Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
Maybe these "progressives" are Republicans-in-disguise?
Nice. She will be a huge improvement over whoever the heck T***'s Treasury person was.
Vacant chairs would be an improvement over Trump's cabinet picks.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
There are leftist pro-Bernie groups online that I'm certain are actually GOP psy-ops. The concentrated invective at Democrats combined with the promotion of nonviable politicians or fringe parties can only be explained as such.
In five years, most of the people that frequent these pages will be neo-Nazis because they go from fringe to fringe without transitioning through the center, and the continual failure of the far left will convince them that the far right is the answer.
Generally assume that any and all opposition to the Democratic Party platform is done in service to the GOP.
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Nov 30th 2020 at 1:54:05 PM
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Apparently she also tried to push cuts to Social Security a decade ago.
Or supposedly, I guess; the tweet the link goes to is a video of her on C-SPAN talking about entitlements, but I see don't how she was trying to push for Social Security cuts there.
Edited by PhysicalStamina on Nov 30th 2020 at 1:54:12 PM
i'm tired, my friendI am seeing some critique of Tanden by leftist circles for supporting welfare cuts in the past, but the biggest issue is that the vile, depraved pack in the Senate didn't like some critiques she gave to them.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanWelfare cuts were mainstream up until like 2014. You had to make those noises if you wanted anything resembling a career. Her "critics" must be fifteen years old. That statement — posted, by the way, by a Republican operative — was in response to the 2010 elections where the libertarian GOP faction cleaned house. Making "welfare expansion" a Democratic policy item would have cost Obama the 2012 election. It's not her fault her critics are too young to remember. Fuck them.
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Nov 30th 2020 at 1:58:29 PM
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."If it’s an issue of youth and inexperience, then I hardly think this level of naked hostility is very helpful. Seems to me that it’d just reinforce beliefs that more mainstream Democrats don’t give a shit about them, which is hardly conducive to party unity.
When your interests need to be aligned, there’s this little thing called diplomacy that you need to try.
Edited by KarkatTheDalek on Nov 30th 2020 at 2:09:33 PM
Oh God! Natural light!![]()
That's a double-edged sword.
On the one hand, we really need the youth vote to turn out for us in order to counterbalance the sheer weight of the boomer generation, and it's important in general for us to help cultivate liberal minds in the generations that will govern tomorrow to offset the right's efforts to cultivate conservative minds.
But it also gets aggravating, being on the side that tends to attract young voters, to have those voters come in full of that youthful arrogance we all remember so well. "Man, liberal politicians have literally NEVER DONE ANYTHING EVER; there are policies that I'm certain are correct, and the only possible reason they aren't in place today is because none of the Democrats have ever even tried to fight for them. Like, Obama didn't even try to give us healthcare! Here, let me explain to you why all of you older Democrats suck monkey balls and why we should just DO all of the good policies tomorrow."
So we're in an awkward position where it's important to attract younger voters, but younger voters inexplicably think they're going to waltz in, seize control of the party, and then just do all the things overnight that we haven't done because we've just been sitting around with our thumbs up our asses for the last fifty years.
Young liberals have a bizarre tendency to blame Democrats for failing to pass a progressive agenda instead of Republicans for blocking the Democrats' progressive agenda at every possible turn.
Edited by TobiasDrake on Nov 30th 2020 at 11:20:16 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.It was John Cornyn's (senior Texas US Senator) communications director who said it.
Of note, this is another advantage conservatives have over liberals. Young liberals are being asked to join a culture war for change that hasn't ended in centuries and will not end in our lifetimes. It's natural for their first question to be, "Okay, but why can't we just WIN it?"
But conservatives have it easy. They just need to defend the status quo. We're playing offense, they're playing defense. And their chief defensive strategy is literally just being macho enough that people assume that they know what they're talking about and are the winning team. So literally all young conservatives are tasked with is being mean to liberals. "Did you call him a libtard cuckcake? Great job, Republican Jr.!"
Edited by TobiasDrake on Nov 30th 2020 at 11:27:47 AM
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Has anyone in the House Progressive Caucus opposed her nomination?
One thing I do recall on Neera Tanden is that she did seem to be a bit terminally online, which isn't best trait, but I don't know a whole lot about her policy positions.
Right now I'm just getting sick to the back teeth of all the left wing op-eds saying that "Biden's picks are all people from the Obama era, it'll just be Obama 2.0 and since Obama led to Trump ipso facto Obama 2.0 means Trump 2.0 is guaranteed."
Which, fine, I get where they are coming from but that's only true if all of Biden's appointees have been living in a cave since 2016. We've all had to change our opinions in the face of the Trump presidency, and to that end I think most people, even ex-Obama people (which really shouldn't be a disqualifing attribute in the first place) should be given a chance.
I mean case in point is Biden himself. Not many people were willing to give him a chance but so far those that have have been pleasantly surprised. I think it's only fair to extend the same courtesy to his appointees - at least let them have a hearing so we know what they think now as opposed to judging them on views from the before time.
I think Left-Wingers lashing out at the Democrats rather have a problem with the US party system in general. While it is not helpful, I can relate.
Having such a huge melting pot big tent party instead of smaller, specialized ones where your platform is more likely to be heard can be frustrating. But as long as the system isn't changed entirely or the GOP also splits up, they have to get their act together and act united.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% ScandinavianYoung liberals have a bizarre tendency to blame Democrats for failing to pass a progressive agenda instead of Republicans for blocking the Democrats' progressive agenda at every possible turn.
The other problem I see is the assumption that if democrats lose, it's because they're not left enough.
Now, to be fair, I think the question of why certain candidates lose or don't lose is complicated and it can be hard to figure out what factor, among many, is the most important, especially when it comes to something that hasn't really been tried yet in a lot of places.
But like, the overton window in the US has always been centered to the right in many aspects. Whereas you might be able to run as a social democrat (just as one example) and be competitive at a national level in other countries, that doesn't seem to be the case in the US right now. Progressives have only managed to win in very blue districts.
Which suggests one (or possibly both) of two things: either the marketing/branding for progressives isn't good enough to make them popular, or a lot of places in the US just don't want to vote for progressives, even if individual progressive policies can enjoy a reasonable level of popularity.
Speaking of marketing, that's the other thing that I think a lot of people don't seem to understand on either side of the progressive/moderate divide: I'm not actually convinced policy in and of itself is what gets most people to vote for you. Not to say it isn't important, but most voters are not high-information or vote 100% rationally according to a principled ideology. Your ability to sell yourself and your policies to the "market" you're competing in, and your image matters a lot more to the voterbase at large than anything else.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Nov 30th 2020 at 4:51:54 PM
I think a lot of it is to do with fears of letting the GOP in keeping voters from going for candidates too far to the Left, as well as loyalty to the Dem establishment and incumbent candidates. There's a lot of incumbent advantage going against any SocDem challenger to the established candidates, and I think that we've mostly seen them successful in solid blue districts seems more of a sign that that's where Dems are willing to risk it, where there's little chance of ceding ground to the GOP.
Largely, btw, if Dems ran on a more anti-institutional platform, they'd probably do better. A lot of people do view them as the party of the institution, (in the bad way) maybe even more than the GOP, as fallacious as that belief may be.
Edited by GoldenKaos on Nov 30th 2020 at 12:09:52 PM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."I think part of the issue is that a lot of progressives feels - I don’t know the extent to which this is true, but it’s how they feel - that a lot of moderates just aren’t interested in listening to their ideas.
Now, some of them are in a genuinely precarious position electorally, but progressives would argue that we should be trying to sell progressive ideas to the public and get them on our side, rather than just giving up on them.
Of course, the problem there is what happens if we fail, but that’s why we need a concrete plan going forward. This will naturally require some compromise, but it’s important to remember that will need to come from both sides. Yes, the progressives need to choose their battles, but the moderates need actually give some of these battles a chance, and - this part is key - not dismiss people’s concerns and call them fucking morons.
For Christ’s sake, just talk to them like a normal person.
Oh God! Natural light!I think we just have to apply the same standard to ourselves that we apply to Republicans.
To wit: it's the most extreme version of your party's position that will define you.
The difference that I see between the two parties is that Republicans are accepting of this dynamic whereas Democrats are not. Republican moderates won't condone the extremists on their side but they won't condemn them either. Moderate Democrats on the other hand often try to disavow themselves from that image of radical progressivism - which is a losing battle.
The consequence is that because the Republican moderate ignores what the far right are doing, it gives permission for the Republican voter to do the same. Whereas the moderate Democrat pushing back against progressive politics means that it is a threat to the status quo and so voting Democrat may be seen as a larger risk than it is for those voters in the centre ground.
I feel therefore that it may be a better move for those Democrats who are not in safe seats to just ignore the chatter about progressive policies such as defunding the police. Make it appear that they are unconcerned, it's just activists letting off steam and since it'll never happen I (the candidate) am not worried about it and you (the centrist voter) don't need to worry about it either.
![]()
Disagree on the idea that Democrats should be anti-establishment, if the establishment is defined as government writ large. It's not easy to govern. It shouldn't be easy to govern - that myth partially gave us Trump what with his claims that "I alone can fix it" and his promise to run the government like a business.
('course, he actually fulfilled that second promise, as he certainly ran the government into the ground like most of his businesses)
Challenging obstructionism and bad faith opposition to the smooth running of government - fair. But questioning the establishment itself is dangerous and cynical, and personally I feel just plays into Republican hands like most "both sides" arguments.
I disagree here, because their Republican opponents WILL be running attack ads tying them to things perceived to be extreme, and the candidate ignoring it just lets the Republicans set the narrative without anything to counteract it.
Yeah, if being accused of being socialist is what cost Biden Florida, then I don’t think just ignoring it will make it go away.
When it comes to the police, I think it’s important to both find out what exactly the public wants, and to try to sway those who are more skittish of police reform to our side.
Oh God! Natural light!Which it wouldn't be?
God, could you imagine if the Dems just went full anarchist...
Anti-establishment here means anti-corporate interest, specifically prioritising the economic rights and well-being of the average citizen over the economic rights and well-being of large corporations.
Dems are going to be called Socialist either way, they might as well lean into some of the benefits of doing it because they're always going to catch the main downside, and be smeared as such by the GOP.
Edited by GoldenKaos on Nov 30th 2020 at 1:01:37 AM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."I think the public at large is more amenable to some kind of police reform, but I don't think "defund" is good messaging since it gives people the idea that the police is going to be gone, when what most people seem to want is akin to starting over from scratch, diverting funding from police to other departments and reducing the amount of responsibilities the police have to be more specific, train police in a different and less violent way, have more accountability on a nationwide level, etc.
Of course, the problem is that "reform" doesn't necessarily cut it either because I think some police departments have tried reforms of varying degrees and came back to the same problems over time.

I love how the "progressive caucus" is helping Republicans block Biden's appointees by spreading these arguments.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"