Democrats trying to unseat each other IV

[bilby]

The interview starts with some background.

Back in the 1970s, America felt unstoppable. We had just put a man on the moon, built the interstate highway system, had decades of rising living standards and wages, and were including more and more people in society through the civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights, and other movements.

Saikat is too young to remember the 70s, as am I. But from what I read, it was not like this at all. There was the Vietnam War, Watergate, stagflation and Malaise. There was a lot of unrest and far-left groups like Black Panthers/Black Liberation Army and Weather Underground that did things like setting bombs.

Both views are fact based. Since the industrial revolution, life has always been wonderful, and has always also been horrible.

The problem of nostalgia is that people remember the wonderful part, compare it to today (where they are mostly focussed on the horrible part), and declare that everything has gone wrong (it hasn't), and that things were better in the past (on average, they weren't), and that we should strive to return to those days (we shouldn't).

The fact is that things generally have improved over time, albeit with local and/or short-term setbacks. We have less famine and hunger, less war, less disease and higher life expectancy; But our news reporting (unlike our history books) concentrates on problems we need to address (or at least to acknowledge), so we are bombarded with a constant barrage of death, war, famine, destruction and doom.

We need to be on our guard against these things, and we need to continue to strive to minimise them; But one of the most significant risks, against which we must be vigilant if we are to continue this progress, is the risk that this tendency to the pursuit of nostaligic claptrap will actually succeed, and that these misguided ideas will lead to policies that actually do take us back to the near past.

The past is another country, and it's a shithole country from which we are all refugees. We should resist being deported to it.

 

[bilby]

There is a law recently passed that mandates tech to prevent DUI in all new cars. How many thousands will that add to the price of every new car?

About 0.1 to 0.3, seeing as you ask. Less than the amount by which car salesmen usually vary the price in haggling.

 

[Derec]

About 0.1 to 0.3, seeing as you ask. Less than the amount by which car salesmen usually vary the price in haggling.

I very much doubt it will be that cheap.

 

[Derec]

Both views are fact based. Since the industrial revolution, life has always been wonderful, and has always also been horrible.

I am not saying there were not good aspects of the 70s too. But to describe 1970s in the US as somehow especially great or optimistic time ("Back in the 1970s, America felt unstoppable") is just inaccurate cherry picking on Saikat's part.

The problem of nostalgia is that people remember the wonderful part, compare it to today (where they are mostly focussed on the horrible part), and declare that everything has gone wrong (it hasn't), and that things were better in the past (on average, they weren't), and that we should strive to return to those days (we shouldn't).

It's not even nostalgia for him, as he was born in 1986. I think it is sometimes worthwhile to think about good things we lost from past decades, and see if and how they can be restored without bringing the negatives. However, let's take Saikat's obsession with FDR's spending. US had much lower GDP/debt ratio, so we cannot recreate that. There was also the matter of the little war called WWII, which greatly expanded US industrial production.

The past is another country, and it's a shithole country from which we are all refugees. We should resist being deported to it.

Now you are just being too hard on the past.

 

[bilby]

About 0.1 to 0.3, seeing as you ask. Less than the amount by which car salesmen usually vary the price in haggling.

I very much doubt it will be that cheap.

Why? It's a mature technology, and if required in all cars built, will have significant economies of scale, and significant reductions in installation cost over systems installed post-manufacturing.

Drunks today can get one installed in their existing cars, to comply with a court order, for a few hundred bucks. They won't get more expensive if they are part of the equipment installed in every new car built.

 

[Derec]

SC's interviewer mentioned class deslignment: workers becoming alienated from center-left parties that had been their home for much of the 20th cy.

I think it has to do with increasing embrace of identity politics and social justice issue at a sacrifice of economic issues. Take racial preferences. Dems have held fast to the notion that "affirmative action" is sacrosanct, even as it lost so much popularity that it decisively lost a referendum in a state as blue as California. Instead of folding on this failed concept, some Dems have even raised by embracing reparations. Of course the white working class is feeling alienated, especially when they are bein told how "privileged" they are on account of their race.
In 2024 Dems also lost a lot of blacks and Hispanics. Probably because these groups are more religious, and were upset about how strongly Dems have embraced trans issues. That is also a big reason so many Muslims voted for Trump.

He did that by bailing out every American’s life savings right after taking office and averting a total banking system collapse — and explaining exactly what he was doing directly to Americans on the radio with the same kind of thrilling suspense and drama that Trump uses (though Roosevelt’s version was strategic and caring as opposed to chaotic and cruel).

Which program is he talking about specifically? What were the particulars? Conditions? Total cost? How was it paid for?
It is easy to talk in generalities. The devil lies in the details.

He unequivocally stood by unions so that the wealth from this new economy would be shared, creating the middle class. He trash-talked oligarchs and Wall Street, supported women’s rights, and even cautiously began hinting toward racial equality toward the end of his presidency.

Unions are not an unequivocal good. Take the longshoremen union which keeps US ports from modernizing while lining their own pockets with $200k just for unloading container ships.
Many unions also use their special status under labor relations laws to engage in far left politics.

 

[Derec]

Why? It's a mature technology, and if required in all cars built, will have significant economies of scale, and significant reductions in installation cost over systems installed post-manufacturing.

It is not "mature technology" as the law requires that new technologies be developed that go beyond present-day interlocks.

It is highly "nanny stateish" to demand that everyone have to use such technology in their cars. And the more gizmos a car has, the more can fail. What happens when this anti-DUI tech breaks? The car will be bricked, and would have to be expensively repaired to be drivable.

Drunks today can get one installed in their existing cars, to comply with a court order, for a few hundred bucks. They won't get more expensive if they are part of the equipment installed in every new car built.

It is one thing to demand things be installed for people convicted of drunk driving. Quite another to demand that everybody have to use such technology.

 

[bilby]

Why? It's a mature technology, and if required in all cars built, will have significant economies of scale, and significant reductions in installation cost over systems installed post-manufacturing.

It is not "mature technology" as the law requires that new technologies be developed that go beyond present-day interlocks.

It is highly "nanny stateish" to demand that everyone have to use such technology in their cars. And the more gizmos a car has, the more can fail. What happens when this anti-DUI tech breaks? The car will be bricked, and would have to be expensively repaired to be drivable.

Drunks today can get one installed in their existing cars, to comply with a court order, for a few hundred bucks. They won't get more expensive if they are part of the equipment installed in every new car built.

It is one thing to demand things be installed for people convicted of drunk driving. Quite another to demand that everybody have to use such technology.

Sure. But those aren't the arguments you made. You objected that it would add thousands (or rather, rhetorically asked how many thousands it would cost).

It won't cost thousands. It will likely cost a few hundred.

If you knew you had better arguments, perhaps you should have led with those? Orherwise people might think you are just whinging, and are seeking ad-hoc reasons to support your objection, rather than objecting for good reasons in the first place.

 

[Derec]

I am surprised this clusterfuck hasn't been discussed yet:

Minnesota’s Democratic Party Revokes Endorsement of Mayoral Candidate

It was a rare triumph for the democratic socialist candidate seeking to unseat the mayor of Minneapolis.
After a chaotic party convention held last month, State Sen. Omar Fateh clinched the endorsement of the local Democratic Party, becoming the first mayoral candidate in the city to get that support since 2009.
But the edge was short-lived. On Thursday, Democratic Party officials in Minnesota took the rare step of withdrawing the Minneapolis chapter’s endorsement, citing “substantial failures” during the convention, which was marred by technological and procedural irregularities.

Omar Fateh is a Mamdaniesque democratic socialist who wants to run for Minnepolis mayor against Jacob Frey (making it on topic in this thread).

DFL normally does not manage to get the requisite majority (60%) for an endorsement, but this time they did - for Fateh. Except that the voting was a clusterfuck:

In a statement posted online Thursday afternoon, state Democratic Party officials said that a series of serious lapses had preceded Mr. Fateh’s endorsement. The first involved a meltdown of an online voting system that resulted in a “substantial undercount” in the first balloting.
That undercount unfairly disqualified a third candidate, DeWayne Davis, from advancing to an additional round, according to the party’s review. The review found other lapses. Among them: A registration check-in sheet was not properly secured, “resulting in the opportunity to replace, delete or alter ballot ID numbers.”

His fellow Somali socialisit, Ilhan Omar, condemned the move to withdraw endorsement:
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar condemns MN DFL for overturning Omar Fateh endorsement

Birds of a feather and all that.
The two share a pro-Hamas staffer.
Klobuchar rebukes Fateh campaign staffers who glorified Oct. 7 attacks
David Gilbert-Paderson was also Ilhan Omar's campaign chair.

Omar Fateh is generally beset by scandal.
Sources: Sen. Omar Fateh misled DFL colleagues about federal perjury case

DFL should never have even considered endorsing him.

 

[lpetrich]

Democrat warns US progressives against moving toward the center: ‘It lost me the election’ | Democrats | The Guardian - "India Walton, who defeated incumbent mayor only to lose general election, says ‘moderating is what got us here’"

India Walton has a warning message for progressive Democrats during Donald Trump’s second presidency: don’t water down your politics to win over the establishment.

...
After disrupting the political base in the US by beating sitting mayor Byron Brown in Buffalo’s Democratic primary, she says she pivoted toward the center – and lost.

“Moderating is what got us here,” said Walton, now a senior strategist at RootsAction, referring to Donald Trump’s return to the White House. “I believe that moderating is what lost me ultimately the election in 2021.

“I pivoted fairly quickly … to try and integrate myself into the party, because I thought that was the way to build a broad-based coalition,” she reflected. “It sort of ate away from our message from the inside out.”

After initially opposing charter schools in the primary to win the Buffalo Teachers Federation endorsement, Walton later told business leaders she supported “school choice” – and lost the union’s backing for the general election as a result. She also distanced herself from the “defund the police” movement.

A big part of her loss was Mayor Byron Brown running a sore-loser campaign after losing in the primary, and getting lots of big-money support. But she argues that alienating some of her base also helped. “I think a part of the reason how we got a second Donald Trump presidency is that the Democrats have not had a message that appeals to working-class and poor people.” She says that the Democratic establishment is “beholden to corporations and billionaires”, and that “It’s not the message they want to hear, but it is the message that is resonant with the voters.”

One example Walton pointed to was the debate on “defund the police” that did damage to many progressive and centrist campaigns. The real message, which Walton said had been distorted, was about shifting police funding toward social services and mental health care.

I think that a better slogan would have been "alternatives to policing".

Walton sees opportunity in younger voters who don’t follow traditional political voting patterns. “Millennials are the first generation who are not becoming more conservative as they age.”

Likely from the increasing unaffordability of housing and healthcare and the like.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Democrat warns US progressives against moving toward the center: ‘It lost me the election’ | Democrats | The Guardian - "India Walton, who defeated incumbent mayor only to lose general election, says ‘moderating is what got us here’"

India Walton has a warning message for progressive Democrats during Donald Trump’s second presidency: don’t water down your politics to win over the establishment.

...
After disrupting the political base in the US by beating sitting mayor Byron Brown in Buffalo’s Democratic primary, she says she pivoted toward the center – and lost.

“Moderating is what got us here,” said Walton, now a senior strategist at RootsAction, referring to Donald Trump’s return to the White House. “I believe that moderating is what lost me ultimately the election in 2021.

“I pivoted fairly quickly … to try and integrate myself into the party, because I thought that was the way to build a broad-based coalition,” she reflected. “It sort of ate away from our message from the inside out.”

After initially opposing charter schools in the primary to win the Buffalo Teachers Federation endorsement, Walton later told business leaders she supported “school choice” – and lost the union’s backing for the general election as a result. She also distanced herself from the “defund the police” movement.

A big part of her loss was Mayor Byron Brown running a sore-loser campaign after losing in the primary, and getting lots of big-money support. But she argues that alienating some of her base also helped. “I think a part of the reason how we got a second Donald Trump presidency is that the Democrats have not had a message that appeals to working-class and poor people.” She says that the Democratic establishment is “beholden to corporations and billionaires”, and that “It’s not the message they want to hear, but it is the message that is resonant with the voters.”

Whenever I hear the above, "the working class are mad because the democratic establishment is beholden to corporations and billionaires"; I just laugh! What the hell does that even mean?! That is so out of touch. The working class wants politicians who directly address issues that they think will benefit them. We, (I include myself in this) focus on the evils of corporations, DEI, reparations, protecting trans athletes, defunding the police, and etc. None of those issues help the working class. While Trump focuses on bringing back manufacturing to the US, eliminating barriers, evening the playing field, reducing crime in poor areas, and etc. Now, I think that Trump is full of shit and his policies will be bad for all of us. But he is addressing their concerns head on. Meanwhile, the left wallows in pie in the sky rhetorical nonsense that no one understands.

 

[Derec]

Democrat warns US progressives against moving toward the center: ‘It lost me the election’ | Democrats | The Guardian - "India Walton, who defeated incumbent mayor only to lose general election, says ‘moderating is what got us here’"

It's pretty laughable for her to claim that she lost because she wasn't extreme enough.

India Walton has a warning message for progressive Democrats during Donald Trump’s second presidency: don’t water down your politics to win over the establishment.

After disrupting the political base in the US by beating sitting mayor Byron Brown in Buffalo’s Democratic primary, she says she pivoted toward the center – and lost.

Let's assume she did. She would have lost not because of more moderate positions, but because her quick pivot would have looked fake - because it was.
And even slightly moderated socialism is not really moderate.

She also distanced herself from the “defund the police” movement.

The problem is that she supported that movement to begin with.

A big part of her loss was Mayor Byron Brown running a sore-loser campaign after losing in the primary, and getting lots of big-money support.

I dislike the judgmental term "sore loser campaign". If we are to pass judgment, we should pass judgment against partisan primaries. They tend to favor more radical candidates on both sides. And in a safe jurisdiction, as Buffalo certainly is, the partisan primary is the de-facto election - general election usually does not matter.
What we should adopt nationwide are jungle primaries. It's a far more robust system. Everybody competes in the jungle primary and top two advance to the general. In a competitive jurisdiction, they will usually be from opposing parties, and in a safe one, they will likely be from the same party. But in both cases more people get a genuine say over their leaders. And isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about?

But she argues that alienating some of her base also helped. “I think a part of the reason how we got a second Donald Trump presidency is that the Democrats have not had a message that appeals to working-class and poor people.” She says that the Democratic establishment is “beholden to corporations and billionaires”, and that “It’s not the message they want to hear, but it is the message that is resonant with the voters.”

Kamala Harris was one of the most left-wing Democratic nominees for presidency. There were many reason she failed, but her being too moderate, or too “beholden to corporations and billionaires” is not one of them.

One example Walton pointed to was the debate on “defund the police” that did damage to many progressive and centrist campaigns. The real message, which Walton said had been distorted, was about shifting police funding toward social services and mental health care.

Which would leave police underfunded. If we want better trained police, if we want police department to attract better recruits, then we need to adequately fund police departments.

I think that a better slogan would have been "alternatives to policing".

I do not think that would have helped much because of the above.

Likely from the increasing unaffordability of housing and healthcare and the like.

And yet Dems tend to support unrestricted mass migration (under guise of "asylum") which puts additional demand pressure on the housing market.

 

[Derec]

Sure. But those aren't the arguments you made. You objected that it would add thousands (or rather, rhetorically asked how many thousands it would cost).

I made several arguments, one of them being the cost. So what?

It won't cost thousands. It will likely cost a few hundred.

Since the law mandates brand-new tech, it will most certainly be expensive. And since it will have to brick the car if it malfunctions (or else it would be easily circumvented) it will require costly repairs when these cars get older and modules start breaking down.

[Irrelevant blather snipped]

 

[ZiprHead]

It's not brand new tech. Breathalyzer interlocks have been in use for years.

 

[lpetrich]

Whenever I hear the above, "the working class are mad because the democratic establishment is beholden to corporations and billionaires"; I just laugh! What the hell does that even mean?! That is so out of touch.

Doing some research would help, and research outside of the likes of Fox News. There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in Fox News. It might even help you understand why Bernie Sanders and AOC and the like have been doing so well in their anti-oligarchy tour, a tour that has done well in not only blue areas, but also purple and red areas.

Some rich people do indeed do things for people much less rich than themselves, like George Soros and Mackenzie Scott, but not very many. Spending money on yachts and private jets and doomsday bunkers and asset speculation instead of giving raises to one's employees, reducing their working hours, ensuring that they work more safely, letting them work from home when it is practical for them to do so, lowering the prices that one's companies charge, ...

I'd like to see more noblesse oblige, and less noblesse n'oblige jamais.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Whenever I hear the above, "the working class are mad because the democratic establishment is beholden to corporations and billionaires"; I just laugh! What the hell does that even mean?! That is so out of touch.

Doing some research would help, and research outside of the likes of Fox News. There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in Fox News. It might even help you understand why Bernie Sanders and AOC and the like have been doing so well in their anti-oligarchy tour, a tour that has done well in not only blue areas, but also purple and red areas.

Some rich people do indeed do things for people much less rich than themselves, like George Soros and Mackenzie Scott, but not very many. Spending money on yachts and private jets and doomsday bunkers and asset speculation instead of giving raises to one's employees, reducing their working hours, ensuring that they work more safely, letting them work from home when it is practical for them to do so, lowering the prices that one's companies charge, ...

I'd like to see more noblesse oblige, and less noblesse n'oblige jamais.

Actually, you're starting to convince me! If I understand you correctly, all the left needs to do is go further left. But also convince working class people to stop watching fox news and learn French. No problemo!

 

[lpetrich]

Over in Omaha, Nebraska, in House district NE-02, Republican Don Bacon is retiring.

• Bacon to Retire at End of 119th Congress | U.S. Representative Don Bacon
• Nebraska U.S Rep. Don Bacon announces he won’t run again in NE-02 • Nebraska Examiner

Politicians of both parties plan to compete for this seat.

He is 62 years old, a bit young by Congressional-leader standards, and he may move on to other things after he leaves Congress.

I'm mentioning this here because in 2018 and 2020, Kara Eastman ran for this seat, losing to him both times.

• Kara Eastman - AIDS Foundation of Chicago
• Talent - TYT.com
• Kara Eastman - Ballotpedia
• Kara Eastman (@karaforcongress) • Instagram photos and videos - most recent: who she supported in 2022
• Kara Eastman (@_karaeastman) / X

A recent post on Xwitter - 5:33 PM · Jun 30, 2025
Kara Eastman on X: "Don Bacon’s retirement is the end of an era of political doublespeak and corporate loyalty. He pretended to be moderate, but failed to deliver real change. The door is open for a bold, populist future in the 2nd District and beyond. This is what Rebellion PAC is fighting for." / X

She seems to have no interest in trying to run again for that seat, even if she would have to live out of carpetbags if she tried.

 

[lpetrich]

Also retiring is New York City rep Jerrold "Jerry" Nadler, currently of NY-12 in central Manhattan.

• Nadler, Pillar of Democratic Party’s Old Guard, Will Retire Next Year - The New York Times - "Representative Jerrold Nadler, the ex-House Judiciary chairman who helped lead President Trump’s impeachments, will not seek re-election in New York."
• Jerry Nadler is retiring from Congress for a great reason - "The liberal stalwart's explanation for why he won't run again is unusually forward-looking."
• Who will replace Jerry Nadler after he retires from Congress in 2026?
•  Jerry Nadler
• Jerrold Nadler - Ballotpedia

Born in 1947, he served in the New York State Assembly from 1977 to 1992. In the second half of that time, he ran for various NYC positions, without success. In 1992, US Rep Ted Weiss died a day before the primary election, and JN was appointed to succeed him, winning unopposed a special election to do so, and winning the general election for the next term in Congress.

In 2020, he had the first victory fraction less than 75% in a long time: defeating activist Lindsay Boylan 67% - 22%.

In 2022, because of redistricting, he was up against long-time Rep Carolyn Maloney, getting 55% with CM 24% and perennial candidate Suraj Patel 19%.

Why did he decide to retire?

In a recent interview in his downtown Manhattan office, Mr. Nadler, 78, said he hesitated to step aside when he believes that President Trump is threatening the foundations of democracy. But he said he had been persuaded it was time for a changing of the guard.

“Watching the Biden thing really said something about the necessity for generational change in the party, and I think I want to respect that,” Mr. Nadler said, adding that a younger successor “can maybe do better, can maybe help us more.”

He seems to be in good mental shape, so he won't be going the way of Dianne Feinstein.

Or else the way of Rep. Kay Granger R-TX-12: EXCLUSIVE: Where Is Congresswoman Kay Granger? She was not seen in Congress for nearly six months, and she was discovered to be in a memory-care assisted-living home.

A Congresswoman with Dementia Stopped Coming to Work. The DC Press Corps Never Noticed. - POLITICO - she had stepped down from heading the Appropriations Committee and she was not running again. So it wasn't very obvious to that press corps.

Mr. Nadler also declined to name specific colleagues he believed should retire, though he acknowledged that other aging Democrats ought to consider it.

“I’m not saying we should change over the entire party,” he said. “But I think a certain amount of change is very helpful, especially when we face the challenge of Trump and his incipient fascism.”

He did not discuss who he might want to succeed him, though someone else said that he might support a certain former aide.

Mr. Nadler also declined to name specific colleagues he believed should retire, though he acknowledged that other aging Democrats ought to consider it.

“I’m not saying we should change over the entire party,” he said. “But I think a certain amount of change is very helpful, especially when we face the challenge of Trump and his incipient fascism.”

 

[Derec]

It's not brand new tech. Breathalyzer interlocks have been in use for years.

Indeed. But the law will mandate new technology be used, not existing breathalyzer technology.

Your Next Car Could Include Newly Required Drunk Driving Prevention Tech

While there are no specifics, the mandated technology in future models 2026 and beyond needs to "passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired." As of now, some drivers convicted of drunk driving must use a breathalyzer device that connects to the car ignition interlock. If their blood alcohol level is exceedingly high when they blow into the tube, the vehicle is automatically disabled.

This makes clear that this Nanny State tech is different than mere interlocks. Sensors that passively monitor BAC and other impairment features will rely on multiple sensors and a computer module to integrate these inputs. That will cost money. Also, I wonder about false positives witch such a "passive monitoring" system, especially when it's not optional, and thus can't be overridden or disabled.

And as these cars enter the used car market, these systems will malfunction. The more gizmos a car has, the more things can fail. If something is an optional feature, a frugal car buyer can live without necessarily repairing it. But Nanny State tech like this will have to brick the car when it breaks. Which means expensive towing and replacement cost (parts + labor) for something that should not be mandatory to begin with.

 

[bilby]

Also, I wonder about false positives witch such a "passive monitoring" system, especially when it's not optional

Well if the car won't let you drive because it thinks you are drunk, but actually you are exhibiting signs of impairment because you are just tired, or angry, or have taken prescribed medications, or any other reason, then that's a good thing.

There are too many impaired people on the roads; Just because they haven't broken the law (yet) doesn't seem like a good reason to exclude them temporarily when they are impaired.

Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. If you are incompetent or unfit to drive, catch a bus, or get a cab. Or walk.