Dem Post Mortem

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hard? In what way?

Moderates in the House getting primaried and replaced by Democratic Socialists. Left-wing DAs getting elected in places like LA, SF and Manhattan. Did you miss all that?

We nominated Biden in 2020, the Liberal and Moderate last pick!

True. There was a consolidation of moderate vote when Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropped out. And I think Warren stayed well past her sell by date to take votes from Sanders. That's because Sanders was deemed too risky to run in the general election.
But after he secured the nomination, Biden moved toward Sanders. One half of the Dem task forces were filled by Sanders people. He also adopted a lot of left-wing positions. The Biden spending plan was a slightly smaller version on the Sanders spending proposal. Biden also adopted a version of student loan cancellation pushed by AOC and others on the left.

Moderate purge is a bit much there. Moderate purge, if caused by anything, was gerrymandering.

Moderate congressmen like Joe Crowley being primaried and replaced by socialists like AOC has nothing to do with gerrymandering. Neither does takeover of county DA offices by leftists like Chesa Boudin or Alvin Bragg.

Joe Crowley would be one person. How many moderates were primaried? And then you have places like Ohio, where there might be two strong liberals seats and the Democrats are pushing moderates of moderates to get the R +2 reddish hue purple districts.

No. I don't.

Then I suggest you find one and watch it. It was wild.

Inflation and anti-transgender ads.

Inflation was exacerbated by too much spending under Biden. And Dems allowed themselves to be pulled by trans activists into supporting unpopular positions, like trans women competing against biological women in competitive sports.

Did they? This transgender thing is the most molehill controversy. The right-wing has been screaming about it for years now. Inclusion for transgender athletes is a difficult problem to manage. However, one would swear the NY Knicks just won the WNBA title last year with the foaming at the mouth from the right-wing on transgenders. Transgender issues are not that high on the DNC platform. They support civil rights for them, but the right-wing has done a brilliant job on some people, to convince them it is a plague and the Democrats are supporting it.

I swear, it is like you live in another dimension.

How so? Do you disagree that Dems moved to the left, especially since 2016?

Not really. If anything, the Democrats position is 'hold the line' at the moment, regarding judicially established rights. Also, with a GOP that is completely unhinged, it doesn't particularly make it easy to go on the offensive using principles and policy.

Jarhyn and Politese aren't the far left! You need to look up what these terms mean. Far left will involve government receivership of the oil companies

How would you describe them?

Progressives, liberals. "Far-left" are radicals. I don't need to agree with everything they say in order for them to not be radicals.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yep! This will help fight off the far right! (Dang the right comes together so much easier than the left in the US).

It's no secret that rightwing policies are increasingly popular in the United States, but I do not personally believe in choosing my political positions based on the ever-changing rubric of the currently popular. The public is fickle, and it can change its mind with better knowledge and good leadership.

I think that the far right is sufficiently dangerous that I will vote for democratic candidate whomever they will be in 28. Will you? I'll fight for the democrat that best addresses my concerns and whom I think can win (Whitmer, Shapiro, Newsome). But if a progressive wins, I'll vote for that person. But the progressive has to earn it. They have to win the primary. Hell, give AOC the questions in advance of 5 town halls; and I'll vote for her and support her if she's the democratic candidate in 2028.

Actual primaries. Sanders won caucuses... which are generally in the favor of people that are extremely engaged for a candidate. Clinton won a lot of the show up to the poll and vote states.

I'm tired of hearing how unfair the Democrats were to let an Independent run for their primary and compete in their debates. And getting questions in advance for Town Hall isn't particularly ethical, but it is a Town Hall or it is a Debate, the content of the questions are going to be obvious. There is no, "Explain what Marbury v Madison means to you regarding interpreted powers assigned in the Constitution" type of PhD interview questions.

This is like listening to right-wingers whine about how Fauci lied to them. It is like they are mentally incapable of understanding nuance.

 

[Politesse]

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

This is the point that these "centrists" just can't seem to understand. They seem to think that they are owed minority votes, that blacks and browns and gays and the rest all owe them fealty because they aren't Nazis. They make no effort to convince people that their lives will actually be better under Democrat rule, only that they won't get worse. Whereas Trump is, at the very least, willing to promise people things. He's lying, but he talks big. Democrats talk small and expect unswerving loyalty for it. It makes no sense, their strategy, and it obviously isn't working.

It isn't "working" (Dems just lost the popular vote for the first time since 2004) because, in part, some people aren't voting. You think the Democrats think they are owed the votes of minorities and progressives. They aren't. But minorities and progressives will see their rights rescinded with the GOP in the White House. Again, it is a Hobson's Choice, yet some people keep making the same error.

No, the choice is: earn their votes or go without them.

They have a voice, and we have been asking you to listen to it. You didn't.

Yep! This will help fight off the far right! (Dang the right comes together so much easier than the left in the US).

It's no secret that rightwing policies are increasingly popular in the United States, but I do not personally believe in choosing my political positions based on the ever-changing rubric of the currently popular. The public is fickle, and it can change its mind with better knowledge and good leadership.

I think that the far right is sufficiently dangerous that I will vote for democratic candidate whomever they will be in 28. Will you? I'll fight for the democrat that best addresses my concerns and whom I think can win (Whitmer, Shapiro, Newsome). But if a progressive wins, I'll vote for that person. But the progressive has to earn it. They have to win the primary. Hell, give AOC the questions in advance of 5 town halls; and I'll vote for her and support her if she's the democratic candidate in 2028.

Yes, I have continued to vote for people who refuse to represent me. I probably will continue to until voting is suspended. Great. You win, sort of.

Fuck the Democrats.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

This is the point that these "centrists" just can't seem to understand. They seem to think that they are owed minority votes, that blacks and browns and gays and the rest all owe them fealty because they aren't Nazis. They make no effort to convince people that their lives will actually be better under Democrat rule, only that they won't get worse. Whereas Trump is, at the very least, willing to promise people things. He's lying, but he talks big. Democrats talk small and expect unswerving loyalty for it. It makes no sense, their strategy, and it obviously isn't working.

It isn't "working" (Dems just lost the popular vote for the first time since 2004) because, in part, some people aren't voting. You think the Democrats think they are owed the votes of minorities and progressives. They aren't. But minorities and progressives will see their rights rescinded with the GOP in the White House. Again, it is a Hobson's Choice, yet some people keep making the same error.

No, the choice is: earn their votes or go without them.

They have a voice, and we have been asking you to listen to it. You didn't.

Yep! This will help fight off the far right! (Dang the right comes together so much easier than the left in the US).

It's no secret that rightwing policies are increasingly popular in the United States, but I do not personally believe in choosing my political positions based on the ever-changing rubric of the currently popular. The public is fickle, and it can change its mind with better knowledge and good leadership.

I think that the far right is sufficiently dangerous that I will vote for democratic candidate whomever they will be in 28. Will you? I'll fight for the democrat that best addresses my concerns and whom I think can win (Whitmer, Shapiro, Newsome). But if a progressive wins, I'll vote for that person. But the progressive has to earn it. They have to win the primary. Hell, give AOC the questions in advance of 5 town halls; and I'll vote for her and support her if she's the democratic candidate in 2028.

Yes, I have continued to vote for people who refuse to represent me. I probably will continue to until voting is suspended. Great. You win, sort of.

Fuck the Democrats.

Yep, democracy is hard. It sucks. You have to be willing to compromise with those whom you feel distasteful. But the inability to come together has given Republicans near complete control of our government. We have to reverse this.

 

[Jarhyn]

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

This is the point that these "centrists" just can't seem to understand. They seem to think that they are owed minority votes, that blacks and browns and gays and the rest all owe them fealty because they aren't Nazis. They make no effort to convince people that their lives will actually be better under Democrat rule, only that they won't get worse. Whereas Trump is, at the very least, willing to promise people things. He's lying, but he talks big. Democrats talk small and expect unswerving loyalty for it. It makes no sense, their strategy, and it obviously isn't working.

It isn't "working" (Dems just lost the popular vote for the first time since 2004) because, in part, some people aren't voting. You think the Democrats think they are owed the votes of minorities and progressives. They aren't. But minorities and progressives will see their rights rescinded with the GOP in the White House. Again, it is a Hobson's Choice, yet some people keep making the same error.

No, the choice is: earn their votes or go without them.

They have a voice, and we have been asking you to listen to it. You didn't.

Yep! This will help fight off the far right! (Dang the right comes together so much easier than the left in the US).

It's no secret that rightwing policies are increasingly popular in the United States, but I do not personally believe in choosing my political positions based on the ever-changing rubric of the currently popular. The public is fickle, and it can change its mind with better knowledge and good leadership.

I think that the far right is sufficiently dangerous that I will vote for democratic candidate whomever they will be in 28. Will you? I'll fight for the democrat that best addresses my concerns and whom I think can win (Whitmer, Shapiro, Newsome). But if a progressive wins, I'll vote for that person. But the progressive has to earn it. They have to win the primary. Hell, give AOC the questions in advance of 5 town halls; and I'll vote for her and support her if she's the democratic candidate in 2028.

Yes, I have continued to vote for people who refuse to represent me. I probably will continue to until voting is suspended. Great. You win, sort of.

Fuck the Democrats.

Yep, democracy is hard. It sucks. You have to be willing to compromise with those whom you feel distasteful. But the inability to come together has given Republicans near complete control of our government. We have to reverse this.

The demand for co.promise must first be accepted by the one demanding it.

Your side actually has to make those compromises rather than promising and then pulling a Lucy with the Football.

If you want to reverse it, you must start accepting progressive priorities.

Then, progressives might start voting for you.

Look at the compromises the right made to win elections, they were willing to vote for criminals and kingmakers.

I think it looks like you decided to "compromise" with the wrong people.

 

[Politesse]

Yep, democracy is hard. It sucks. You have to be willing to compromise with those whom you feel distasteful. But the inability to come together has given Republicans near complete control of our government. We have to reverse this.

By doing nothing any differently.

Fine... I'd say let me know how it works, but I have read some 20th century histories, so it ain't a huge mystery.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

This is the point that these "centrists" just can't seem to understand. They seem to think that they are owed minority votes, that blacks and browns and gays and the rest all owe them fealty because they aren't Nazis. They make no effort to convince people that their lives will actually be better under Democrat rule, only that they won't get worse. Whereas Trump is, at the very least, willing to promise people things. He's lying, but he talks big. Democrats talk small and expect unswerving loyalty for it. It makes no sense, their strategy, and it obviously isn't working.

It isn't "working" (Dems just lost the popular vote for the first time since 2004) because, in part, some people aren't voting. You think the Democrats think they are owed the votes of minorities and progressives. They aren't. But minorities and progressives will see their rights rescinded with the GOP in the White House. Again, it is a Hobson's Choice, yet some people keep making the same error.

No, the choice is: earn their votes or go without them.

They have a voice, and we have been asking you to listen to it. You didn't.

Yep! This will help fight off the far right! (Dang the right comes together so much easier than the left in the US).

It's no secret that rightwing policies are increasingly popular in the United States, but I do not personally believe in choosing my political positions based on the ever-changing rubric of the currently popular. The public is fickle, and it can change its mind with better knowledge and good leadership.

I think that the far right is sufficiently dangerous that I will vote for democratic candidate whomever they will be in 28. Will you? I'll fight for the democrat that best addresses my concerns and whom I think can win (Whitmer, Shapiro, Newsome). But if a progressive wins, I'll vote for that person. But the progressive has to earn it. They have to win the primary. Hell, give AOC the questions in advance of 5 town halls; and I'll vote for her and support her if she's the democratic candidate in 2028.

Yes, I have continued to vote for people who refuse to represent me. I probably will continue to until voting is suspended. Great. You win, sort of.

Fuck the Democrats.

Yep, democracy is hard. It sucks. You have to be willing to compromise with those whom you feel distasteful. But the inability to come together has given Republicans near complete control of our government. We have to reverse this.

The demand for co.promise must first be accepted by the one demanding it.

Your side actually has to make those compromises rather than promising and then pulling a Lucy with the Football.

If you want to reverse it, you must start accepting progressive priorities.

Then, progressives might start voting for you.

Look at the compromises the right made to win elections, they were willing to vote for criminals and kingmakers.

I think it looks like you decided to "compromise" with the wrong people.

I already said that I’d give the questions in advance to AOC to 5 town halls! I’d thought that make you happy!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know what'd make me happy... these bloody quote chains having a limit!

 

[WAB]

Hear, hear! Another forum I go to has the same board format at this, but long quote chains are shrunken down, and you can hit 'click to expand' to see the whole thing. Much better.

 

[Harry Bosch]

You know what'd make me happy... these bloody quote chains having a limit!

I just wanted to start a new quote chain for Jimmy!

 

[Jarhyn]

The party can't "count" on certain others because certain voters have been told unequivocally that their concerns will not be addressed.

This is the point that these "centrists" just can't seem to understand. They seem to think that they are owed minority votes, that blacks and browns and gays and the rest all owe them fealty because they aren't Nazis. They make no effort to convince people that their lives will actually be better under Democrat rule, only that they won't get worse. Whereas Trump is, at the very least, willing to promise people things. He's lying, but he talks big. Democrats talk small and expect unswerving loyalty for it. It makes no sense, their strategy, and it obviously isn't working.

It isn't "working" (Dems just lost the popular vote for the first time since 2004) because, in part, some people aren't voting. You think the Democrats think they are owed the votes of minorities and progressives. They aren't. But minorities and progressives will see their rights rescinded with the GOP in the White House. Again, it is a Hobson's Choice, yet some people keep making the same error.

No, the choice is: earn their votes or go without them.

They have a voice, and we have been asking you to listen to it. You didn't.

Yep! This will help fight off the far right! (Dang the right comes together so much easier than the left in the US).

It's no secret that rightwing policies are increasingly popular in the United States, but I do not personally believe in choosing my political positions based on the ever-changing rubric of the currently popular. The public is fickle, and it can change its mind with better knowledge and good leadership.

I think that the far right is sufficiently dangerous that I will vote for democratic candidate whomever they will be in 28. Will you? I'll fight for the democrat that best addresses my concerns and whom I think can win (Whitmer, Shapiro, Newsome). But if a progressive wins, I'll vote for that person. But the progressive has to earn it. They have to win the primary. Hell, give AOC the questions in advance of 5 town halls; and I'll vote for her and support her if she's the democratic candidate in 2028.

Yes, I have continued to vote for people who refuse to represent me. I probably will continue to until voting is suspended. Great. You win, sort of.

Fuck the Democrats.

Yep, democracy is hard. It sucks. You have to be willing to compromise with those whom you feel distasteful. But the inability to come together has given Republicans near complete control of our government. We have to reverse this.

The demand for co.promise must first be accepted by the one demanding it.

Your side actually has to make those compromises rather than promising and then pulling a Lucy with the Football.

If you want to reverse it, you must start accepting progressive priorities.

Then, progressives might start voting for you.

Look at the compromises the right made to win elections, they were willing to vote for criminals and kingmakers.

I think it looks like you decided to "compromise" with the wrong people.

I already said that I’d give the questions in advance to AOC to 5 town halls! I’d thought that make you happy!

And I already said that my standard is Clinton actually debating Sanders in 2016.

Maybe if you would level criticism on that behavior, we could have a conversation.

 

[Swammerdami]

• Has Jarhyn stopped labeling centrists as "fascists"? That's an improvement I guess.
• Did he respond to my point about the Nazis coming to power in the 1930's? The Nazis capitalized on fear against the extreme left-wing Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands, not antipathy against centrists.
• I think Jarhyn's claim is that Sanders would have beaten Trump in 2016. Are we still "litigating" that? It's hard to have great respect for the Sanderistas when fully 12% of them voted for Trump over Clinton (and some more stayed home and didn't vote at all).
• What is "the Pelosi Effect"? Is she another "fascist"?

• Whereas if the Dems had been a party that gave Nader a fair shake in their primary and had invited him to primary with the Dems, then he never would have been on the national ticket to spoil in the first place.

  Cite?

• If someone wins the first half of the game by cheating and the crowd turns on them to the point where morale is lost and the second half turns towards the opposition, they didn't really "win the first half" then, did they?

  Did Clinton really "cheat"? If you bunt foul on the third strike, you're OUT! That's not cheating; that's playing by the rules.

 

[Harry Bosch]

• Has Jarhyn stopped labeling centrists as "fascists"? That's an improvement I guess.
• Did he respond to my point about the Nazis coming to power in the 1930's? The Nazis capitalized on fear against the extreme left-wing Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands, not antipathy against centrists.
• I think Jarhyn's claim is that Sanders would have beaten Trump in 2016. Are we still "litigating" that? It's hard to have great respect for the Sanderistas when fully 12% of them voted for Trump over Clinton (and some more stayed home and didn't vote at all).
• What is "the Pelosi Effect"? Is she another "fascist"?

• Whereas if the Dems had been a party that gave Nader a fair shake in their primary and had invited him to primary with the Dems, then he never would have been on the national ticket to spoil in the first place.

  Cite?

• If someone wins the first half of the game by cheating and the crowd turns on them to the point where morale is lost and the second half turns towards the opposition, they didn't really "win the first half" then, did they?

  Did Clinton really "cheat"? If you bunt foul on the third strike, you're OUT! That's not cheating; that's playing by the rules.

Yea I just have to say that I think it’s absurd for anyone to try to claim that HRC beat Sanders by 3.7 million voters because Donna Brazille gave her the questions before a town hall!

 

[Swammerdami]

With someone bandying about wrong-headed pejoratives like "fascist" ad "cheat" some sober remediation is called for.

• If someone wins the first half of the game by cheating and the crowd turns on them to the point where morale is lost and the second half turns towards the opposition, they didn't really "win the first half" then, did they?

  Did Clinton really "cheat"? If you bunt foul on the third strike, you're OUT! That's not cheating; that's playing by the rules.

If a decision-making body is appointed according to the RULES, and a RULE change is proposed that benefits Candidate A, supporters of A may vote for the rule. That's not cheating; that's playing politics by the rules.

What is true is that the GOP has fielded utter clowns in its Presidential primaries; I don't know if that's due to rule differences.
Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann and Donald Trump are three of the most egregious jokes: Does Jarhyn want that to be a model for the Democrats? (Yes, the worst joke was elected, twice. Is that an argument for endorsing the jokester model?)

 

[Swammerdami]

Yea I just have to say that I think it’s absurd for anyone to try to claim that HRC beat Sanders by 3.7 million voters because Donna Brazille gave her the questions before a town hall!

Is THAT what's bothering the Sanderistas?? Their guy didn't have advisors smart enough to tell him what the issues were?

 

[Jarhyn]

• Has Jarhyn stopped labeling centrists as "fascists"? That's an improvement I guess.
• Did he respond to my point about the Nazis coming to power in the 1930's? The Nazis capitalized on fear against the extreme left-wing Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands, not antipathy against centrists.
• I think Jarhyn's claim is that Sanders would have beaten Trump in 2016. Are we still "litigating" that? It's hard to have great respect for the Sanderistas when fully 12% of them voted for Trump over Clinton (and some more stayed home and didn't vote at all).
• What is "the Pelosi Effect"? Is she another "fascist"?

• Whereas if the Dems had been a party that gave Nader a fair shake in their primary and had invited him to primary with the Dems, then he never would have been on the national ticket to spoil in the first place.

  Cite?

• If someone wins the first half of the game by cheating and the crowd turns on them to the point where morale is lost and the second half turns towards the opposition, they didn't really "win the first half" then, did they?

  Did Clinton really "cheat"? If you bunt foul on the third strike, you're OUT! That's not cheating; that's playing by the rules.

Yea I just have to say that I think it’s absurd for anyone to try to claim that HRC beat Sanders by 3.7 million voters because Donna Brazille gave her the questions before a town hall!

This is utterly a straw-man invention.

HRC lost to Trump by some votes, and the argument is that it is specifically because HRC refused debates, and responded to good-faith quiet discussions of security within the party as Cassus Belli for withholding voter registration information within the party for canvassing purposes, and this has been a pattern within the Dems.

Doing those things, I aledge, are what caused her to lose to Trump.

I expect in the reality where centrist Dems stopped viewing "Spinelessness and fecklessness" as a core virtue, the one that might exist in the future if we win and beat back the fascists in this impending conflict, that Hillary Clinton beats sanders by 2.7 million votes, a couple states declare primary delegates for Bernie Sanders' platform, and where Hillary Clinton beats Trump in the general election, and the Democrats rally under that ticket to win a couple of Senate seats that they lost.

I see this being a reason specifically to eliminate the filibuster on SCOTUS nominees, and it would have saved a seat on the court.

With that seat, many things decided by the Supreme Court would have ended up very differently, and with those Senate seats, changed rules so as to unseat many Republicans in key committee seats for their corruption following the inevitable lies of rigged elections.

The elections laws would have been recoverable.

I would have some imagination that the presidential transition plan from the heritage institute would be considered a plot at insurrection, and that the proper lifting of Habeus Corpus could see light of day and the Heritage Institute folks would find themselves in a nice padded room.

Socially, this would translate into an increase in the federal minimum wage, tax bills for higher corporate tax rates, and possibly a presidential endorsement across the party for the Separation of Government and Business, whatever that may mean.

It might mean floating a provision to update ObamaCare with a single payer option.

It definitely means putting the screws to the people who have been trying to gut our country, which will, frankly, be entertaining to those who voted for Trump, in reality, for entertainment purposes.

I don't see Bernie being much more popular; Maybe a bit, if people had been given a chance to be properly exposed to him. It would have forced Hillary to be more genuinely for the people rather than driven by a boardroom.

It's really the effect fair play would have had on the platform and the election dynamics afterwards.

It's not "not Hillary", it's just her not being a shill.

 

[Politesse]

When fascists are on the march and poised to take over the country, it's important not to commit the worst sin a person can think of: accusing anyone else of fascism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When fascists are on the march and poised to take over the country, it's important not to commit the worst sin a person can think of: accusing anyone else of fascism.

Not worst sin, but more like poor priority management?

 

[Derec]

Hear, hear! Another forum I go to has the same board format at this, but long quote chains are shrunken down, and you can hit 'click to expand' to see the whole thing. Much better.

Or certain people could trim their quotes to only include what they are replying to.

 

[Derec]

Of course Biden had authority to forgive student debt.

How so?
Also, forgiving student debt is not good policy. College graduates on average make more money than non-graduates, so why should they should get a general loan forgiveness?
This is different than loan forgiveness for people who failed to secure well-paying jobs and thus were unable to pay off their loans after say 20 years despite making required payments. But this should be an exception for people who really do need this loan forgiveness. It should not be an expectation that you can take on a $200k loan and it will just disappear by presidential fiat.

Biden is old so his mind may not be as fast (more due to fatigue than anything else, because in many circumstances he was still capable of giving smart, snappy answers). He was and still is much more mentally cogent than Trump who does have dementia.

Biden's legacy, and certainly the country would have been far better off had Biden recognized his limitations and bowed out in time for a full primary season.