What's the alternative to conservative Democrats in more moderate states?
People rightfully shit on Machin, but his approval rate has skyrocketed in West Virginia, and there is zero chance a progressive would stand a chance there.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
People rightfully shit on Machin, but his approval rate has skyrocketed in West Virginia, and there is zero chance a progressive would stand a chance there.
Being even more indignant and more hyperbolic about your nonsense doesn't somehow make it more reasonable or more accurate.
And the idea that the pandemic relief Biden did pass wasn't meaningful is just laughable. Not being everything you might personally want is in no way the same as not meaningful. For the families it kept out of poverty, it was indeed very meaningful.
The Democratic House caucus of ten years ago had 64 anti choice members. Today it has one. That, in a nutshell, shows the evolution to party has gone through during that time, and means the body is a shockingly more progressive institution than it ever has been before. That has lead to it passing the kind of legislation Democrats have never been able to pass before, including a bill guaranteeing the right to an abortion. There is no reason to think that if the Democratic Party of today had a similar level of control over the Senate as it does the House, that it would not be able to pass similar measures.
She was 81 at the time and had already lived through cancer. That she didn't retire when she had a Democratic Senate majority to appoint her replacement was perhaps the most ridiculous, foolish, and consequential decision someone has ever made at that level power. I'm definitely not one of these "blame the Dems for everything" people, but I will blame RBG for that. It sullies her reputation, particularly since none of her work will survive the next few decades of this court she helped bring into existence by her hubris.
I didn't mean to post that, and edited it out immediately. I'm not interested in fighting about RGB's decision, I wish she had decided differently.
Indeed, one party is hell bent on taking away people's rights and the other seems happy enough to take your money and votes and give you nothing in return.
It's no wonder voting turnout is so low in the US, along side all the other games like voter ID and boundary changes .
Roe v Wade: US firms pledge to pay staff travel expenses for abortions
Disney, JP Morgan and Meta are among the companies to confirm such policies after the Roe v Wade ruling.
www.bbc.co.uk
Who knows... Maybe there would be alternatives had the party put in a 10th of the energy in building a real Democratic presence across all states as they do fighting the left.
Going by their positions on a wide range of shit from the filibuster, bipartisanship, to whether a representative showing clear signs of senility should retire already... There's no reason to think that it would.
RBG deserves all the scorn in the world for refusing to retire.
I don't find anything admirable about these nerds on the supreme court. They can pretend all they want, but the court has been a partisan clown show for ages. I don't care how much joy or meaning they get out of directing their clerks to draft eloquent opinions, ultimately they're there to push the agenda of the party that nominated them.
If they want to be remembered for being good judges, the least they could do is judge correctly when they should vacate their seat, so we don't end up exactly where we are right now.
Again, you're making any sense. Who is "they" in this sentence? The vast majority of Democratic Senators don't feel the same way as a few holdouts that limit our options.
Which is why having more Senators would change that. You are making my argument for me.
Again, if this was 10 years ago, you'd be using the same logic to argue that the House will never pass an abortion rights bill. And you would have been wrong.
If you seriously believe the Democratic Party spends most of its energy fighting the left, especially while they're losing the Hispanic voter base to Republicans, you cannot be reasoned with.
I think you can legally run over protestors in FL
I don't see the correlation here. Hispanics (or rather older people of color in general) in the South have always been conservative and religious. Hispanics are moving to the Republican party because of their concerns with immigration. I don't think the left could really do much to convince them.
POC have also not voted as much until recent years, it's basically a race to appeal to them between Democrats/Republicans, and it does seem like Republicans are winning right now. I know for sure, things like 'Defund the Police' really hurt Democrats with that demographic. That's about the extent that I saw any major infighting within the Democratic Party. They are not spending all their energy fighting the left like some people claim.
There's definitely a generational divide in the Black community. Younger Black Americans support defunding the police whereas older Black Americans do not, and the latter votes a lot more than the former and are a highly valued constituency by the Democratic party. Hence, politically speaking, defund the police became maligned with more progressive Democrats (although I disagree with the notion that it cost them some seats in the 2020 election).
This. The filibuster would be gone were it not for Manchin and Sinema. Every dem in the Senate except those two was ready to fall in line.
Specifically, more Senators who want to get rid of the filibuster. I know Fetterman likely would support removing the filibuster, but I don't know if another Dem Senator would and we also have to consider the possibility of another moderate "changing their mind" past 2022 once Dems gain two seats.
It isn't this simple.
It's true that "Defund" is more popular with younger Black voters, but not by much. Polls as late as 2021 show only 28% of support for "Defund" among Black voters. That's not explained by age-gap alone.
A more accurate thing to say is that "Defund" was only a debate among younger Black voters. Among older Black voters, it was ineffective as a slogan from the jump.
This shouldn't not be taken as a reflection of my own politics (which tends to happen in these discussions), but assumptions shouldn't be made merely on demographics.
Truth matters but the way people feel matters just as much if not more in a lot of cases. Just brushing it off calling it dumb isn't doing any favors. It feels like this thread has become more about defending the Democratic Party for whatever reason, when it feels like people should be acknowledging that there are a lot of people just completely over them who Dems should be working to bring back into the fold and make sure they are going to vote. These people matter even if they aren't like, empirically correct.
A bunch of other Dems are running on it including Tim Ryan lol.
The thread shouldn't be about attacking the Democratic Party either.
I mean not really. 2016 was suppressed turnout all around it just happened to favor Republicans who lucked out on Trump and timing of three justices. That's not really 50 years of planning as it is luck.
I mean no. It wouldn't have happened if Republicans didn't consistently vote R in mid-terms and steal a SC justice seat.
The funny thing about these threads, every single one of them, is that if you read my posts in them, it's entirely understandable how you'd come away thinking that I don't have any issues with the Democratic Party.
And whew chile would you still be so wrong.
It's somewhat sad sometimes, how in spaces in my real life it's so easy and available to me, the ability to have substantive conversations where I'm ripping the Democrats a new asshole over their faults. I have real organizational issues with this party. But so often, it's so difficult to have those conversations here (and online in general), because so much time is spent combatting the demonstrably false bullshit that just gets regurgitated. I can't talk about the ways I feel their messaging really feels stilted. I can't talk about how their occasional over-reliance on data can really ignore the grassroots, because these threads become so quickly flooded with "Dems had 30-40-50 years and they DID NOTHING!" and having to pull up data showing that, no matter how upset you are, that tweet you keep spamming is just fucking wrong.
No amount of anger I ever have with Democrats is going to give me permission to peddle sus shit making the rounds on Twitter. No amount of frustration with the party is ever going to allow me to pretend I don't know how this shit works just because ragging on Dems will make me feel good. Because you know what makes me feel better? Shitting on Republicans and organizing them the fuck out of office.
The American religious right is an extremist death cult. Keeping on point for fifty years isn't difficult for these types, and the GOP's ties to the confederacy make this a much longer project than half a century. They are coming for every American who isn't a straight white-jesus loving gun toting subhuman.
Oh there is plenty to criticize the Democratic Party for, but like you said, this bullshit:
is fucking nonsense, and doesn't deserve our consideration.
It wasn't just luck though. They created a whole pipeline to get judges who were strictly vetted on policy criteria to ensure they weren't betrayed. They showed up at midterms to make sure McConnell could block a replacement. They held their nose for Trump because they knew what was at stake. And their judges retire strategically because they knew the game plan.
I'm not remotely fond of the Dems but this is an outrageous statement that only peddles nihilism.
All the money raised is going to go into the hands of Google, FB, and the digital firms out there that sell email lists for insane amounts of money.
We need organization and activism, not a way to squeeze money from the pockets of people that are already getting squeezed.
Democrats aren't the problem. At least not entirely. Capitalism and a government that doesn't work for anything but money is the problem.
We need organization and activism, not a way to squeeze money from the pockets of people that are already getting squeezed.
Democrats aren't the problem. At least not entirely. Capitalism and a government that doesn't work for anything but money is the problem.
The Justice that wrote the opinion was on the court nearly 20 years and the one writing the concurrent decision has been there 30 and everything they wrote makes it clear they have always intended to do this. They also only had one of the deciding votes because a Republican senate refused to let Obama even put up a nominee so really that's just 2 "lucky" votes. But I know you know all this. That's not getting into abortion being a big debate topic in every election of my life or how they've been packing the courts whenever they could.
I'm not sure there's a post I could agree more with. I've always hated the Democratic Party but this is the country and the system we currently live with. People are literally asking why they should bother voting for the party that isn't pushing white supremacy and fascism (and that's just the start of my issues with the GOP!). There's only so much patience I have for that nonsense.
Pure nonsense. And no, I won't feel bad for chastising somebody for regurgitating this since it's been covered repeatedly in this thread.
So because I was curious, I decided to look up how important abortion was as an issue in previous presidential elections to the electorate. Since one of the current arguments is that the democrats took advantage of people's passion for the codification of abortion cynically for votes (which I vehemently disagree with, but for the sake of this exercise let's say it's true), I felt it was necessary to take a look at the important issues each election to see if this rings true. Below are the top issues for voters ranging from 2004 to 2020 according to Pew Research:
If we take at face value the argument that Democrats never had any urgency or cared to codify roe v wade during prior elections, then looking at the polling data that would appear to be a pretty good reflection of how the American public generally felt about the issue as well. Abortion was almost never a top concern in any of the last 5 presidential elections. In fact it was almost always either near dead last or flat out last in terms of the major issues polled. In 2008, when people argue Democrats had the actual power to do so, (again I disagree, but for the sake of argument let's say they can) only 39% of the populace felt it was an important issue while voting. Meanwhile, during that election 73% of voters felt healthcare was an important issue while casting their votes. In that case, it is fairly easy to see why the ACA was such a huge priority for the administration coming in rather than abortion.
More or less I feel there is a lot of recency bias regarding explanations of the failure to protect abortion rights. People i think are falling into the trap of trying to apply the mindset of today's populace and government with yesteryear's, and that is leading to a lot of misinformation being thrown about. It's easy to say today it was an extremely important to you while voting, but polling indicates there are probably a lot of people either lying to themselves or others about how much they prioritized it previously. If we say the Democrats relied too heavily on the supreme court protect abortion rights, then it seems the American people did as well.
I'm almost certain that abortion rights will skyrocket as a priority issue this election, as Americans love to be reactive rather than proactive a lot of the time. While something like January 6th was easy to write off for many, since it didn't personally affect them, this time millions of people were directly affected by the Republican party's actions in a way they can't just ignore. If we can work together I earnestly believe this wrong can be corrected, even if it will likely take a lot of effort. I understand people are currently upset, and by writing this post I am in no means trying to downplay that feeling, as I think they are absolutely justified in feeling that way. I just think it is important to remember that above all else the people who deserve the most scorn are those who directly voted for and enacted these miscarriages of justices.
If we take at face value the argument that Democrats never had any urgency or cared to codify roe v wade during prior elections, then looking at the polling data that would appear to be a pretty good reflection of how the American public generally felt about the issue as well. Abortion was almost never a top concern in any of the last 5 presidential elections. In fact it was almost always either near dead last or flat out last in terms of the major issues polled. In 2008, when people argue Democrats had the actual power to do so, (again I disagree, but for the sake of argument let's say they can) only 39% of the populace felt it was an important issue while voting. Meanwhile, during that election 73% of voters felt healthcare was an important issue while casting their votes. In that case, it is fairly easy to see why the ACA was such a huge priority for the administration coming in rather than abortion.
More or less I feel there is a lot of recency bias regarding explanations of the failure to protect abortion rights. People i think are falling into the trap of trying to apply the mindset of today's populace and government with yesteryear's, and that is leading to a lot of misinformation being thrown about. It's easy to say today it was an extremely important to you while voting, but polling indicates there are probably a lot of people either lying to themselves or others about how much they prioritized it previously. If we say the Democrats relied too heavily on the supreme court protect abortion rights, then it seems the American people did as well.
I'm almost certain that abortion rights will skyrocket as a priority issue this election, as Americans love to be reactive rather than proactive a lot of the time. While something like January 6th was easy to write off for many, since it didn't personally affect them, this time millions of people were directly affected by the Republican party's actions in a way they can't just ignore. If we can work together I earnestly believe this wrong can be corrected, even if it will likely take a lot of effort. I understand people are currently upset, and by writing this post I am in no means trying to downplay that feeling, as I think they are absolutely justified in feeling that way. I just think it is important to remember that above all else the people who deserve the most scorn are those who directly voted for and enacted these miscarriages of justices.
Last edited:
The Dems are mediocre and sometimes infuriating. I dislike the party's leadership and messaging strategies, and there are more than a few specific Dems I despise. I do not consider myself a Dem and vote for them as a means of harm reduction meant to minimize catastrophes while I hope for change outside of our shitty electoral system.
Cool, so now that we've established that -- we have to live in the world as it exists and play the hand we're dealt. The more we spread misinfo that "feels" right and righteous, the harder and harder it gets to reach those people that you say need to be reached, because not only do you have to improve your policies/messaging, you have to unwind a lot of anger, nihilism, or outright hatred that's not even based on real, important shit.
Broadcasting misleading nihilistic hot takes does literally nothing to help vulnerable people or important causes. Nothing. I think it does less than nothing -- because being angry, upset, and hopeless all the time doesn't build a foundation for healthy, long-term engagement with the communities and issues that need our help. It interferes with working to improve the world we live in. That's why I call it out.
Last edited:
Did you mean to quote this older post of mine from another thread? Haha :P
So we're just saying here that something that consistently polls as important for ~150 million plus Americans doesn't poll highly enough to be a priority? Never mind that it's something that shouldn't be left up to a vote in the first place? Just checking to see if I'm reading the argument correctly.
it's like you don't understand that you're part of the problem.
stop peddling "both sides" bullshit.
Thank you for putting together a thoughtful great post. This thread has made me even more depressed in the current climate due to a lot of misinformation and misplaced blame. We need to focus on what we should focus on.
Seriously? Can the vitcim in this instance legally beat the fuck out of someone after they've attempted to kill a protester in FL or would the cops come down on the victim for retaliating?
I agree. I'm already seeing a narrative being spun that will result in blaming leftists if Dems lose. This kind of assumption will never yield good results. It's like when people here in Canada get hate for voting NDP and costing a Lib Majority which even I have done in the past tbh and I'm not happy with myself for it. It's just not motivating enough to tell people to vote to prevent things. People need promises and exciting things to get them off thier asses.
Or you can see it as one party who sucks but is making slow progress for the better vs one who's actively trying to strip rights away leading to an undemocratic facist theocracy. That in itself is reason to motivate anyone to vote for whoever has the best chance of beating the one who's out to actively harm everyone you love for their ass backwards beliefs, and it's just as true here in Canada (especially now).
I think the US government reflects the American public in some ways more than some people would want to admit, to be honest. The government will place its focus on whatever is the most pressing issue at the time that they can fix. The reason I believe roe wasn't codified previously is because they didn't have the necessary votes to actually overcome the filibuster, and since the courts at the time protected those rights, they instead focused their time and effort on issues they thought they would be able to address and considered more urgent by the general public.
Do I think they should have placed more focus on it in the past? Sure, absolutely. Do I also say this partially with hindsight of where we are today? Also yes. And that is ultimately what (at least I hope) I am trying to get across with my previous post. The democrats weren't enacting it into law not because of malicious intent, but because they lacked the necessary tools to do so, and without enough people to back them on it they were unable to punch it through, and so they had to leave it to the judicial branch to enforce the ruling. If we look at Democratic states today, we can see that if given the voting power and backing of their state they will enact it into law. What is holding back Democrats at a federal level from enabling it is ultimately the makeup of the country as a whole and their priorities. Hopefully that will change very soon.
I'm also admittedly not sure on what you mean by the issue shouldn't be decided with a vote, so you'll need to explain that one to me. Are you suggesting that politicians should vote on enacting it regardless of how the general public is voting? Because if so, my issue with that argument, is that it ignores the step in which those same politicians get to their position in the first place.
Last edited:
