Maybe Tim Walz is the leader of the Dems?

[Dans La Lune]

Since she lost, she was always going to lose?? No one knew for certain who would win.

Yes, she was always going to lose, because history has been written.

No one asked you to throw your vote away, you did that on your own. Better to have vote-shamers on your back, than not voting.

When do I get to shame libs for enabling genocide?

And it doesn't matter if Hillary, Biden or Harris didn't promote anything you believed, what matters is that Trump is going to do more harm to the Palestinians and probably all the other things you believe in than any Democrat would do. Get real, better to have a glass half full than empty.

Harm reduction has limits, and those limits are genocide. There also needs to be a credible theory of change. Kamala didn't pass the minimum threshold.

I just can't believe you think Biden's policies on Israel/Gaza would have been the same or worse than if Trump had won in 2020, you're smarter than that. Biden may not have gotten much done for the Palestinians, but you can bet that someone like Trump who admires and idolizes someone like Netanyahu will treat them much worse. Trump actually uses 'Palestinian' as a cuss word. I believe Harris would have accomplished much more, but however much, you have to know they're ******ed with Trump in the WH.

Biden of 2023-2024 was worse than Trump of 2016 when it comes to genocide of Palestinians. He just was. Would Trump have been worse in this area? Maybe. We don't know. We can only guess. Since I didn't vote for Trump, the burden is not on me to hold him accountable in the democratic process. The burden on me is to HOLD MY OWN ACCOUNTABLE. The people I empower. I can't control Trump, I have no influence over Trump, I only have influence on the people I vote for or MIGHT vote for.

Feel free to call me stupid, I would say the same about those who helped Trump by not voting, or voting for a 3rd party. Yes, I blame the all the voters actions for putting a pathological lying, convicted authorian lush in the WH. You can have the last word, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this...

Okay. I think people who Vote Blue while Blue are facilitating a genocide are guilty in that genocide. If you say that, 'Yes, I'm guilty of enabling genocide, but I accept that I must do this to forestall a greater threat', I will at least respect that viewpoint. It's not a moral calculation I can make, because I draw my redline at genocide.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Majorities are won by taking swing districts/states. Large majorities are won by winning opposition (in this case red) districts/states. The people that make the majority are the Dems you despise the most, the ones who represent red areas. They are also, by definition, the reps in the most precarious position, in that they hold enemy territory and represent a median voter far to the right of the Democratic Party. These were by and large the Blue Dogs.



So yes, Gatsby is correct that those majorities were inevitably going to disappear due to a combination of (1) reversion to the mean, and (2) the Dems doing big things with their majorities, polarizing red districts against their (temporarily) blue reps.

But if you think that supermajority was ever going to pass single-payer health care, then I don't think you have much of a recollection of that group or that moment in history.

Funny how Republicans are able to accomplish so much without significant majorities.

 

[Greenbeard]

Funny how Republicans are able to accomplish so much without significant majorities.

What do Republicans accomplish with their majorities?

 

[Dans La Lune]

What do Republicans accomplish with their majorities?

Tax cuts for the rich, dismantling of government.

 

[Greenbeard]

Tax cuts for the rich, dismantling of government.

Tax cuts for the rich only require 50 votes and there’s ideological unanimity around that issue within their caucus. It’s the lowest hanging fruit there is for the GOP and it’s generally the only thing they do get done. As for dismantling government, they’ve fallen on their faces time and time again trying to do that (e.g., their ill-fated ACA repeal attempts).

The reality is GOP control of Congress tends to be historically unproductive, whereas under Dems it’s the opposite.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Tax cuts for the rich only require 50 votes and there’s ideological unanimity around that issue within their caucus. It’s the lowest hanging fruit there is for the GOP and it’s generally the only thing they do get done. As for dismantling government, they’ve fallen on their faces time and time again trying to do that (e.g., their ill-fated ACA repeal attempts).

The reality is GOP control of Congress tends to be historically unproductive, whereas under Dems it’s the opposite.

Project 2025 Tracker

Track the progress on Project 2025

www.project2025.observer

Dems historically look for ways to blunt their effectiveness, whereas Republicans maximize their power. Biden handed the keys to Build Back Better to Manchin and Sinema, which probably would have secured Dems power until 2028.

 

[Greenbeard]

Project 2025 Tracker

Track the progress on Project 2025

www.project2025.observer

What of that do you believe is being done by Congress?

Dems historically look for ways to blunt their effectiveness, whereas Republicans maximize their power. Biden handed the keys to Build Back Better to Manchin and Sinema, which probably would have secured Dems power until 2028.

Biden didn’t hand the keys to the most conservative senators in the caucus, the voters did when they gave him a 50-50 Senate.

What significant legislation has the current GOP Senate passed that demonstrates them “maximizing their power”?

 

[renee]

She was to the right of Biden on most policy issues, and at best equal to Biden on foreign policy (i.e. very right-wing). Why do you think she is Leftist? Because she's black?

I think it’s because she was a woman

 

[renee]

I'll be curious how conservativism will be packaged post-Trump, after having exhausted Reaganism, Libertarianism, Neoconservatism, and Populism.

We now have three parties.. Democrats… Republicans and MAGAs

 

[renee]

Yeah it couldn’t be the fact that she was ranked most liberal compared to all senators. No it must be her race.

It’s almost like you are trying to be a caricature of the looniest far left at this point.

And you’re doing a good job of beating the looniest on the right . Just keep pretending that race and gender have nothing to do with people not voting for her..
It became obvious when Hillary lost to Trump and people on the right said she didn’t have enough experience

 

[renee]

'Damning' New Poll Shows Price Kamala Harris Paid for Backing Israeli Genocide in Gaza | Common Dreams

Vice President Kamala Harris' refusal to break with the Biden administration's support for Israel's assault on Gaza cost her millions of potential Democratic voters. Will the Democratic Party learn from this and listen to its voters who want leaders to oppose sending more weapons to Israel...

www.commondreams.org

"The top reason those non-voters cited, above the economy at 24% and immigration at 11%, was Gaza: a full 29% cited the ongoing onslaught as the top reason they didn't cast a vote in 2024," wrote Ryan Grim at Drop Site News, the first outlet to report the news.

In states that swung from Biden in 2020 to President-elect Donald Trump in 2024, 20% of non-voters said Gaza was the reason they didn't cast a ballot in November.

After replacing Biden as the nominee in July, Harris faced pressure—as the president had—to take decisive action to end U.S. support for Israel's assault on Gaza, which has now killed more than 46,000 Palestinians, the majority of whom have been civilian men, women, and children."

Let’s ignore who attacked initially. Let’s ignore all the hostages who were tortured raped, or killed.. let’s ignore the bomb at a festival.

 

[Dans La Lune]

What of that do you believe is being done by Congress?

What would Republicans do with Two Super-Majorities? Compromise on Gender Affirming Care?

Biden didn’t hand the keys to the most conservative senators in the caucus, the voters did when they gave him a 50-50 Senate.

Biden had Sinema and Manchin negotiate on behalf of Build Back Better.

What significant legislation has the current GOP Senate passed that demonstrates them “maximizing their power”?

What did Mitch McConnell do as Minority Leader?

 

[Dans La Lune]

Let’s ignore who attacked initially. Let’s ignore all the hostages who were tortured raped, or killed.. let’s ignore the bomb at a festival.

If you want to get into who attacked who and who raped who, I suggest post on Israel / Palestine board and I will set you straight.

 

[renee]

Rock, Paper, Scissors. Beating your own party is actually harder than beating the opposing party. If the Clintons are so popular, why did Hillary lose?

They say that she didn’t have enough experience which cracked me up. They didn’t like her laugh. Or perhaps the reality is she was a woman, and we are a misogynistic country.

 

[renee]

If you want to get into who attacked who and who raped who, I suggest post on Israel / Palestine board and I will set you straight.

Who started this vile attack?

 

[braindrain]

And you’re doing a good job of beating the looniest on the right . Just keep pretending that race and gender have nothing to do with people not voting for her..
It became obvious when Hillary lost to Trump and people on the right said she didn’t have enough experience

Right keep telling yourself that it was just her race and gender and not her policies that resulted in people not voting for her. Should help the democrats out a whole lot come next election

And we are not just talking about people on the right. We are talking about independents and those on the left that didn’t vote for Harris.

But know keep burying your head in the sand and convincing yourself it’s just because America is just a bunch of racist people that hate women.

The far left is as out of touch with reality as the far right.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Who started this vile attack?

I would say the people with all the power, who locked an entire population in an open air prison. Who started the Slave Revolts in America?

 

[Greenbeard]

What would Republicans do with Two Super-Majorities? Compromise on Gender Affirming Care?

A Republican supermajority wouldn't be made from the current GOP majority; if it were, they would have a supermajority now. It would be made on the backs of Senators who win in places that Republicans usually do not.

Just as the Dems' brief supermajority existed because they had Senators like Ben Nelson in Nebraska or Evan Bayh in Indiana (not to mention GOP-convert Arlen Specter), the GOP getting to a supermajority would likely require someone like Charlie Baker winning in Massachusetts, or Phil Scott in Vermont, etc. And reaching unanimity among that group of Republicans would look different than reaching unanimity among the current GOP majority, and certainly much different than reaching unanimity among an even more ideologically cohesive GOP minority. Supermajorities are by their nature more moderate than minorities.

In general, you can't just take the current group of Republicans and imagine them having more power/seats, it doesn't scale like that.

Biden had Sinema and Manchin negotiate on behalf of Build Back Better.

They were the veto points, meaning any legislation without their support would have been DOA. And that's because the voters provided a 50-50 Senate.

What did Mitch McConnell do as Minority Leader?

The two things that require only 50 votes and enjoy unanimous support among the GOP caucus: stacking the judiciary and ramming through tax cuts. The GOP doesn't really do much else.

 

[Dans La Lune]

A Republican supermajority wouldn't be made from the current GOP majority

If they had two super-majorities, what would they do with them?

Just as the Dems' brief supermajority existed because they had Senators like Ben Nelson in Nebraska or Evan Bayh in Indiana (not to mention GOP-convert Arlen Specter), the GOP getting to a supermajority would likely require someone like Charlie Baker winning in Massachusetts, or Phil Scott in Vermont, etc. And reaching unanimity among that group of Republicans would look different than reaching unanimity among the current GOP majority, and certainly much different than reaching unanimity among an even more ideologically cohesive GOP minority.

Are Dems spectators or participants? You don't start building your power of power after elections. Dems can't invite Manchin and Lieberman into their coalition without knowing that these people will serve Republican interests. Dems offering no alternative to Republicans in red states (except Dems who are actually Republicans with a 'D' in front of their name) gets you these results.

In general, you can't just take the current group of Republicans and imagine them having more power/seats, it doesn't scale like that.

Dems decide their coalition and the kind of candidates they want running.

They were the veto points, meaning any legislation without their support would have been DOA. And that's because the voters provided a 50-50 Senate.

'Kyrsten Sinema has been a key figure in negotiating the Build Back Better bill, working directly and privately with the White House to shape the legislation.234 She has expressed strong opposition to raising corporate and income tax rates, which has led to significant changes in the bill's content. Sinema has also been influential in reducing the overall cost of the bill from the original $3.5 trillion to approximately $1.9 trillion. During negotiations, Sinema's demands have included limiting the duration of paid family leave to four weeks and excluding two years of free community college from the bill. She has maintained her position on these issues even as talks have moved behind the scenes.'

The two things that require only 50 votes and enjoy unanimous support among the GOP caucus: stacking the judiciary and ramming through tax cuts. The GOP doesn't really do much else.

You mean their core agenda items. That's all Republican really need to do, isn't it? What have Dems done with their power?

 

[Greenbeard]

If they had two super-majorities, what would they do with them?

Probably judges and tax cuts.

Dems can't invite Manchin and Lieberman into their coalition without knowing that these people will serve Republican interests. Dems offering no alternative to Republicans in red states (except Dems who are actually Republicans with a 'D' in front of their name) gets you these results.

Dems did offer an alternative to Lieberman, they literally primaried him and replaced him. Lieberman ran as an independent and won any way. So of course they invited him into their coalition, no Lieberman, no supermajority. Finding or making nice with candidates who can win is how you get majorities in the first place.

Dems decide their coalition and the kind of candidates they want running.

And, as I've said, winning a supermajority requires running candidates who can win red districts and red states, people who answer to a median voter that is far to the right of the median Democratic voter. (Or vice versa for the GOP, if they could ever secure a super majority.) Supermajorities are only made possible by candidates you are guaranteed to hate.

You mean their core agenda items. That's all Republican really need to do, isn't it? What have Dems done with their power?

Other than the creation and expansion of the modern welfare state, the creation and expansion of the regulatory state, and most things that the federal government "does"?

 

[Dans La Lune]

Probably judges and tax cuts.

By hook or by crook, they're going to enact their agenda. Right? How about Dems?

Dems did offer an alternative to Lieberman, they literally primaried him and replaced him. Lieberman ran as an independent and won any way. So of course they invited him into their coalition, no Lieberman, no supermajority. Finding or making nice with candidates who can win is how you get majorities in the first place.

How many viable progressives have Dems crushed beneath their bootheel in favor of Leibermanesque candidates?

And, as I've said, winning a supermajority requires running candidates who can win red districts and red states, people who answer to a median voter that is far to the right of the median Democratic voter. (Or vice versa for the GOP, if they could ever secure a super majority.) Supermajorities are only made possible by candidates you are guaranteed to hate.

And as I've said, if you run conservatives against conservatives, and invite them into your coalition, conservatives are going to win and piss inside the tent. And get what you get. For the 900th time, Build Back Better was overwhelmingly popular in West Virginia. There's the point of leverage Dems could have used.

Other than the creation and expansion of the modern welfare state, the creation and expansion of the regulatory state, and most things that the federal government "does"?

Having to go back to the 1940s to find examples is a pretty glaring indictment of modern Dems, eh?

 

[Greenbeard]

How many viable progressives have Dems crushed beneath their bootheel in favor of Leibermanesque candidates?

If you're asking why progressives often lose primaries, or often prove unable to unseat guys like Lieberman even in blue northeastern states, it sounds like you have some discoveries about the median American voter awaiting you.

And as I've said, if you run conservatives against conservatives, and invite them into your coalition, conservatives are going to win and piss inside the tent.

As it turns out, winning only deep blue districts isn't enough to get you a majority, and certainly not a supermajority. You need to win red districts, too.

Having to go back to the 1940s to find examples is a pretty glaring indictment of modern Dems, eh?

I didn't say anything about the 1940s. Major gaps in the social safety net and the welfare state have been filled in in just the past ten years or so thanks to the Dems.

 

[Dans La Lune]

If you're asking why progressives often lose primaries, or often prove unable to unseat guys like Lieberman even in blue northeastern states, it sounds like you have some discoveries about the median American voter awaiting you.

Money and support from Dem Leadership.

As it turns out, winning only deep blue districts isn't enough to get you a majority, and certainly not a supermajority. You need to win red districts, too.

Progressive policies are popular in deep red states.

I didn't say anything about the 1940s. Major gaps in the social safety net and the welfare state have been filled in in just the past ten years or so thanks to the Dems.

Where specifically?

 

[Greenbeard]

Where specifically?

Pretending Dems don't enact their agenda, even with the barest of majorities, is just silly.

Obama Signs Health Care Overhaul Bill, With a Flourish (Published 2010)

The most sweeping social legislation enacted in decades became law after a festive, at times raucous, signing ceremony in the White House on Tuesday.

www.nytimes.com

Biden signs major climate, health care and tax bill into law

The president plans to lean on Cabinet members to tout the law's benefits as part of what White House officials described as a “coordinated August recess travel blitz.”

www.nbcnews.com

Biden Administration Prompts Largest Permanent Increase in Food Stamps (Published 2021)

The jump in benefits, the biggest in the program’s history, comes after a revision of the initiative’s nutrition standards that supporters say will reduce hunger and better reflect how Americans eat.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Dans La Lune]

Pretending Dems don't enact their agenda, even with the barest of majorities, is just silly.

Obama Signs Health Care Overhaul Bill, With a Flourish (Published 2010)

The most sweeping social legislation enacted in decades became law after a festive, at times raucous, signing ceremony in the White House on Tuesday.

www.nytimes.com

Biden signs major climate, health care and tax bill into law

The president plans to lean on Cabinet members to tout the law's benefits as part of what White House officials described as a “coordinated August recess travel blitz.”

www.nbcnews.com

Biden Administration Prompts Largest Permanent Increase in Food Stamps (Published 2021)

The jump in benefits, the biggest in the program’s history, comes after a revision of the initiative’s nutrition standards that supporters say will reduce hunger and better reflect how Americans eat.

www.nytimes.com

Yes, Dems are better around the edges. Where's their Project 2025?