Tell me: what does “the news” say that makes you so much more well-informed?
Which of those swing states are gerrymandered irreparably? Is there any history of formerly gerrymandered districts being changed?
What’s on the docket next term and what ramifications will those cases have?
Doing “important things” sounds like it would be important all the time. Thank you for explaining that so simply for me.
When did eDems last have a supermajority and the Presidency? I know you weren’t castigating Democrats not advancing their agenda unabated in a split government. That would not be like you at all to get over your skis.
I mean he was clearly pandering to the Robert Byrd dem wing and probably some of his constituents regardless of his personal views. Does that make it more or less gross? Is it better to do it because you believe in it or think it helps you politically.
Clearly less gross if a worse person would have power in his stead. This gets back to the Lincoln discussion above: he did a ton of racist pandering to win, and then fuck up the Confederacy.
It depends on whether you prefer pragmatism or purity more. My approach is to not say that one is better than the other and to respect both sides of that argument.
Do we agree that busing was one of the issues that shifted the Democrats away from the New Deal coalition towards one based more on identity politics? I think eDems dream of going back to the New Deal coalition, which is why they keep trying to pander to those who left the party, and they need to learn that dream is dead and Dems need to move on.
I know you think supermajority vs filibuster proof senate majority is some kind of gotcha. It is a distinction without difference. Who gives a shit, Dems literally never getting either anyways by your muh norms approach.
This is clearly correct. 300 Reps and 65 Senators won’t pass UHC for example because almost no Dem politicians are actually for it(or more accurately paid yo be for it). Voting harder doesn’t mean shit when these are the two choices.
Not to mention it’s already over for the rest of our lives unless we expand the court because in some fantasy universe where there was a party capable of passing UHC the SC would pretty close to instantly invalidate it.
Calling that view nihlism is delusional imo. It’s the actual reality we live in whether you like it or not.
Predicting the future so definitively is delusional.
After HillaryCare went up in smoke in the early 90s, nothing significant happened in healthcare until the next time Democrats had WH + filibuster proof majority in Senate and passed the ACA, which passed by five votes in the House and on a party-line vote in the Senate by the precise margin needed.
Republican congresses in the interim passed the contract for america, tax cuts for the rich, and money for killing machines when they had control. They did literally nothing good with their power. They hurt millions of poor people.
The Democrats in 2009 had no AOCs or Fettermans driving the dialogue. I do not think it’s inconceivable at all that one or both of them (or others of similar bent) are able to effect influence on the political systems over the next decade. These things aren’t static, and we are no less at the end of history than when Fukuyama proclaimed we were.
History tells us that cataclysms happen often in politics. This cocksure attitude from the (yes) nihilists betrays a poor grasp of history to say the least.