Manchin and Sinema are fucking the rest of the party. That I agree with. I just don't see the solution. Trying harder won't change the mind of Manchin or Sinema.

The new voting rights bill is popular among moderates. Same with taxing billionaires, negotiating drug prices, not selling arms to Saudi Arabia, rooting out corruption, and so on.

So the question is that if the goal is to make moderates happy as you say, why don't they pass bills that do that?

Unless this has nothing to do with moderates and everything to do with who bribes them.

Manchin and Sinema suck but they also provide cover for a lot of other Democrats who don't want to upset their wealthy donors.

Here are some Democrats gutting the prescription drug stuff.

Democrats, GOP reject adding Medicare drug-price plan to budget

Here's Democrats not allowing us to audit where our tax dollars go to within the CIA.

Several dozen Democrats took down an amendment from AOC asserting a federal watchdog may investigate the intelligence community.Â*

Democrats supporting the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia.

Senate backs Biden admin weapons sale to Saudi Arabia - POLITICO

Democrats fighting to provide tax cuts to the rich.

Democratic worries grow over politics of SALT cap | TheHill

All these are wildly unpopular with moderates who I'm told is the audience.

You're right, but even if every other person in the party aligned with your preferred policy goals, Manchin and Sinema would still stop it all from happening.

With Manchin and Sinema, they could pass a voting rights bill, most if not all of BBB, and some real climate legislation. It wouldn't be perfect, but it's just wrong to say Dems won't when most Dems will.

dola

SCOTUS let the Texas 6 week ban bill stand. They aren't even trying to pretend to obey precedent anymore, but until Roe and/or Casey are overturned, this is clearly unconstitutional.

double dola

Sounds like Manchin is going to kill the BBB. I'm not sure anybody hates Dems more than Manchin.

I think you're right on those issues not being popular with moderates, but how many people's votes are going to really be changed by CIA audits or selling weapons to Saudi Arabia? Those are the kinds of issues that people say they care about and then don't even consider when they vote. Taxes, prescription drugs could move the needle some, but how much? Is it enough to more than compensate for the donors you are talking about donating heavy to republican candidates instead? There are issues that Republicans don't follow their voters on as well, it's more a game of 'what issues do I have to support to get your vote' - you can always find significant departures.

The guy that has consistently voted against disaster relief aid asked Biden for a federal declaration of emergency today.

Fuck Rand Paul.

Random musing.

Went grocery shopping. Bread & milk were the same. Canned soup had a nice sale. I always look for OJ on sale. Sandwich meats pretty much same. Fruits and vegetables did seem a little more expensive but it is winter so not sure if its the seasonality or maybe shipping costs from Mexico. Ribeye was still around $14-$15 a pound (which has increased since pre-Covid) but I've not a big eater of red meat. Gas prices are relatively high but I've seen prices this high before.

Car prices are higher and there are less/no discounts compared to 2 years ago when I looked at cars. And of course, house prices are inflated.

It's a given that Powell will be increasing rates, question is how quickly/often. I think this is needed but not going to be good for many people.

Mid-terms traditionally aren't good for the party in power. Still somewhat optimistic that losses won't be too bad but the Dems won't hold both houses and it'll be a new reality for Biden.

Here is the really quite suspicious thing about this inflation. Beef prices are up, yet the cattle farmers are not getting any more per cow. How? It was the same with lumber. Lumber prices skyrocketed, but tree farmers and people who tried to sell timber were not getting any more than before. All the while corporations are reporting record profits. All of this smells rather fishy.

I work for a logistics company that does nothing but arrange shipments between customer & carrier, than take a percentage off the top.....their stock doubled over the last year. I think it's the middlemen that are fueling most of the inflation.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/12/us/ca...ics/index.html


It's a shitty way to do things, but this is probably the only way to stop the right from their bullshit at the moment. More left states need to start doing things like this. Not just with guns/abortion, but with elections, ect as well.

Pretty sure the Supreme Court doesn't care about judicial consistency or looking like hypocrites. Just a waste of time. Especially since California Dems will puss out anyway.

It's highly unlikely to make them stop. Much more likely to make them double, triple, and quadruple down on their efforts.

I really don't think there's much else you can do when a party is so obviously trying to weaponize the SC.

All of this is just priming the system for a civil war or succession. The more we divide ourselves, not just by extreme opinion but by law, the less we have in common or have reason to continue as a country. When one side wants to do things like abolish public education and install private Christian education as the standard, where does that leave the rest of us? It used to be conservatives made the argument for private choice in education; now they are emboldened to just say what they always wanted - no separation between (their) church and state and indoctrination of children to push off the changing culture as far as they can.

If we're going to have such divergent laws by state where one state completely prevents abortion while others openly court it, or vice versa for gun control/ownership, we aren't very far from just being separate countries. There's a point at which federalism becomes unwieldy or useless when there's very little common ground from which to work.

The united states of Europe

This sucks.

Attention Required! | Cloudflare

Yeah, that sucks.

This is why I vote Libertarian

Because it's the political equivalent of being a hipster? Because it allows one to aloofly claim a candidate would have followed through on all of his campaign promises because they're never going to win so no one can ever prove it wrong? (Never mind there would be no congressional support for any of these policies?) Never believe in anything because it will just disappoint you hurt nihilism?

I'm not following.

SI

And it's official. Manchin has killed BBB. Supposedly the plan is to temporarily shelve it so as to focus on voting rights, but Manchin said just yesterday that he won't support a carve-out on the filibuster without 10 GOP votes. I suspect the whole plan is to look like they are doing something and hope for the best.

That hasn't worked well previously, but oh well.

Listen, the BBB won't play well to moderates. Nor will helping on student loan debt. Or the child care tax credit. Or the other things 83 million people voted for.

What moderates care about is allowing folks in Congress to continue to participate in insider trading.

Pelosi, says lawmakers/Capitol staff shouldn't be prohibited from trading stock: "This is a free market, we are a free market economy, they should be able to participate in that."

— Mariana Alfaro (@marianaa_alfaro) December 15, 2021

No, they don't

Hoping for Dems to do good is like expecting Charlie Brown to kick the football. It's depressing that it's a quasi-viable strategy because about half the voting population seems to enjoy voting for Lucy.

SI

Imagine how pissed voters are going to be in January when that child care tax credit disappears without warning.

With the news they only extended the debt ceiling through 2023 so Republicans can shut down government and blow up the economy before the election, I'm getting the feeling the Democrats are trying to throw these next few elections.

Joke's, of course, on them as if they lose one or two more major elections in the next few years, there may not be many elections to raise money for.

SI

I may fully appropriate this analogy for my own personal and professional use.

They'll be rich enough that it won't matter.

The crazy thing is all their leadership went through the same thing under Obama and saw how that turned out. I would say they're dumb, but I genuinely think they'd prefer being ruled by Republicans. Likely better for their own personal wealth.

The Democrats need to either figure out how to get progressives and young people to vote or tack hard to the middle.

At this point what would a hard tack to the supposed middle look like? Calling Republicans socialists?

I see this differently. I fully expect the GOP to be running both houses in 2023 and I don't think it benefits them at all to blow up the economy a few months before the election.

Now I do think there's a small, but non-zero, chance that enough Dems get tired of being the responsible party in debt limit votes so that everything falls apart for a few days.

That's . . . impressive. Spend a year talking about BBB so that the GOP can paint you as the party of "Big Government Programs."

But then don't actually pass it so you don't actually improve anything.

It's like that time that Lions QB just ran out of the back of his own end zone. You had thought that you had seen peak ineptitude before that. But you just hadn't watched long enough.

They did. Biden had a ton of stuff he campaigned on that was wildly popular with moderates and progressives. Got him 83 million votes.

Yeah, this was supposed to be the coalition in the middle.

SI

That is not what got him 83 million votes.

Donald Trump is the best GOTV candidate in history, both for and against him.

But who is the "you" here? That's what I don't get with these comments. Do you really think Biden and most of the party doesn't want to pass the BBB?

"You" are the Dems.

The wording is really clumsy, even after I rewrote it a couple of times and couldn't come up with better. But it gets the sentiment across.

SI

Remember when there were whispers of expanding the supreme court after all this popular, centrist (sure, probably watered down) stuff got passed like voting rights, criminal justice reform, and a couple of infrastructure bills including one with climate legislation were all addressed? Good times!

SI

But, hey, don't worry - the Dems will get steamrolled for "not doing enough" and replaced by GOP reps who already have and will continue to crush access to the ballots, keep throwing people in for-profit prisons, and hand the rest of the middle class's money back to the wealthy while stripping away regulations. That'll show 'em!

Of course, many will continue to paint it as turd sandwich vs giant douche or whatever false equivalence choice. Never mind that one side is just (willfully?) incompetent while the other is actively trying to screw you. Definitely the same thing!

(EDIT: Or, hey, maybe I'm the idiot for thinking there's a difference. I guess, at least, the branding is different)

SI

You all can disagree with me, but I think a pretty solid argument that progressive policies win out in heavily urban areas, but not so much in the suburbs and mid-West, and that the 2018 gains and Biden's win were much more of a counter to Trump than because his ideas were wildly popular. Biden got votes that didn't trickle down to the congressional candidates because people wanted Trump out of office. He didn't have a mandate to make major changes - the Democrats lost congressional seats and you all are old enough to remember the series of events that led to the two Georgia senators being elected.

This article has some insight into the voting:Why did House Democrats underperform compared to Joe Biden?


What's the takeaway there? People like Biden? People don't like Trump? People like their local representatives? I'm not sure, but the margins in those states were all under 1.25% except Michigan. Unless some of the folks living in LA, NY, Boston, and Chicago want to redistribute across the country to swing more local elections, it looks like something has to be done differently.



It's all well and good for the Democrat president to win by millions and millions of votes, but if that margin is all coming from New York (+1.9M margin) and California (+5.1M margin), it is going to be real hard to have majorities in congress to do anything with it. Particularly in the senate. It isn't fair that California's and Wyomings's senators both get the same vote when California has 17+ million more voters, but that is the way it is drawn up.

So, I come back to saying that progressives and young people need to come out way, way more in force or the party needs to win back the middle. Their coalition doesn't work if there are a room full of progressives in safe seats from California, NY, Mass, etc. and the handful of folks in the swing states risk getting voted out of office if they have to choose between their constituents' jobs right now or the environment down the road. Using the pipelines as an example, whether you were for closing them or not, that issue got a lot of air time in 2020 in my market (SW PA). I'd personally rather see a more progressive agenda, but if the choice is to win progressives or win people from the middle, I would think winning people in the middle would net more voters by taking some away from the Republicans. As it is now, we get the worst of both worlds where both the progressives and the moderates are pissed off at one another and the Republicans will take over and set us backwards another 20 years until they break the economy enough again to get people to reconsider the democrats.

And that is just at the federal level.

Have some fun and take a look at most of the state houses and senates right now:Legislative Partisan Splits | Stateside Associates

These are the folks doing the gerrymandering and taking us further and further from democracy.

*Note that I am not trying to minimize progressive issues or agendas, just trying to be realistic about what I see is more likely to improve this situation over time.

Winning two Senate seats in Georgia seems to show those ideas were popular. It's what both candidates campaigned on too. Trump had already lost, so not really a factor.

The campaign promises Biden made were incredibly popular. Child tax credit, studen loan deferral/forgiveness, prescription drug price negotiating, $2000 stimulus checks, paid family leave, universal preschool, higher minimum wage, etc.

If all it takes is running against Trump, Hillary would have been President.

So every Dem wants what you described? Or just some Dems?

Perdue and Loeffler lost Trump voters in the runoffs because they didn’t go along with the big lie and both voted to certify Biden after the Jan 6 attack. Loeffler, in particular, changed her position that day as she was planning to oppose the certification that morning: Loeffler reverses on challenging Biden’s win after riot at Capitol - POLITICO


I was thrilled that Ossoff and Warnock won and the senate got to a 50-50 split (I imagine if either had lost, there would have been zero judicial appointments this and next year), but they didn’t ride in on a wave due to their positions. They ran good campaign, had weak opponents, had some fortunate bounces go their way, and both won super close run off elections. Meanwhile, the dems lost winnable races in Maine, Iowa, North Carolina and Montana and barely won Arizona and Michigan. They are going to need some of those stares to have Democratic senators if we ever want to see another Supreme Court justice appointed by a democratic president.

So under this theory, there is absolutely nothing a Democrat can do to win votes. Their votes are entirely dependant on if they're up against a bad candidate who screws up?

Hillary didn't have the benefit of the 4 years we endured under Trump...

I don't think policy matters a lot in terms of voters, but having a brand does. Nobody knows what Dems favor, so it's very hard to create a message to persuade voters.

You vote GOP for lower taxes, no abortion, and fewer regulations. You vote Dem for what exactly?