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
Progressives and leftists did what the Democratic Party asked them to. They voted for Biden even though he did not support many of the policies they wanted.
The election is over. The time in which it was valid to demand for them to back Biden is over. Advocacy, political pressure, petitions, calls, letter-writing campaigns, social media campaigns, protests, and similar forms of political action is support of progressive and leftist positions is entirely valid. More than just valid, it’s a positive good.
The best option available, since Biden’s nomination, was “get this guy into office and then push him”. He won. We’re now in the “push him” phase. And Democrats, even moderate Democrats, should listen, because you can’t build a strong party base out of people who would rather ignore politics and let things to back to “normal”. The Dems need those activists.
Edited by Galadriel on Dec 19th 2020 at 12:37:57 PM
@Fighteer: Are people saying this?
Recognized that someone is not amenable to your cause is not the same thing as saying they will go completely out of their way to destroy your movement.
@sgamer: I had meant to say that if the field had remained as divided as it did for the Republicans in 2016 for longer then maybe Bernie could have leveraged a victory by being the "momentum" candidate, similar to how Trump won despite getting not much more then a third of the vote in the early primaries by just being consistently at the top of the pack.
It would not have been as easy as it was for Trump, but it was possible until the field emptied post South Carolina.
Are we really in the push him phase even he's not even sworn into office yet?
That still suggests the majority of primary voters were moderates, which was the thing I was wondering. It was said that was the case and this seems to suggest that's true.
Edited by sgamer82 on Dec 19th 2020 at 9:40:00 AM
No, we should not be "pushing Biden" or taking "direct action", we should be rallying behind him and working to get two Democratic Senators elected in Georgia. Otherwise you can have all the fancy dreams of progress you want but nothing will happen, because Moscow Mitch will block everything.
Edited by Fighteer on Dec 19th 2020 at 12:39:56 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"By "rallying behind Biden" you'd be validating Republican talking points, AKA that progressives and leftists don't actually care about progress and just hated Trump because he was "against the Establishment" or whatever.
It's trying to win a losing battle optically, you're not going to win Republicans over by rallying behind Biden. (not that I think you should, really.)
Edited by Makir on Dec 19th 2020 at 6:42:06 PM
Bernie had an absurdly low ceiling. Democratic success was blunted, not enhanced due to the rise of socialist politics in the mainstream. Could you imagine the carnage of having to campaign for the Democrats, trying in vain to mollify Red Scare fears while our idiot nominee is like, "No, no, they're right! I am a socialist." We would lose. Trump would have been reelected, and there would be no chance at the Democrats claiming the Senate.
Bernie's entire election strategy was a facsimile of Trump's: run an insurgent populist campaign against a divided mainstream and capture the nomination by a marginal vanguardist faction. His staffers and literally anyone affiliated with the campaign had no contingency for what to do when faced with unified centrist opposition. They did nothing to broaden their base beyond obnoxious white people and delinquent young voters, because they wagered (and lost) on the fracture of the center. And he had no coattails. Bernie ApprovedTM candidates lose anywhere that doesn't have a Cook PVI rating of like D+30.
"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."![]()
![]()
speaking as an Indian American, I've noticed no such thing among the people I know, so it might be manufactured from the home country or from other immigrant communities. I know that there is a Trump-Modi connection facilitated through West Coast Desis.
Edited by CrimsonZephyr on Dec 19th 2020 at 12:45:50 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."![]()
![]()
Yeah let's not sling around the pointless (and also if you've spent more than a minimum amount of time around us, obviously wildly incorrect at that) insults like that.
Nothing wrong with being a leftist as long as you're arguing in good faith, but I'm not really getting that from you right now. If you want to be taken seriously, then I suggest you spend a lot more time lurking these threads and reading up on past discussions we've had before you start smugly lecturing others with such a condescending attitude, as if you're naturally more informed than us about things we've already discussed in detail in the past, with citations and all.
Edited by AlleyOop on Dec 19th 2020 at 12:57:07 PM
Republican talking points are irrelevant. We know they'll say anything to their base. If we pushed Biden leftward, they'd scream, "See, it was all a facade. They're really a bunch of socialists using a moderate as cover."
What matters here is the motivation of Democratic voters (or potential Democratic voters) to support down-ballot candidates, both in the runoffs and in the upcoming 2022 midterms.
It seems very likely that the "anyone but Trump" motive was significant enough this election to cause a swing for Biden that wasn't reflected in Congressional and local races. If that's true, then it must not be read as a clarion call for a progressive agenda, but a narrow win that needs a lot of shoring up to make stick. By all accounts that I've seen, cries like "Defund the Police" seriously hurt Democrats in competitive races.
Edited by Fighteer on Dec 19th 2020 at 1:02:08 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"How about discussing how to deal with the republicans that threatened to secede from the United States if Trump was declared the loser of this election and start a second civil war over it?
Or the fact that the GOP has refused to honor the oath they took when sworn into office?
The Democratic Party is not the problem here, people.
The GOP are.
And they seriously needs to be dealt with before the next election comes around and allow them to threaten democracy and the United States once again with another candidate.
Okay?
How to deal with the GOP?
What is needed to deal with the GOP is a massive cultural shift. The only thing that will work in the long run is getting more people to recognize their BS and dismiss it on the first hearing. I think the only path to that is better education.
Sadly, there is no “fast” solution.
My musician pageWell, as a progressive democrat, I feel like defending Biden and the party anytime they are threatened by conservative rhetoric, while simultaneously keeping the activist pressure up so that Biden and his political allies don't forget we exist. These are not mutually exclusive options.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.In my darker moments I'm not sure there is a way to deal with the Republican mentality: that it's going to end in violence. I hope otherwise, but it strains credulity that a significant chunk of these people will wake up to reality any time soon.
Again, we need to deal with the fire currently burning our house down before we can worry about whether the pantry is stocked with organic food and the carpets are eco-friendly.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"There seems to be a disagreement about ends and means.
To me, the goal of a progressive is the advancement of progressive policies. To the extent that the Democratic Party or any other party assists in that goal, it is an asset. When it opposes that goal or is is inactive, it can be pushed. It certainly does not need to be automatically supported in all its actions. And pursuing policies that do not have majority national support is not only acceptable, but in some cases necessary - a LOT of progressive things in the past that greatly improved people’s lives (including, in Canada, national health care) didn’t get mass popular support until after they were actually passed and implemented. And there are some stances that are worth losing an election over rather than knuckling under to an immoral choice for political gain.
To a partisan, the goal is the advancement of a political party, and the party should choose (within certain constraints) the policies that are most likely to advance its own power, influence, and popularity. I disagree with this.
The goal of politics is not to empower the Democratic Part as an institution. The Democratic Party is merely a tool by which progressive politics can be advanced. Sacrificing progressive policies to strengthen the Democratic Party is an abandonment of the end goal.
Edited by Galadriel on Dec 19th 2020 at 1:06:07 PM
And those policies can't be advanced unless we have majorities in enough legislative bodies. I don't give a toss about the Democratic Party as itself; I care that it is not actively suborning our national security, environment, economy, social cohesion, and so on.
Social justice is important but it is only one of the crises we face, and it is unfortunately a means to an end when it comes to dealing with those crises.
We will continue to exist as a nation and as a species under economic injustice, but we won't if our climate is destroyed, Russia is allowed to attack us, and/or we devolve into a fascist autocracy.
You stanch the gushing wound from a severed limb before you treat the person's psychological disorders.
Edited by Fighteer on Dec 19th 2020 at 1:09:45 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

^ Yeah if you can point out who in this thread said that, that'd be be great.
Talk about bad faith arguements all around this thread, oof.
Also I REALLY don't appreciate this weird unequivalent horseshoe theory that both radicals are bad.
Like dude.
The most radical people in the Democratic Party are the Justice Dems, who would be considered Social Democrats (Not democratic socialists) by most.
The most radical people in the Republican Party are racists and fascists.
Edited by Makir on Dec 19th 2020 at 6:36:45 PM