Gotta say, can’t see myself really putting it on the line to make sure 81 year old joe Biden gets into office with a gerrymandered republican Congress.
1 Like
What? Have you seen the 2024 senate map? GOP might have 60+ seats.
Good lord. Can you imagine the shit that will get passed if GOP wins the white house and both chambers of Congress in 2024 with a 60 vote majority in the Senate?
Uh, they only need 50 and yes they’re going to pass all of it
The only people confused on this are elected Democrats
2 Likes
I’m sorry. I have it on good authority that the GOP would NEVER nuke the filibuster because it would go against norms and the Dems didn’t do it.
2 Likes
meant in GOP vs dem %'s
but yeah R’s can get 60 seats with that especially since New Mexico is gonna eventually turn red at some point if the HS/College split continues to grow and more and more latinos are voting red (more just voted R vs dems in VA just now)
you don’t wanna look up what’s possible it sucks
This sums up how I think a lot of us feel pretty well. There are a few exceptions but literally everyone with enough power to matter has blown it.
1 Like
Joe Manchin drives a Maserati to his yacht every day. Man of the people.
Think there’s def a chance that with 60 senators they pass a nationwide voter ID (driver’s license) law
Though on second thought, why didn’t they just do that in 2017-2018 and have Pence overrule parliamentarian? Guess they didn’t think of it? I mean muh norms and all that but they do that then and dems never win an election again.
It’s because they don’t have to pass anything other than tax cuts and judges and they only need 50 votes for those. Legislating from the bench and inertia will take care of the rest, no point in increasing variance by removing the filibuster when they’re on a glide path to electoral domination for a generation, probably several generations.
1 Like
The above is nailed accurately here by Freddie de Boer:
This tendency to be promiscuous in enthralling elites and powerful institutions should be a clue to the fact that, despite its radical self-branding, the contemporary social justice movement fundamentally serves to empower the status quo. Effective left politics are about convincing various people who are unalike that they have a shared self-interest, that society can do best for them when we do best for others, too. That’s how you build a mass movement, by appealing to people’s sense of self-interest and showing them how they can help their neighbors while they help themselves. But because the social justice movement’s first dictate is to establish a hierarchy of suffering, and to tell those that are purported to suffer less that their problems aren’t problems, no such mass movement is coming. The social justice movement is not just incidentally antagonistic to organizing everyone and recognizing all kinds of people as worthy of our compassion and support. That antagonism is existential. When you ask many people within the movement, “what could we do to convert the white working class to our values?,” they will simply tell you that they don’t want to convert them, that they are not worthy of being a part of their movement. They would rather have targets than converts, to lose as an exclusive moral caste than win as a grubby populist coalition.
You can see all this playing out in the space of two tweets. Siskind is flat out not interested in understanding why these voters might have abandoned McAuliffe, reaching straight for the one-size-fits-all liberal explanation for why people don’t like them, “racism”. The women are the enemy of “progress”, here defined not as, you know, giving people fucking healthcare, but more or less explicitly as an antonym of racism. Maybe these women are racist. So what?
But yeah, Suskind doesn’t know how to reach them, and instead of being like “wow, seems like a huge problem” she’s like “that’s OK, I’ll help shore up the Dems among college-educated women”. Gee, thanks.
Suskind, if people don’t know, is a former Wall Street exec who was literally a partner at a firm called “Imperial Capital”. I keep saying it, but this is the future of the Democratic Party. Rich, educated people patting themselves on the back about “progress” which frequently amounts to little more than a complicated system of manners and social decorum that only the educated care about. An increasingly fetishized concern for the most marginalised and downtrodden, while working people who don’t vote for you are cause for “dismay and disgust”.
17 Likes
As the democrats continue to lean into their true base of rich people and corporations, I wonder if the populist base of the GOP will ever become powerful enough (compared to the typical Koch types) that leftist policies will actually become more obtainable within the GOP platform than in the Dems platform. Like a great flippening of the parties.
1 Like
I’ve always said that the party establishment’s ideal Democrat is probably a gay hedge fund manager in Manhattan.
1 Like
It’s possible. Being a corporatist, rich-people’s party is not the only way for a right-wing party to exist. I’ve wondered before if the GOP might turn into a European right wing party such as the French National Front (or National Rally or whatever they’re called now) or UKIP. Like a fundamentally nationalist party, pro-religion, anti-immigration, pro LAW AND ORDER but also with a nationalist and somewhat collectivist economic outlook. Protectionism, better healthcare, a social safety net, spun not as “helping the most vulnerable” the way the Dems do but as a STRONG AMERICA.
The other way to look at it is the Matt Christman way, where politics right now is a contest between two different bourgeois factions, the globalist faction and the nationalist faction. It suits people like Wall Street financiers to be internationalists and they’re also institutionalists, in that they see the value in strong governmental and societal institutions. Doctors and lawyers are in this camp too. OTOH, if you’re a petty-bourgeois shithead who owns a skidoo dealership in Dayton, Ohio, you don’t care about any of that stuff. You want “pro-business” policies in a more limited, nationalist kind of way. On this view, there’s nowhere for the working-class to go and they’ll continue to just get the stick and get entertained by culture-war bullshit.
I’d guess we’ll get something in the middle, like the GOP base are, if not full on protectionists yet, certainly flirting with the idea. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them soften on other safety-net issues as rural America continues to crumble. But stuff like better labor rights might be unlikely due to the petty-booj factor mentioned above. It’s hard to predict where it goes because of the US’s enforced two-party system, which leads to weird coalitions any way you slice it.
1 Like
a break for democrats, Sununu isn’t running for senate in NH against Hassan–he would’ve won.
1 Like
while i think the democrats could actually pass popular policies and that would be step 1, let’s not pretend that racism and fear of others isn’t the driving force behind a lot of the low education republican voters. republicans run entire platforms to capitalize on just that.
7 Likes
I’m becoming skeptical Dems just need to pass popular legislation. They get zero credit for the covid relief bill.
They need to get way better at messaging first.
4 Likes
definitely true. i mean biden(and the dems) started off terribly with the 2k checks messaging debacle. you just can’t have that. you can’t very widely tout 2k checks, and then later say “oh we meant we’d give you less than half of what Trump gave you, 600 dollars, to GET to 2k total… duh, didnt you guys know we meant that? lulz, you guys are silly… we obviously meant that…”
1 Like