Will Democrats Learn Or Are We Doomed to Keep Repeating Partisan Tradeoff Elections?

[Sonikku]

The reason why social issues dominate is because they are the sole issues on which the capital in this country allows us to have any say on. They don't hurt the bottom line of the super rich. The Dems can't push for policies like they did back when they fought for blue collar workers because they are a part of the corporate party as same as the GoP is. The capital regulates the government now, not the other way around. Things like single payer would help the country, but it would hurt the bottom line of those who fund the campaigns and superpacs and now Judge ad campaigns.

This pandemic was the best moment in history to make a case for left wing ideas. The idea that you have access to healthcare whether you're laid off from your job or not, that you don't have to choose between getting the care you need or going into bankruptsy, would have SAILED the Dems into power. But, again, these things would hurt the profit margins. So Dems never go all in on policy any more. If anything the Dems hate Sanders more than Republicans, because if Sanders had won the primary and crushed the general election it would have risked pulling the party to the left instead of being center right where they're happy. Dems would rather Republicans held power that a social democrat, because if they didn't, they wouldn't be trying so hard to lose.

 

[Vic]

So much concern

More like boredom.

 

[fskimospy]

That's odd, because I could swear that Maher has the same opinion on gerrymandering as basically all other democrats.

And I'm also fairly certain the arguments he made in that video were not meant as monocausal explanations, either. Clearly they appealed to you, however, because they provide another excuse for you to bash democrats. Which TBH is kind of your thing.

These threads are always illuminating because it invariably ends up with each individual poster deciding that in order to win Democrats just need to do whatever that poster’s personal preferences are.

Because surely evidence free pontificating has uncovered the real cause as to why Democrats didn’t do better. It’s not that in order to win a bare majority they need to win by about 5-7 points while their opposition just needs to lose by less than 5-7 points.

Nah, it’s probably whatever random thing Bill Maher thought you while complaining about Twitter yet again.

 

[fskimospy]

By the way for all those defenders of the electoral college here’s a hilarious Twitter thread looking at what the founders thought they were doing when they created it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1328910801906921474

So...yeah. It failed. Time for it to go.

 

[ElFenix]

Howard Dean would undoubtedly agree with you

"he let out an excited scream lol what a moron"
--totally leftist MSM

 

[Starbuck1975]

"he let out an excited scream lol what a moron"
--totally leftist MSM

The MSM is not leftist, and they did a huge disservice to Howard Dean.

 

[woolfe9998]

These threads are always illuminating because it invariably ends up with each individual poster deciding that in order to win Democrats just need to do whatever that poster’s personal preferences are.

Because surely evidence free pontificating has uncovered the real cause as to why Democrats didn’t do better. It’s not that in order to win a bare majority they need to win by about 5-7 points while their opposition just needs to lose by less than 5-7 points.

Nah, it’s probably whatever random thing Bill Maher thought you while complaining about Twitter yet again.

Yes, and like I said, we have to do better anyway because the unfairness of the system is baked in for now. So perhaps the better way to frame this is how can dems do better rather than why did they fuck up.

In that regard, I agree. Everyone has their own theory or preference. I favor an evidence based approach. I suspect they'll be analyzing the election data for a little while. And I think it's going to be a lot of smaller variables rather than one ruling factor. So, for example, I'm sure "defund the police" hurt the dems, but statistically by how much? Might have been .2% nationally.

 

[pmv]

Martin Luther lived 200 years before John Wesley.......

I thought Wesley founded methodism? Not that I'm at all knowledgeable about the details of Christianity and its multitudinous sects, never paid much attention in RE classes. But mostly I associate Methodism with socialism. Especially in Wales. And Luther with anti-Semitism.

Seems a bit of a mixed-picture, mind. I remember on an anti-Iraq-war march talking to some Welsh Christian fellow marcher, who started off denouncing Blair for betraying socialism and being too pro-American - and then segued to declaring it was all because New Labour was a conspiracy of right-wing homosexuals - capitalism and homosexuality being somehow contiguous in his mind (I decided to join a different part of the march after that).

 

[ch33zw1z]

The MSM is not leftist, and they did a huge disservice to Howard Dean.

I thought it was great, reminded me of dead poets society movie, think it was walt whitman prose

 

[senseamp]

Last time Democrats helped the poor was Medicaid expansion under the ACA, and the poor reciprocated by either not caring enough to vote or electing people who would block it in their states and repeal it nationally.
It did not stop Republicans from winning their share of poor vote even as the party was blocking their own poor from getting Medicaid, actively threatening or suing to throw them off health insurance during a pandemic. The reality is the poor largely get the political representation their own votes or non-votes incentivize. If the poor don't care if politicians vote in their interest, but the well off do, politicians will act accordingly.
The reality is change won't come from politicians, but from the voters. When the poor decide to change the system, they have the votes and the manpower to do it, since middle class is a shrinking demographic.

 

[zinfamous]

lol.

Can you please cite ANYWHERE where I have said such a thing?

Have you read your thread title?

 

[Blackjack200]

Last time Democrats helped the poor was Medicaid expansion under the ACA, and the poor reciprocated by either not caring enough to vote or electing people who would block it in their states and repeal it nationally.
It did not stop Republicans from winning their share of poor vote even as the party was blocking their own poor from getting Medicaid, actively threatening or suing to throw them off health insurance during a pandemic. The reality is the poor largely get the political representation their own votes or non-votes incentivize. If the poor don't care if politicians vote in their interest, but the well off do, politicians will act accordingly.
The reality is change won't come from politicians, but from the voters. When the poor decide to change the system, they have the votes and the manpower to do it, since middle class is a shrinking demographic.

We threw them some table scraps and those ungrateful poors won't just do what we say.

 

[senseamp]

We threw them some table scraps and those ungrateful poors won't just do what we say.

Table scraps? A lot of people got free insurance through Medicaid or would have gotten it if their home state Republicans didn't block it. But instead of voting those blocking Republicans out, they voted the people who passed the Medicaid expansion out in 2010, or didn't vote at all. If they don't care or don't want government to help them, politicians will act accordingly.

 

[MrSquished]

Got it. Zero citations. All moronic. Keep on losing elections and never making progress - even when horrible deplorables like myself vote for your party out of disdain and pity.

You are part of the reason why this thread is a documentary and not a discussion.

I'm talking about every right winger I know on social media. Not just random posters on news articles, those are horrible, so many QAnon,, but people I've met in real life and the people they are friends with.

The folks that live in NJ, where I'm from, most of them think the NJ election was messed with for Biden, that their Trump vote was not counted or that NJ was called too soon for Joe, something is not right, Trump rallies were crowded after all!

I hear the word socialist bandied about by all these right wingers all the time - that's pretty normal though, even the top Republican politicians say those things. But the words Biden, socialist, and even communist, are common enough online.

The Joe Biden is a pedo thing is very popular. My buddy here in NJ said his girlfriend's friends online think Joe Biden is a pedo also. I have had multiple folks in my social media call Joe Biden a pedo in general. Then I have several who get quite specific - it's a family friend's daughter he touches. Others spread the rumour that Joe Biden is actually abusing an actual Biden relative, and there are emails on Hunter Bidens laptop that prove this and the family is covering up the abuse. These posts get likes and people agreeing with them.

A lot of folks on this forum have echoed they see the same shit from their social media contacts.

Three aren't just outliers. These are the base.

 

[Blackjack200]

Table scraps? A lot of people got free insurance through Medicaid or would have gotten it if their home state Republicans didn't block it. But instead of voting those blocking Republicans out, they voted the people who passed the Medicaid expansion out in 2010, or didn't vote at all. If they don't care or don't want government to help them, politicians will act accordingly.

10 million people lost their homes while he bailed out Wall Street. Democrats cannot fail, they can only be failed.

 

[nickqt]

Yes, and like I said, we have to do better anyway because the unfairness of the system is baked in for now. So perhaps the better way to frame this is how can dems do better rather than why did they fuck up.

In that regard, I agree. Everyone has their own theory or preference. I favor an evidence based approach. I suspect they'll be analyzing the election data for a little while. And I think it's going to be a lot of smaller variables rather than one ruling factor. So, for example, I'm sure "defund the police" hurt the dems, but statistically by how much? Might have been .2% nationally.

Even if it was only .2% nationally, I'm not sure why anyone ever uses "national" numbers regarding elections. It doesn't translate. Between California and Wyoming, "national" numbers are irrelevant. .2% nationally might mean 1% in WY and .01 in California. But most importantly, it might mean 1% in PA, WI, MI, AZ, and GA. That's where it matters, unlike WY or CA.

The protests and "Defund" movement started costing the Democrats votes by mid-June. That's when they became performative rather than functional. Want to change police policy and local/city/state officials who can actually hold the police accountable? Register people to vote and get them to the polls. I can only imagine that a large portion of those protesters who were over 18 stayed at home rather than voting.

One major change that Democrats need to make posthaste is using scholarly phrases like "social justice" or "defund", and find a common sense bumper-sticker length phrase instead. It doesn't matter that I know that "defund" means "give more resources to other agencies who can better handle situations than combat-armed domestic soldiers", if some "centrist" in Wisconsin hears "defund" and thinks abolish.

Another is drop "gun control" altogether. It's never going to happen, and in case y'all can't read the room, your political opponents are already armed and discussing on Parler the best way to put us Communist 5th columnists down. Don't say "gun control", say at most "universal background checks", and stop saying you're going to ban a semi-auto gun or rifle, because IT'S. NEVER. HAPPENING.

And while we know the Republican party is fucking teeming and riddled with garbage fucking racists, let's stop labeling it as inherently racist, because there's still a few not-totally-rotten apples who self-identify as Republicans that aren't rabid fucking racists. Give them an out instead of making them feel trapped with the in-group.

Ultimately, we need to just fully adopt Super Federalism. Republicans have been screaming about it and the 10th Amendment for decades, so let's do it. Allow states to Opt-Out of most current Federal Funding programs and instead receive those funds as Blockgrants. Almost every dollar of Federal Funding could be used in Oregon to legalize meth and have Medicare for All as a treatment backup, while West Virginia can blockgrant all its Federal Funds to the coal and mineral extraction industry and let their people fucking rot like it already does. Talk about heightening the contradictions.

At some point this country is going to reach a point where either it adopts Super Federalism so there can be a soft Red States of America and a soft Blue States of America that are still one country, or it's going to turn into a civil war. A little pain upfront might be better than a lot of pain down the road, and perhaps once Red States of America get a feel for what Republican Policies actually mean without Blue States of America protecting them with their laws and regulations, they might think twice about electing shitbag fascists to pilfer their states' resources.

 

[blackangst1]

I'm talking about every right winger I know on social media. Not just random posters on news articles, those are horrible, so many QAnon,, but people I've met in real life and the people they are friends with.

The folks that live in NJ, where I'm from, most of them think the NJ election was messed with for Biden, that their Trump vote was not counted or that NJ was called too soon for Joe, something is not right, Trump rallies were crowded after all!

I hear the word socialist bandied about by all these right wingers all the time - that's pretty normal though, even the top Republican politicians say those things. But the words Biden, socialist, and even communist, are common enough online.

The Joe Biden is a pedo thing is very popular. My buddy here in NJ said his girlfriend's friends online think Joe Biden is a pedo also. I have had multiple folks in my social media call Joe Biden a pedo in general. Then I have several who get quite specific - it's a family friend's daughter he touches. Others spread the rumour that Joe Biden is actually abusing an actual Biden relative, and there are emails on Hunter Bidens laptop that prove this and the family is covering up the abuse. These posts get likes and people agreeing with them.

A lot of folks on this forum have echoed they see the same shit from their social media contacts.

Three aren't just outliers. These are the base.

I dont think Biden is a pedo, but he DOES like to touch them and smell their hair.

 

[senseamp]

10 million people lost their homes while he bailed out Wall Street. Democrats cannot fail, they can only be failed.

That bailout was signed by Bush in 2008, not Obama.

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

That bailout was signed by Bush in 2008, not Obama.

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And Obama wasn't able to stop all of the subsequent evictions that occurred during his administration?

This was also bi-partisan. The fact that Bush signed it and Obama didn't makes no difference.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here is Obama's main stimulus passed shortly after taking office - Guess what it did to help Americans being evicted? Zip. Zilch. Nada.

It did however give an 8000$ tax credit to "stimulate" the economy and get more people riddled in mortgage debt though! (But fuck the other ones that got screwed over and evicted lol)

Don't forget about 'dem tax cuts for the wealthy that was in there as well

 

[MrSquished]

I dont think Biden is a pedo, but he DOES like to touch them and smell their hair.

Clearly you haven't seen the emails from Hunter Biden's laptop then, cause then you'd be sure.

 

[nakedfrog]

Did I miss some memo where "inyet" became an acceptable substitute for "and yet"?

 

[zzyzxroad]

And Obama wasn't able to stop all of the subsequent evictions that occurred during his administration?

This was also bi-partisan. The fact that Bush signed it and Obama didn't makes no difference.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here is Obama's main stimulus passed shortly after taking office - Guess what it did to help Americans being evicted? Zip. Zilch. Nada.

It did however give an 8000$ tax credit to "stimulate" the economy and get more people riddled in mortgage debt though! (But fuck the other ones that got screwed over and evicted lol)

Don't forget about 'dem tax cuts for the wealthy that was in there as well

What should Obama have done differently?

 

[IronWing]

So next time I suggest that Obama was to the right of Reagan, Someone will certainly agree?

 

[senseamp]

And Obama wasn't able to stop all of the subsequent evictions that occurred during his administration?

This was also bi-partisan. The fact that Bush signed it and Obama didn't makes no difference.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here is Obama's main stimulus passed shortly after taking office - Guess what it did to help Americans being evicted? Zip. Zilch. Nada.

It did however give an 8000$ tax credit to "stimulate" the economy and get more people riddled in mortgage debt though! (But fuck the other ones that got screwed over and evicted lol)

Don't forget about 'dem tax cuts for the wealthy that was in there as well

Look, you can be salty at Obama that people bought houses they couldn't afford and had to give them back, and he didn't let the banking system collapse, maybe he was wrong, but he wasn't the one who caused it, he inherited that mess. How's bringing back the people who caused it in 2010 going to help problems?
I got 3.5% extra capital gains tax to pay for Obamacare, which I am fine with voting for even though it probably cost me tens of thousands over the years. But do you think I, "evil" upper-middle-classman techie with great employer health care should care more about expanding Medicaid to the working poor than the working poor themselves? I am OK voting for it and paying for it, but they can't be bothered to turn out to elect people to get it going, or vote for people blocking it? Really, I am willing to pay six figures in capital gains taxes to fund their health care, but they can't be bothered to lift a finger or vote to sabotage it. At some point, the poor of this country have to take responsibility for their politics and understand that good governance and laws don't magically happen, they are a result of people voting and parties winning.

 

[zzyzxroad]

10 million people lost their homes while he bailed out Wall Street. Democrats cannot fail, they can only be failed.

The mortgage crisis was decades in the making and plenty of blame goes to both parties. To pretend anyone would have navigated the country out of that mess better than Obama is very naive.