Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 7
https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/DisplayMessage?ws_pop...

. . . Back in April, when Biden was making big legislative strides, 83 percent of Democrats said they thought the country was moving in the right direction, according to a Monmouth survey at the time. But in today’s poll, just 59 percent of Democrats said that.

The share of Democrats saying the country was on the wrong track rose by 20 percentage points, to 32 percent. . .


We are beginning to see the impact on voter support of Democrats' inability to advance legislation in Washington. If DEMs don't find a way to rule as majority, by 2022 the GQP may well take over for good.

No justice yet for Trump and his criminal friends. No justice yet for Congressional and Senate insurrectionists. No progress on voter protections against the onslaught from state GQP efforts. No progress on an economic system that continues to support billionaires and CEOs over working class Americans. Mitch McConnell is still the most powerful man in Washington.

These are not results that will lead to large Democrat voter turnout.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
We are beginning to see the impact on voter support of Democrats' inability to advance legislation in Washington. If DEMs don't find a way to rule as majority, by 2022 the GQP may well take over for good.

SG, do you think that progressives should kill the infrastructure bill if the bipartisan proposal ends up not including all of (or as much) of their climate preferences?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
These are not results that will lead to large Democrat voter turnout.

When you are in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging. Just because we don't fix everything right now is no reason to give shovels back the Republicans.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
When you are in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging. Just because we don't fix everything right now is no reason to give shovels back the Republicans.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.


I didn't oversee the poll or contribute to the results in any way, but I don't think your argument for staying the course is going to sell to many of the people who gave Democrats their big victories in 2020. It really doesn't matter what you believe is the best strategy to address to the Democrat's lack of response to GQP treachery. Many of the Democrat votes cast in 2020 were cast by new and young voters who expected a more unified and swift response. They expected Democrats to use their majority in a united way to undo GQP treachery. The fact that DEMs don't seem to be able to do that simply translates to another group of politicians who do not deserve their support.

So now, I have to suffer all the "moderate" DEMs attacks on me for bringing the message they don't want to hear. This is the news I offer illustrating the impact I have been talking about - lack of a unified, swift and forceful approach to defeat GQP treachery will cost Democrats significantly in 2022. Like it or not, self-righteous arguments that Democrat voters should stay the course because Democratic led "nothing" is better than Republican control won't actually convince most of them to get out and vote. Democrats will simply lose and whine that they really are better than Republicans even if they are incapable of advancing an agenda and apparently cannot even stop the minority Republicans from advancing their own. But arguing against the headlines really is ineffective and . . . honestly . . . pretty silly. This is what is happening. Democrats need to take note and address it, not attack their own liberal branch with insults. That will only make the problem worse.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I didn't oversee the poll or contribute to the results in any way, but I don't think your argument for staying the course is going to sell to many of the people who gave Democrats their big victories in 2020.

Probably not. They don't seem interested in making progress.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
Many of the Democrat votes cast in 2020 were cast by new and young voters who expected a more unified and swift response.

Then their expectations were wrong.

Some legislation takes time. The major reason, for example, that the John Lewis Voting Rights bill has not yet adopted by the Senate is that it has not yet been passed by the House. And the reason it hasn't passed the House is because the Democrats have to compile a massive record of legislative history and legislative findings in order to insulate it from the inevitable legal attacks that will be mounted by opponents. The same legal attacks that were successful in getting the pre-clearance provision stricken by the SCOTUS in the first place.

Likewise, the For the People Act was never drafted as legislation meant to be adopted in the first place. It was a messaging bill. It was drafted in early 2019 as a way for House members to signal their support for a vast panoply of Democratic goals, so the drafters never went through any serious effort to refine those proposals or figure out what might actually be supported by the caucus. That work has to be done now, in the Senate - which is why Abrams was lightning fast to voice support for the Manchin alternative.

I don't know what why they have any expectations for legislators about the prosecution of Trump officials or the 1/6 rioters - the DOJ is independent of the legislative branch, and a major Democratic point against Trump was that it was inappropriate for the President to pressure DOJ.

If those new and young voters were under the impression that there would be massive revisions to the nation's adopted within five months of a new Congress starting off, then they sorely misunderstand how the legislative process works. That's not Congress' fault - it's their lack of awareness about how much time it takes to get things done right, especially with a razor-thin majority. FDR had majorities as large as 79-16 in the Senate and 345-89 in the House - when you have those kinds of margins and relatively modest judicial challenges to most statutes, you can plow stuff through very quickly.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A celebration....

Of focusing on the important things.

Keep it up.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I didn't oversee the poll or contribute to the results in any way, but I don't think your argument for staying the course is going to sell to many of the people who gave Democrats their big victories in 2020.

Probably not. They don't seem interested in making progress.


Democrats need to take note and address this trend, not attack their own liberal branch with insults. That will only make the problem worse.

But go ahead and attack the messenger. That will prove to the liberal Democrats (who have the potential to make Democrats victors in the next election) that they should abandon their support and turn the country over to the GQP. The polls see it happening. I know you don't like it. I know you believe you know better. You despise those liberals who won't simply follow your lead and accept Democrat "nothing" as a positive result. But that attitude won't stop this from happening. It really doesn't matter how condescending you are when you blame the result on the liberal Democrats you disagree with. I don't think that kind of self-righteous insult really convinces any of them. It plays into the hands of the GQP.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
It's the Democrats moving forward at a snail's pace or the Republicans moving backward at the speed of light. Anyone that chooses the latter because they aren't getting everything they want immediately is the one being self-righteous.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Then their expectations were wrong.

So??? It doesn't change the voter dynamics. The poll tells you what's happening and you don't think it should be happening. So your thoughts on the subject will surely help Democrats win.

I realize there has never been an election in US history when many voters had incorrect expectations. Surely if that had ever happened before, the election results would simply be overturned as soon as it became obvious that many voters had voted with wrong expectations.

That's why the correct strategy for Democrats (who are now losing support because of lack of action) is to simply attack and insult the progressive voters who contributed significantly to placing them in a majority in Washington. Let those progressive little weasels know that they are wrong and simply need to keep voting for DEMs even if they aren't getting their political desires fulfilled. Show them in no uncertain terms that they had unrealistic expectations and need to accept the status quo of only the most conservative DEMs. Heck, they expected Democrats to fix things. How ridiculous is that? I'm sure that strategy will help the Democratic party thrive in 2022.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The only one throwing around insults towards the progressives is you. No one else called them weasels.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"These are not results that will lead to large Democrat voter turnout."

But they are the results the corporate Democrats, the Republicans, America's 700+billionairs, the corporations they own, and the executives that run them want.

They want the filibuster, they want HR1/SA1 to fail, they want voter suppression.

They want our politics to be about right to carry, Choice, Transgender politics, critical race theory, the next marginal Spanish speaker to cross our southern boarder.

They don't want majority rule (310 million Americans) nor our politics to be about education and medical care for all Americans, taxing the billionaires at a rate higher than 1%, building a national infrastructure for the future, etc....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
That's why the correct strategy for Democrats (who are now losing support because of lack of action) is to simply attack and insult the progressive voters who contributed significantly to placing them in a majority in Washington. Let those progressive little weasels know that they are wrong and simply need to keep voting for DEMs even if they aren't getting their political desires fulfilled. Show them in no uncertain terms that they had unrealistic expectations and need to accept the status quo of only the most conservative DEMs. Heck, they expected Democrats to fix things. How ridiculous is that? I'm sure that strategy will help the Democratic party thrive in 2022.

Why are you so hostile to progressive voters? They may have unrealistic expectations of what winning a razor-thin majority means, in terms of how much legislative change can actually be accomplished - but there's no need to be so critical of them.

Probably the best approach is education. Obviously it would be helpful if new and young voters had a better appreciation of the fact that the Democratic Party is a big coalition, and includes not only progressives but many other groups that have varying political preferences and priorities. They might not want that to be true - but it is.

More importantly, these groups need to understand that big changes usually require big majorities. If you want to completely revise the way elections are conducted in this country, for example - not just what the rules are but who sets those rules (federal vs. state) - then you need a big majority. As noted above, when FDR passed the New Deal and completely rewrote the federal role in the economy, the Democrats controlled nearly 80% of both the House and Senate. Biden doesn't have that.

That education might have to come from within the progressive voting bloc, because these new and young voters may not listen to other voices within the party. If progressive leaders want to avoid handing the House and Senate back to the GOP, they'll need to be celebrating the wins as significant and using the losses to drum up enthusiasm about the need for even more Democrats to be elected, rather than turning their back on the party. Electing a progressive congressbeing in your district doesn't mean that you've won Congress for the progressive movement, or that you're going to get progressive legislation - in order to get those things, you need to win lots of seats all over the country.

The Democrats passed a monumental package already in the Congress. They're likely to get get a trillion dollar infrastructure bill passed, possibly on a bipartisan basis. Both of those would be huge wins for Democratic priorities - not all Democratic priorities, but still a pretty substantial achievement.

You never answered my question upthread, and I'm curious. If voters are dissatisfied with a lack of progress, do you think that progressives should kill the bipartisan infrastructure bill if it doesn't have what they want on climate change?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
DowJonesDemocrats vs Progressives.

At last, an admission.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's the Democrats moving forward at a snail's pace or the Republicans moving backward at the speed of light. Anyone that chooses the latter because they aren't getting everything they want immediately is the one being self-righteous.

How will any answer anyone gives to that question (no matter what that answer is) change the poll results and the trend?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The only one throwing around insults towards the progressives is you. No one else called them weasels.

Whhooooosh . . .

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-sarcasm.html...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
But they are the results the corporate Democrats, the Republicans, America's 700+billionairs, the corporations they own, and the executives that run them want.

Indeed they are. And those Wall Street and corporate DEMs . . . the milktoast, status quo seeking, do nothing DEMs . . . will simply attack any progressive DEM who bothers to point out that they are not changing a thing or any better than Republicans when it comes to fixing the major problems facing the nation today. They sound exactly like the closet racists of the 50's and 60's who kept reminding people of color that changing racist ideas takes time and condescendingly telling them that they need to be patient.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why are you so hostile to progressive voters?

Whooosh! I'm not. I am being sarcastic about your previous response to me.

You never answered my question upthread, and I'm curious. If voters are dissatisfied with a lack of progress, do you think that progressives should kill the bipartisan infrastructure bill if it doesn't have what they want on climate change?

Primarily I did not answer because what I think has nothing to do with the poll results I posted. Like I said, I had nothing to do with the study. I simply found it showing the trends I have been suggesting were sure to happen for the past few months. My opinion on a specific issue is irrelevant to those trends and this discussion.

Wall Street DEMs simply don't really like progressives. They want their votes. But they don't want to do anything to earn those votes beyond not being a Republican. They believe that anyone expecting significant change should quietly stay in their place, keep voting DEM, and wait for the Wall Street and corporate DEMs to decide when progressive issues can and should be addressed.

My only role in this is pointing out that the trends I've been predicting are beginning to materialize in the polls. . . and that the Wall Street DEMs will attack anyone who points out the impact of the Democrats' inability to drive an agenda as the majority party that even approaches the GQP's ability to drive their agenda when they are a minority.

Like it or not, the DEMs are heading for a massive defeat in 2022 if they don't figure out a better way to address this.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
the Democrats' inability to drive an agenda as the majority party that even approaches the GQP's ability to drive their agenda when they are a minority.

What was the most consequential piece of legislation the GQP got adopted while in the minority during the Trump administration (the last two years)?

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Nessie, I don't disagree with your goals. They are good.

But running around like a chicken with its head cut off is not a good way to advance those goals. You're starting to sound just as loony and wacky as some on the right.

You're playing the same music as the GOP, just singing different words. And the tune you're playing is fear. If democrats don't get this or that or the other done in the next week or two, democracy is doomed. That is playing a fear card just like the GOP is playing a fear card.

In the words of Joe Biden, we're better than that.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
For what it's worth Nessie you got my rec.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
But running around like a chicken with its head cut off is not a good way to advance those goals.

That's not condescending and insulting at all . . .

You're starting to sound just as loony and wacky as some on the right.

More of the same. Do you think you're superior to me? That's what it sounds like. I've seen nothing from you to make me believe the same.

You're playing the same music as the GOP, just singing different words. And the tune you're playing is fear. If democrats don't get this or that or the other done in the next week or two, democracy is doomed. That is playing a fear card just like the GOP is playing a fear card.

This is really simplistic lying on your part. If you can't tell the difference between me pointing out how voter sentiment is turning against Dems from the Big Lie, you really have no standing to even comment. That shows a complete lack of reading comprehension on your part. Try reading that OP again. I'm sure you can understand the study if you simply try and are not afraid to ask for help if there is some part of it you don't quite understand.

In the words of Joe Biden, we're better than that.

Well . . . I am. But you seem to have simply become a condescending Wall Street DEM who thinks you have more standing than you have or deserve.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
For what it's worth Nessie you got my rec.

Well . . . thanks. For what it's worth, I am a really reliable vote for the DEMs . . . in every recent election and as far as I can see into the future. But that situation is primarily because the GQP has become such a reprehensible party that I feel like there is no choice. I still wish the DEMs would become an organized political party instead of a group of never-GQPers who are having to accept corporate DEM arrogance because that's the only option to lying Republicans.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
How will any answer anyone gives to that question (no matter what that answer is) change the poll results and the trend?

Then I guess we go back to the Republicans. Such fun.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
That's not condescending and insulting at all . . .

I'm trying to provide constructive criticism. Please read my comments as a critique and not an attack.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Then their expectations were wrong.

I agree. I think the greater risk is managing expectations and getting some messaging discipline that can produce some enthusiasm within the year coming up to the mid-terms.

Unfortunately, the party of NO has a much easier job setting expectations on the effectiveness of government.

Hope and progress can be pretty fragile things. Cruelty and nihilism and always seems to be pretty robust.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm trying to provide constructive criticism.

I don't believe you. I think you are lying about your intent. But if you intended to be offering constructive criticism, then you're really bad at it.

You provided absolutely nothing but snarky criticism. You referred to my posts as "running around like a chicken with its head cut off." Honestly, does that strike you more as constructive criticism ??? or more as a condescending insult with absolutely no constructive advice???

Please re-read your own post and try to think about it just a little bit instead of trying to elevate yourself over other posters based solely on your own high opinion of yourself.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Great, there's two of them now.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Jeez you have become as bad as the GQPers.

Nasty and condescending. Putting you back in the p-box for awhile.

Wessex
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Jeez you have become as bad as the GQPers.

Really? How so?

I posted the results of a poll that showed that Democrats are losing approval and the article indicated the reason is that many progressive DEMs are upset with their lack of action and results. This is exactly what I have been saying is going to happen if the conservative and liberal branches of the DEM party do not figure out how to work with each other to address the most important issues facing the nation.

I made no value judgements about the opinions that were recorded in that poll. I simply mentioned that the poll results indicated that DEMs were in for trouble if they did not address the issue. . . and I offered the poll as the data that indicates this is true.

Follow the thread. I was insulted. Most posts implied I was stupid for not believing that DEMs are a better choice than Republicans even though I never said or believed otherwise. I got condescending lectures on how naive I was to think things could change quickly even though I never said I expected them to. None of those responses actually addressed the article I posted or what impact this trend would actually have on Democrats in the next election. When I pointed out that I was just the messenger, Peter jumped in and provided absolutely nothing but condescending insults then tried to claim he was offering critiques. . . as if I need his help understanding politics in the US.

So, p-box me to the end of time, Wessex. I used to look forward to reading your posts. But I don't need you to pile on and blame me for the results of the poll I posted too.

Honestly, Democrats deserve the losses they are going to suffer in 2022. The arrogance and condescension of the Wall Street DEMs is beyond belief. They would rather attack the liberal branch of the Democratic party than admit that they are not getting anything done because of their extremely weak response to the GQP and Trump. And their highly defensive shoot-the-messenger response to me is simply illogical.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
LOL.....

The result of focusing on dumb things.....


And personally attacking those focused on things that matter.


The result?

Red-Hat America matters more ....even when out of power.

Curious, that.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
You provided absolutely nothing but snarky criticism.

No - I pointed out how you are using fear as a motivator. And I pointed out that it is the same tactic used by the politicians you are fighting against.

You referred to my posts as "running around like a chicken with its head cut off."

That's because you are running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. Maybe I should have used chicken little - the sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Those are both ways of pointing out that you are stuck on a single issue, namely that you believe the democrats need to move quicker to get things done. Any time any one points out WHY they might not be moving as quickly as you like - effectively pointing out that there are obstacles in the way that need to be dealt with to move that agenda forward - your response is generally to keep repeating the need to move quicker. Then say to kill the filibuster in the Senate, ignoring the fact that democrats don't have the votes to kill the filibuster.

After a while, this circular reasoning gets tiring. I've reached that point, so I'm commenting. I doubt that I'm alone.

If that is not constructive criticism, I don't know what is.

--Peter

PS - Calling me a liar isn't helping your case.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I just read through the thread that developed over the last 11 hrs.

My comment: how sad! NessieTheBruce brought attention to a poll showing that the Democrats are losing ground, and quickly. I wasn't aware of that, so I'm grateful.

Unfortunately, the discussion degenerated into a series of personal attacks.

I think that the issue of how the Democrats deal with the progressive wing is a really important one that we should be discussing here. When we stoop to name-calling all is lost.

Meanwhile, there are a bunch of lunatic Republicans who support ridiculous conspiracy theories. Maybe we should give that crisis more attention. And those of us who are still rational human beings should not let a difference of opinion in strategy cripple our cause.

President Biden is right. We're better than this. Let's play nice.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
Well . . . I am. But you seem to have simply become a condescending Wall Street DEM who thinks you have more standing than you have or deserve.

The dilemma we all face, Nessie, is that it's simply impossible to do what the progressives are demanding -- at present, at least. The fact that there are NOT ENOUGH PROGRESSIVES IN CONGRESS to get done what progressives want to do, and that they have to settle for getting SOME OF WHAT THEY WANT DONE rather than ALL OF IT, is simply a sad fact of reality. But they are, with the Democrats "in charge," getting SOME OF WHAT THEY WANT. With the Republicans in charge progressives get, not just NOTHING of what they want, BUT THE RAPID WRENCHING BACK OF MOST OF WHAT THEY ALREADY HAVE!

The frustration at not getting actual justice really is understandable. But the claim that "Wall Street Dems" are "just like Republicans" is simply self-defeating and untrue. There ARE HUGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. And perhaps the MOST IMPORTANT OF THESE DIFFERENCES IS THAT DEMOCRATS ACTUALLY WANT A DEMOCRACY, and the current crop of Republicans are virtually ADMITTED FASCISTS.

The fact is that this nation is horribly, perhaps fatally divided between selfish people and generous people, between kind and cruel, between those willing to engage with reality and those who are not. And if we're not really careful now, the selfish and cruel and those who prefer the "FREEDOM TO BE SELFISH AND CRUEL" are going to take complete and permanent control because the progressives who are demanding things that are at present absolutely IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT will refuse to support the only party capable of EVENTUALLY providing most of those things. And the sad truth is that they are going to suffer the most from this petulant conviction that "both sides are equally bad." Because both sides aren't, and the good guys quite simply lack the POWER TO DO WHAT THE PROGRESSIVES ARE DEMANDING.

Moreover, we on the progressives side are not guaranteed to be right about all of our wishes. We need sometimes to be more pragmatic, given that no one has yet invented a system which guarantees a just outcome for all. I have a pretty good idea of the kinds of changes necessary to APPROACH to such a system, but I could be wrong. Unless the progressives manage to seize the same kind of absolute power the fascists are trying to seize, they will almost certainly NEVER GET EVERYTHING THEY WANT.

I said in 2016 that we were about to lose the Supreme Court -- probably forever -- if the progressives were unwilling to support the Democrats in sufficient numbers. And they weren't and we got Trump and three regressive Supreme Court Justices. This petulant, immature demand that immediate change happen or they will withdraw their support from Democrats is so utterly self-defeating so useless and ultimately damaging that their the damage they may do is increasingly likely to destroy the country. Their demands are a kind of hostage-taking: "Give us the absolute justice we've been denied since forever, or we'll let the fascists tear it all down." They said that in 2016, and we got Trump. Because NO ONE HAS THE POWER TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT, and they're unwilling to accept that fact.

And THAT may turn out to be the ironically most tragic reason for the fall of American democracy. Not the rise of the fascists, but the rejection of reality by enough people on the left to PREVENT the triumph of the fascists.

I get the emotional need for "justice at last." I get it. But that's not how reality works. I endorse all of the goals of the progressives in terms of policy. I cannot endorse, however, the notion that unless the Democrats manage to achieve these goals they are "as bad as the Republicans."
Nor that it will be the fault of the Democrats in Congress, writ large, if either they can't get for the progressives all that the progressives want, nor that it doesn't matter if the fascists win if they don't get what they want. It's pretty clear what the consequences are going to be if the progressives fail to support the Democratic Party. If they refuse to face this fact, the Progressives are going to carry no small part of the burden of responsibility for those consequences.

And you, Nessie, keep suggesting that what the Democrats should do in order to avoid the wrath of the Progressives is to DO THE IMPOSSIBLE -- TO GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT. Maybe you're not willing to face reality, either, if you think that screaming at the Dems to do the impossible or else is going to have a positive effect. Maybe you ought to be encouraging the Progressives to face and accept reality and to settle for what we can get under the circumstances. And, yeah - that means accepting a whole hell of a lot of injustice. Because, absent a bloody revolution, human nature, sadly, doesn't give the pursuit of justice a straight and obvious path.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
We are beginning to see the impact on voter support of Democrats' inability to advance legislation in Washington... These are not results that will lead to large Democrat voter turnout.

This is correct.

"Moderate Democrats" are secret masochists who are happy to suffer under a steady flow of rhetorical pandering while telling the activist base to eat their peas and put on sweaters, while groveling for whatever crumbs Congressional Republicans will allow. We're supposed to be happy with ceasing a relentless backslide, expecting any more is selfish. This is the occasional one step forward that is supposed to sustain us between cycles of four steps back.

If Democrats don't quickly figure out that we are in the midst of a civil war - a battle thankfully (for the moment) isolated to our political chambers - we lose the union in 2024. Full stop.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
"Moderate Democrats" are secret masochists who are happy to suffer under a steady flow of rhetorical pandering while telling the activist base to eat their peas and put on sweaters, while groveling for whatever crumbs Congressional Republicans will allow.

Nonsense. Moderate Democrats have different policy preferences than progressives, and thus disagree with progressives on a number of different matters - both substantively and procedurally. Generally, they don't want massive change to the country's economic and social systems.

They are engaged in an intra-party conflict with the progressive activists over how to proceed in setting policy. They are winning that conflict because politics is asymmetrical. It is vastly more difficult to accomplish big changes than small changes, and the least politically difficult thing to do is to maintain the status quo.

Joe Manchin isn't any more powerful than Bernie Sanders. Manchin is a moderate, and he can kill any Democratic proposal by not voting for it. Sanders is a progressive, and he also can kill any Democratic proposal by not voting for it. Sanders cannot pass a bill on his own, though; and neither can Joe Manchin (no new or expanded coal subsidies for West Virginia unless he cuts a deal).

It's easier to believe that moderate democrats are secret masochists that are following some shady agenda than to acknowledge the truth - that they're primarily folks who are less progressive than the liberal base in their personal outlook, generally represent districts that contain much larger numbers of moderate or even conservative-leaning Democrats who are also less progressive, and typically have large numbers of centrist or even center-right independents who are resistant to massive changes. Their positions stem from the political realities and constraints they face, as well as simply having different conceptions of what the federal government should be doing. Not 'masochism.'

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The best things to do:

Focus on "GQP!" "Trump Tweets!"

Then bring out the big guns: Stetson hats. $15.00 an hour.


Then if someone suggests focusing on more important pressing matters - pay no mind.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Nonsense. Moderate Democrats have different policy preferences than progressives, and thus disagree with progressives on a number of different matters - both substantively and procedurally. Generally, they don't want massive change to the country's economic and social systems.

I could buy this explanation if it wasn't regularly undermined by "moderate Democrats" sidling up to progressive positions around election time then slowly pussing out when faced with the anachronistic constraints of "regular order" (none of which McConnell allows to stand in his way), fake procedural challenges, and a sudden interest in "bipartisanship" which virtually nobody among the electorate - left or right - cares about one whit.

Unless Dems act big and start rubbing conservatives noses in the dirt, we're losing in 2022 ... and 2024 will be the end of it all. The OP is correct. The same dynamics were in play leading up to 2016 and "I Told You So" back then as well. Nobody who mattered listened. I fervently hope I'm not in a position to say "I Told You So" again but it's not looking good.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I could buy this explanation if it wasn't regularly undermined by "moderate Democrats" sidling up to progressive positions around election time then slowly pussing out when faced with the anachronistic constraints of "regular order" (none of which McConnell allows to stand in his way), fake procedural challenges, and a sudden interest in "bipartisanship" which virtually nobody among the electorate - left or right - cares about one whit.

Part of that is just the nature of campaigning. Every politician puts their best face forward during elections - the most ardent progressive tries to appeal to centrists, the most centrist Democrat wants to be seen as a friend to progressives, etc.

But none of the Senators in question were out there campaigning on a $6 trillion spending bill, or abolishing the filibuster, or establishing public financing of federal campaigns, or the like. There are centrist Democrats who have always been centrist Democrats - it's not like Joe Manchin is an ardent proponent of climate change regulation while on the trail but backpedals when it's time to vote.

These aren't secret progressives who suddenly find centrism when it comes time to vote. They don't want to get rid of the filibuster because the filibuster prevents large swings of public policy towards the extremes (on both sides) and preserves the status quo - which moderate Democrats are much more comfortable with than progressives are.

And voters don't care about 'bipartisanship' - but they do care about the substance of changes, and so being concerned with bipartisanship limits the window and range of possible policy alternatives to something much closer to the center. It's pretty clear that when Senators express a desire for bipartisanship they're not longing for GOP votes on a deeply progressive bill (which is a fantasy) - they're longing for a more centrist bill, sufficiently centrist that it might actually appeal to some GOP voters (or even their politicians).

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top