Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by NilesIrish, Mar 4, 2019.
BERNIE GET OVER IT, NY DIDN'T NEED 371 BASEBALL TEAMS
He brought that up in the Desus and Mero interview I think, I admire that level of petty.
Has everyone given up on Liz in this thread?
She's making some boneheaded decisions lately but if Bernie were to drop out today, Liz would be far and away my number one choice.
I’m with Bernie on this. The O’Malley’s were making plenty of money in Brooklyn but got freaked out by demographic changes around Ebbets Field and then sold out their fans for the promise of more cash in LA.
Nah. Liz is fine and I really do like her. She’s just my second choice.
Soon people will bend the knee
"We can't go to the Left and expect to beat this President. We also can't go to the center and expect to beat this President. We can't divide people and beat this President, either. McKinsey!"
She's still my number 1 and I'm still making calls on her behalf
Ok I’m ready to shift my vote from Warren to Bernie now
Unfortunately, the frustration progressives feel has become so calcified many seem willing to risk the consequences of a failed candidacy or presidency. A lot of that falls on 42/44, both of whom squandered many opportunities to pass legislation that could’ve headed off a left revolt. At this point I don’t see many positive outcomes on how to unify the party, regardless of who prevails.
Not sure I want party unity. Look what that's done to the R's, they aren't the GOP anymore, they're Trump-or-bust party. Of course I want our coalition to vote similarly in order to pass meaningful legislation but the fact that vulnerable R senators are forced to say "FUCK WITNESSES" or get labeled a traitor to party leader... I don't want that.
Liz w a headshot at the Chief Justice Roberts was odd.
Odd in context, but it's high past time to call out the judiciary for the farce that it's becoming.
Similarly I was radicalized by bud adams.
Corporate dems are not my political friends. It’s fine to say it.
Neither Clinton nor Obama ever really had an opportunity to do anything. Each of them had a majority in Congress for only their first two years, then a GOP majority for the last six hell bent to oppose anything they offered.
Clinton used that two year window for some very progressive legislation—passed Family Medical Leave, Motor Voter Registration, and an assault weapons ban before failing to pass compressive health care reform.
Then the Newt Gingrich landslide hit in 1994.
Obama spent his first two years picking up health care reform, then total gridlock after 2010.
Clinton also had NAFTA in his first two years.
He passed THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY ACT in 1996. He beat republicans by coopting their rhetoric.
Obama passed a Republican think tank implementation of health insurance reform.
Jesus Christ man.
I’m supposed to remind you not to interact with me.
C’mon, you can’t use Clinton as a progressive do-gooder when answering why progressives are fed up with the capital-worshipping Democratic Party and it’s leadership for oh...most of our lives.
Actually, it’s NCHusker88 that I’m supposed to remind not to interact with me. I confused Kansas with Nebraska because you all look the same.
It’s gonna be really hard to have it both ways though, buddy.
In the House, GOP only needs to flip less than 20 seats to reclaim majority. 30ish froshdems are in GOP leaning districts that Trump carried. Not impossible a handful could lose later this year due to presidential turnout and a rejection of Sanders.
Those that remain from this caucus will be committing suicide by voting for M4A/GND type legislation. No amount of DCCC money will save all of them in ’22. This is exactly what happened in ‘10. GOP picked off the most vulnerable Dems brought in during 06/08.
You can say you don’t want them labeled as traitors, but if they announce they can’t vote for something progressives desperately want, they’ll be threatened by outside advocacy groups or reps like AOC herself, similar to her comments about “reps putting themselves on a list.” In that sort of environment, the Dem House will be at constant war with itself.
If Dems don’t take back Senate, literally nothing else matters. They’ll fight Prez Sanders on every nomination, shoot down every single progressive bill, and refuse consent on any treaty/international agreement.
If, however, the Dems do take back Senate, Schumer will come under enormous pressure by progressives to eliminate filibuster. That’s gonna be nearly impossible and could end up costing some Senators their seats if they jam through something like M4A.
The truth is the filibuster is seen by both sides as a valuable tool to protect its vulnerable members. Don’t hold your breath on it being eliminated.
A Kansas/Nebraska 4 is an Ohio 9 so I understand how it’s easy to mix us up when you’re not used to that level of beauty.
What about retiring GOP reps in purple/Hillary districts? You have an odd penchant at only approaching your arguments from one direction. Why?
Sorry we can’t have good things because uhhh we just can’t.
Even if we give Clinton a pass, many ppl (including myself) believe the Obama WH could’ve got a lot more accomplished in those first two years rather than wasting it almost entirely on HC. There are some inside baseball reasons why they didn’t, but immigration, education and/or infrastructure seemed doable. By looking at what happened to Clinton, they should’ve known losing the House was a possibility in ‘10.
1. How many of those are there compared to the 30-35ish seats that were held by GOP? (I have no clue.)
2. Because from what I can tell there’s no way to shield 2-3 dozen dem members from having to make tough votes they’ve already gone on record saying they don’t want to make and still advance the legislation. (Just between us, I think the number is actually higher on something like M4A. I suppose if nothing else electing Bernie would expose a Dems who talk a good game.)
How does that impact 2020? M4A isn't coming to a vote before the election...and 2022 is going to depend on re-districting as much as any of these things we're discussing in this thread. Likely more.
no, we’re talking after Bernie wins. If he’s the nominee we may lose a handful of those froshdems...a few came from affluent districts that will go Trump again. Maybe you’re right and Bernie will inspire some new voters who will help offset that in other races. Who knows.
But regardless I can’t see any dem congressman from a gop lean district keeping their seat if they ever vote for major progressive bills. As I said, this just happened in ‘10 so we have some precedent for what’s likely to happen.
redistricting is tricky cuz you need a dem gov plus legislature, right? Sadly I haven’t read a whole lot that gives me hope the gerrymandering will be cleaned up anytime soon.
You're putting this on Bernie, but same thing will happen with any of the Dems winning. That's how our system works (at least historically). We can try to do something transformative or we do nothing. Rs pick up seats either way (unless the transformative action is able to take hold before 2022...doubtful, obviously...and people are dumb and will keep voting against their self-interest).
The only partial protection is having control of re-districting and making sure things are democratic in this country (as they're supposed to be for the House).
I have almost zero complaints about the way Obama played his hand. Obamacare, and the inability of the right to repeal it, is the most important piece of legislation passed since LBJ.
The criticism of Clinton in hindsight 25 years later takes no account for the political climate he faced.
California and New York were still marginally purple states with Republican governors and US Senators. The NE in general was purple in the Senate, split 1-1.
A huge bloc of his D votes were still in the South in 92-94, especially the Senate.
After 94, there were no D votes anywhere and places like Pennsylvania were electing guys like Santorum.
Has anyone heard about Bernie’s Super Tuesday infrastructure?
I know Liz was working on hers very early. If she does poorly, I hope she pledges to Bernie and puts them to work for him.
you’re right about that. It would be disingenuous not to point out that Dems could lose seats with Biden too. I guess the argument would be the “vulnerable 25-30” might stand a slightly better chance if they’re not forced into suicidal votes. It’s a shitty game...
From what I read, Bernie's campaign in the past few days had so many volunteers for Iowa and NH and felt good enough about it that they were directing people to start helping with the Super Tuesday states.
Obama's main failures are two fold
1. Being a corporate stooge
2. Not properly identifying the true nature of the GOP
Also his drone war. So three fold
My biggest gripe outside of the first is taking voting rights seriously only after Democrats lost majorities. At the least making election day a federal holiday uses zero PoLiTiCaL CaPiTaL and only forces Republicans to argue against democracy.
A voting rights bill is certainly more of a process, but I'm not aware of any efforts by the obama administration or Democrats until after they had lost their majorities. Maybe I'm saying this with hindsight, so I will say it would be completely inexcusable for the next democratic president to also ignore this elephant in the room.
No coincidence Nancy's first bill in this Congress was about this
Again, I’m willing to give Clinton more of a pass than others here. It was a difficult climate to navigate through. But it’s hard to agree on Obama. Even if one argues his hands were tied on getting too rough with WallSt due to the fragility of the economy, there was an expectation something could be done on immigration (Hispanic Caucus certainly felt the votes were there).
It’s also hard to see how the GOP could’ve mounted a successful attack on a comprehensive plan for FA reform. Mostly all you heard then was how much the west wing despised working with their counterparts in the House/Senate.
doesn’t Election Day being a federal holiday still leave a really big gap considering the amount of people that still have to work on federal holidays? Always thought that was more of a symbol than anything.
Yeah. They need to have more than one day to vote and it should include a weekend. Service industry would still be outta luck if it was a federal holiday
I was radicalized by Budd dwyer
They had something agreed to on immigration. Senate republicans torpedoed it. This was still the age of GOP introspection and the autopsy saying they were dead as a party if they continued to ostracize Hispanics and other minority groups. There was every reason to believe that some form of immigration reform could be bipartisan.
It's like UHC for me, we wont start taking the health of our population seriously until we do. Obviously there's no shared bill or financial incentives like in single payer, but it does seem to me that we wont take voting seriously in this country until we do. Saturday elections might have more short term gains in raw numbers than a federal holiday, but long term it seems important from where I'm sitting
Long time no talk. But yeah with 59 votes there was the expectation that even McConnell couldn’t block this, assuming they provided enough cover for a handful like Snowe, Colllins, Lisa, et al on the “border security” portion.
Thinking back, it may have actually been house republicans that blocked it after they regained control. In any case, it was still an age when people generally felt immigration reform and infrastructure were slam dunk bipartisan deals. Obama was the deporter-in-chief. Nobody realized how completely bought in on “the Democrats are the real enemy” narrative the GOP and it’s voters had become. Agreeing to anything with a democratic president became a non-starter even if he was agreeing to everything they said they wanted under a GOP president.
Leaving ND for GA before November, so I'll be able to cast my 10 votes in a state that counts
The 111th opened with 255+ democrats in the House. With all due respect to my guy Herb, not pursuing a plan from 09-11 was a major fuck-up, period. There was little the GOP leadership could do to stop it then.
dont have time to type a thing but i do have something to tell the people who think clinton/obama were progressives and/or played their hands to the best of their abilities
suck my dick