campaign in the general election? And that you only did so here and nowhere else? I think not. You didn't come up with the claims, you simply ran with the claims everyone else in your circle was making.



Once that tactic failed, you grudgingly voted in your own self interest. And now you want some sort of reward and/or praise for it. "After we stopped trying to convince everyone not to vote for Biden he won, so we were essential to that win" misrepresents your role.







Went to bat for Biden? Who? Where? How? What exactly did they do? I certainly never saw anything.







I think the progressives are going to complain unreasonably no matter who is selected or how many more policies they support get enacted by those ebil centrist meanies. I think this because they already are, and have been doing so a long time.

Omar and Tlaib both ran huge "get out the vote" campaigns in their respective states that were key to delivering victory in those swing states. Ilhan's district had 88% turnout. They easily could have won their own races without such an effort.

But yeah, some podcasters and Twitter nobodies made fun of Biden, so it's a wash.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Donal

This has indeed been a big problem for progressives (or any group left of center in this country) for a long time. they didn't do the leg work. They showed up every 4 years and expected massive change. there are notable exceptions, but left-wing movements in the US tend to be more sizzle than steak.

However, that has changed. Progressives are making actual gains. Not just with candidates but with policy as well. Progressive ballot initiatives are winning in states like South Dakota, Missouri, and Florida. Progressive candidates like Katie Porter and Steve Levin flipping districts that had been red for decades. And instead of seeing a new energized voting bloc to engage, the establishment Dems attack them harder than they have ever attacked conservatives.

You have Democrats like Manchin, Donnely, Bredesen, and McCaskill openly attacking them in interviews. You have Democratic leadership changing the rules and consolidating power at the top. You have Congressional Democrats attacking Ilhan Omar for referencing a rap lyric to call out a lobbyist while not saying a goddamned thing about republicans practically quoting from the Protocols of Zion to scare their base. You have constant finger-wagging and lecturing from a bunch of professional second-place finishers who are still treating this like it's still the 80s.

So, yes, progressives were not great about organizing and engaging in the system. But now that they are, they are getting shut out by the people that are supposed to be on their team.

Without getting too deeply involved in this discussion, I feel like poking towards the New Jersey Democrats who outright tried to gerrymander New Jersey just a couple years ago... seemingly because they were worried about increasing power and enthusiasm from the more progressive part of the party. The attempt to railroad it in was derailed, thankfully, because Democrats, especially progressives, actually have principles and act upon them on the subject.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Because it's opposed by the donor class. The party is completely captured by wealthy interests.

I disagree with "completely" there. I will certainly agree that the wealthy interests wield far, far more influence than they should, though. I'm ever reminded of the anti-BDS vote, though. Clear violation of the 1st Amendment. All but one of the Republican house members and about half of the Democratic Party house members voted for it. It serves as a pretty good representation of my thoughts on the level of problems in the parties, I think.

Originally Posted by wareyin

Wait, you think actively working to prevent his election was no actual harm? But since convincing others not to vote for him failed, and you eventually grudgingly held your nose and voted in your own self interest, you should be praised?

To be clear, are you complaining about many progressives having supported other Democratic candidates in the primaries? I certainly didn't see progressives actively work to prevent his election for the general. Very much the opposite, really.

[acbytesla]

Joe Biden expands his lead over soon to be the country's jilted ex. But Donnie did pass a milestone.

President Elect Joe Biden: 80,349,702

#Diaper Don: 74,001,402

Difference for America: 6,348,300

[dudalb]

I think in his inaugrual Biden needs to channel Winston CHurchill, and give give a staright up speech that does not sugar coat the problems the US faces, a "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil,tears and sweat' style speech. i thas been along time since we have a national leader give the kind of speech.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Omar and Tlaib both ran huge "get out the vote" campaigns in their respective states that were key to delivering victory in those swing states. Ilhan's district had 88% turnout. They easily could have won their own races without such an effort.

But yeah, some podcasters and Twitter nobodies made fun of Biden, so it's a wash.

I see. Asking people to vote for themselves was going to bat for Biden in your eyes.

And hey, we've gotten you to admit that it was actually a massive social media campaign aimed at convincing people not to vote for Biden and not just little old you all on your lonesome. That's some progress at least!

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Aridas

To be clear, are you complaining about many progressives having supported other Democratic candidates in the primaries? I certainly didn't see progressives actively work to prevent his election for the general. Very much the opposite, really.

No, and I thought repeatedly specifying that I was not talking about in the primaries and that I was talking about the general election made that clear.

[Distracted1]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I think in his inaugrual Biden needs to channel Winston CHurchill, and give give a staright up speech that does not sugar coat the problems the US faces, a "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil,tears and sweat' style speech. i thas been along time since we have a national leader give the kind of speech.

Well, we did have Jimmy Carter telling us to turn the thermostat down and put on a sweater. That has got to count for something.

[Donal]

I'd personally love to see that. Maybe point out how things will get worse before they get better, but we can get through it together.

But I can't imagine how that would play out in the media.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I think in his inaugrual Biden needs to channel Winston CHurchill, and give give a staright up speech that does not sugar coat the problems the US faces, a "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil,tears and sweat' style speech. i thas been along time since we have a national leader give the kind of speech.

I cannot disagree more. Churchill was a racist right wing leader whose rhetoric was perfect for inspiring England to make it through the war. But Churchill was a lousy peace time leader

I don't think the nation should focus on sacrifice, but on working to improve the lives of eveyone. One can be direct, honest and yet appeal to our better angels. Jimmy Carter tried the approach you're describing with his malaise speech and was excoriated for it. I think Carter was right in what he said and yet it was politically stupid for him to say it.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I cannot disagree more. Churchill was a racist right wing leader whose rhetoric was perfect for inspiring England to make it through the war. But Churchill was a lousy peace time leader

I mean, ya, but that doesn't mean you can't take a few pointers from his rhetorical style. Just because there isn't an enemy shooting at you doesn't mean you aren't in a fight.

Quote:

I don't think the nation should focus on sacrifice, but on working to improve the lives of everyone.

They aren't mutually exclusive

Quote:

One can be direct, honest and yet appeal to our better angels. Jimmy Carter tried the approach you're describing with his malaise speech and was excoriated for it. I think Carter was right in what he said and yet it was politically stupid for him to say it.

Or maybe times have changed a little and you can take that approach, if somewhat modified?

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Donal

I mean, ya, but that doesn't mean you can't take a few pointers from his rhetorical style. Just because there isn't an enemy shooting at you doesn't mean you aren't in a fight.

They aren't mutually exclusive

Or maybe times have changed a little and you can take that approach, if somewhat modified?

No question that Churchill was a great speaker. His cadence in particular was excellent. I saw it copied somewhat in JFK's/-Ted Sorensen's speeches. Tremendously effective. But the content of sacrifice is not going to sell. It didn't work for Churchill after the war and it didn't work for Carter (granted Carter didn't have Churchill's flair) and I don't think it's going to work at this time.

[Firestone]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Joe Biden expands his lead over soon to be the country's jilted ex. But Donnie did pass a milestone.

President Elect Joe Biden: 80,349,702

#Diaper Don: 74,001,402

Difference for America: 6,348,300

With the NYC absentee ballots added (finally), Biden's lead now 6.91 million.
Biden now has more than 81 million votes.

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/statu...882689027?s=19

[acbytesla]

I made a huge mistake.

Biden crushed Trump in NYC'S 5 burroughs

Biden: 81,050,147

Trump: 74,112,769

Difference: 6,937,378

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I made a huge mistake.

Biden crushed Trump in NYC'S 5 burroughs

Biden: 81,050,147

Trump: 74,112,769

Difference: 6,937,378

Wasserman is good. This was super close to his ballpark figure he made more than a week ago.

[acbytesla]

These were the Absentee vote totals in each of NYC'S 5 boroughs. You would think they might treat a favorite son better.

Staten Island
Biden: 63%
Trump: 35%

Queens
Biden: 81%
Trump: 16%

Brooklyn
Biden: 85%
Trump:13%

Bronx
Biden:86%
Trump:12%

Manhattan:
Biden: 90%
Trump:8%

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by wareyin

I see. Asking people to vote for themselves was going to bat for Biden in your eyes.

And hey, we've gotten you to admit that it was actually a massive social media campaign aimed at convincing people not to vote for Biden and not just little old you all on your lonesome. That's some progress at least!

Tlaib won her district by 60 points. Omar won by 39 points. They could have sat back and still won handily. Give me a break with this willful obtuseness. They were out there running up the vote for Biden to win the state. Progressive activists getting out the vote in big cities in swing states is a non-trivial part of Biden's 2020 win, and if you were being even the slightest bit honest you would admit it.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Tlaib won her district by 60 points. Omar won by 39 points. They could have sat back and still won handily. Give me a break with this willful obtuseness. They were out there running up the vote for Biden to win the state. Progressive activists getting out the vote in big cities in swing states is a non-trivial part of Biden's 2020 win, and if you were being even the slightest bit honest you would admit it.

Biden got more votes in Omar's district than she did. Are you certain that her campaign was at all helpful to him? Seems an honest person would admit that when a politician campaigns to get out the vote, they have their own election in mind.

I can't find a comparison of Biden vs Tliab votes with a quick Google, but I have no doubt that Biden outperformed her as well.

On a Tliab note, she is also being considered for spot onn Biden's team. Guess that's the evil centrist meanies keeping the progressives out again, isn't it? Or ... when Tliab does get the nod, suddenly she isn't progressive enough anymore right?

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by wareyin

No, and I thought repeatedly specifying that I was not talking about in the primaries and that I was talking about the general election made that clear.

You did specify that. It's just that I really have no idea what you could actually be referring to, then. As far as I saw, throughout the general election period, progressives pushed *hard* for Biden and then delivered, even with their reservations, which is the opposite of what you keep trying to claim happened.

Originally Posted by wareyin

Biden got more votes in Omar's district than she did. Are you certain that her campaign was at all helpful to him? Seems an honest person would admit that when a politician campaigns to get out the vote, they have their own election in mind.

I suppose that, based on this, I should conclude that you're quite set on trying to find some spin, any spin, to justify sweeping progressives under the rug and dismiss anything and everything that they could possibly have done.

Originally Posted by wareyin

On a Tliab note, she is also being considered for spot onn Biden's team. Guess that's the evil centrist meanies keeping the progressives out again, isn't it? Or ... when Tliab does get the nod, suddenly she isn't progressive enough anymore right?

*headdesk*

Oooooo. Considered. Yeah, that's totally proof that progressives don't have reason for concern with the picks already announced, individually and overall, and the likely consequences of such. Seriously, take a few steps back and actually consider why you're trying to piss all over legitimate concerns using such... "wonderful" arguments.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Biden got more votes in Omar's district than she did. Are you certain that her campaign was at all helpful to him? Seems an honest person would admit that when a politician campaigns to get out the vote, they have their own election in mind.

I can't find a comparison of Biden vs Tliab votes with a quick Google, but I have no doubt that Biden outperformed her as well.

On a Tliab note, she is also being considered for spot onn Biden's team. Guess that's the evil centrist meanies keeping the progressives out again, isn't it? Or ... when Tliab does get the nod, suddenly she isn't progressive enough anymore right?

Minnesota 5th
Biden: 328,764. 80%
Omar: 255, 920. 64%

Michigan 13th
Rashida Tliab 223,205. 78.1%
Biden:
Can't find precisely Biden's number in the 13th, but I see indications he outperformed Tliab by about 5 points.