Quo Vadis GOP?

[garbon]

It would probably help if the Democrats could deliver on literally anything.
Honestly, it might have been better if the GOP still retained the Senate, because at least then Dem voters would be going into this election with the idea that if we can just win a few more seats, we'll be able to get change. Instead, we got a slim majority and we can't even get protection for voting rights. "Vote for us because we're not authoritarian and we won't make things worse, but we also won't do anything to help or to stop the erosion of democracy" is not a stirring message.

I guess it is too hard to recall what the GOP did when they were in charge. Nor the role Republicans play in our current quagmire.

[Berkut]

It would probably help if the Democrats could deliver on literally anything.
Honestly, it might have been better if the GOP still retained the Senate, because at least then Dem voters would be going into this election with the idea that if we can just win a few more seats, we'll be able to get change. Instead, we got a slim majority and we can't even get protection for voting rights. "Vote for us because we're not authoritarian and we won't make things worse, but we also won't do anything to help or to stop the erosion of democracy" is not a stirring message.

I guess it is too hard to recall what the GOP did when they were in charge. Nor the role Republicans play in our current quagmire.

It really is fucking depressing as hell.

If the outcome of the last 10 years of public understanding of politics is that the GOP is growing, then all this bitching and arguing I am doing with Shelf and CC and other left wing progressives....I might as well just not bother.

Humanity is fucking doomed if *any* appreciable number of people can look at the last decade or so and say "Yep, gotta go GOP....". No amount of arguing, spin, messaging, or basic fucking common sense could possibly matter.

I saw a George Carlin interview once where he said something like "I started to enjoy life a lot more, and I think became more funny, when I stopped being invested in the outcome of the human experience". I think I am getting there.

[Berkut]

I probably won't get any more amusing though....

[garbon]

It would probably help if the Democrats could deliver on literally anything.
Honestly, it might have been better if the GOP still retained the Senate, because at least then Dem voters would be going into this election with the idea that if we can just win a few more seats, we'll be able to get change. Instead, we got a slim majority and we can't even get protection for voting rights. "Vote for us because we're not authoritarian and we won't make things worse, but we also won't do anything to help or to stop the erosion of democracy" is not a stirring message.

I guess it is too hard to recall what the GOP did when they were in charge. Nor the role Republicans play in our current quagmire.

It really is fucking depressing as hell.

If the outcome of the last 10 years of public understanding of politics is that the GOP is growing, then all this bitching and arguing I am doing with Shelf and CC and other left wing progressives....I might as well just not bother.

Humanity is fucking doomed if *any* appreciable number of people can look at the last decade or so and say "Yep, gotta go GOP....". No amount of arguing, spin, messaging, or basic fucking common sense could possibly matter.

I saw a George Carlin interview once where he said something like "I started to enjoy life a lot more, and I think became more funny, when I stopped being invested in the outcome of the human experience". I think I am getting there.

It does feel like increasingly the only option open to Dems is to join in with telling complete fabrications to win.

On taking a little solace, it is only a trend on the last two quarters of this year as gallup's news brief highlights:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferences-shifted-greatly-during-2021.aspx

Democrats Usually Hold an Advantage, and Did So in 2021
When all the 2021 shifts are netted out, the Democrats' average three-point advantage for the entirety of the year is only slightly smaller than they had in recent years. Democrats held five- or six-point advantages in party affiliation each year between 2016 and 2020, and three-point edges in 2014 and 2015.

Gallup began regularly measuring party leaning in 1991, and in most years, significantly more Americans have identified as Democrats or as independents who lean Democratic than as Republicans or Republican leaners. The major exception was 1991, when Republicans held a 48% to 44% advantage in party identification and leaning. From 2001 through 2003 and in 2010 and 2011, the parties had roughly equal levels of support.

And it is really movement among independents who perhaps are just being swayed by their feelings about COVID and Biden's policies currently. Perhaps there is still a large swath under the misapprenhension of balancing out the parties / feeling like both are equally okay options as surely if one was truly terrible, it'd gone away by now, no?

I also saw this clutching at straws opinion piece: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/01/18/biden-poll-comeback-527339

[viper37]

What are you talking about?

Mancin and the other one, in fragile places.

But it seems a lot of rank&file Dems disagreed with Biden's spending bill and are closer to Mancin's point of view than AOC&co.  Oex is gunning for those moderates.

[Oexmelin]

As long as the Democrats think they need to do the least amount of waves anywhere, they'll be scared to propose anything remotely salient everywhere.

What are you talking about?  Biden proposed over three trillion dollars in new spending.

Yes. And what was the story about? About fucking Manchin and Sinema and their objections, and about the price tag. The result: BBB is "really expensive" and "Democrats are divided / impotent".  ​I get that Democrats are remarkably inept at national news messaging, but that means you need to a lot more work on the grounds to fight these perceptions. I don't see that happening at all. What I see is a lot of Democrats who would rather be seen as gravely nodding at the fact that, yes, it is expensive (because this is what sensible, responsible people do), but it is for a good cause, than to  actually go out there, explain the *why* of it. This is really fighting the current war, with the last war's tactics and weapon. And it's clearly not going well.

[garbon]

Explain the why to whom? Manchin and Sinema's voters?

[Sheilbh]

Yes. And what was the story about? About fucking Manchin and Sinema and their objections, and about the price tag. The result: BBB is "really expensive" and "Democrats are divided / impotent".  ​I get that Democrats are remarkably inept at national news messaging, but that means you need to a lot more work on the grounds to fight these perceptions. I don't see that happening at all. What I see is a lot of Democrats who would rather be seen as gravely nodding at the fact that, yes, it is expensive (because this is what sensible, responsible people do), but it is for a good cause, than to  actually go out there, explain the *why* of it. This is really fighting the current war, with the last war's tactics and weapon. And it's clearly not going well.

Also I feel like lots of Democratic politicians (including Biden) and pundits and commentators - so no doubt reflecting voters and supporters of the Democrats - are basically consensus politicians. They are really into and care about policy and wonkishness. I think they'd be great in the EU or in Germany or another consensus-driven political system where you have 60% of legislators supporting a broad principle and the art of politics is finessing the policy options to get the maximum votes on board. That seems to be the stuff that Democrats like talking about. I don't think that's the way US politics is operating - and perhaps it was when Schumer and Biden were young and making deals. But I don't think it's just generational - you look at the Ezra Klein/Vox stuff and you get the feeling that actually a lot of Democrats just don't understand that they're dealing with people who oppose what they want to do and instead think they just need it "explained" to them. I half blame Aaron Sorkin and the West Wing

What I think they're less good at is making a moral or political case for what they want to do at all. I keep mentioning it because it blew my mind - but I keep coming back to the Politico article about about Democratic consultants saying that, following the Virginia election, they don't think there's any benefit to Democrats running hard on Roe v Wade and the Supreme Court; instead they should focus on practical issues like childcare tax credits. It seems wrong to me on a gut level - if you are not for fighting to win back the Supreme Court and to defend Roe v Wade, then I'm not sure what the point of the Democrats is. But also look at the Republicans who have transformed the court because that's precisely the argument they've been making for the last forty years. They attach it to other stuff but they don't get into the weeds about the exact way they're going to cut taxes.

I also think - which is something all parties of the left need to watch for as they increasingly become parties of graduates - that the Democrats have been captured by grads and post-grads. I always think this when I see politicians talking about equity. I get what the concept means with all the explanations, I know there is a body of academic thinking around it. I'm fairly sure that most voters have no idea what it means and when they hear it just think "they're not talking to us". Just say "fairness" - people know what that means. I don't know if it's the same in the US but it's similar with "privilege" here - not many people know what it means, the ones who do don't like that phrase. But the vast majority of people in polls agree that white people have it easier than people who aren't white and that it's wrong and not fair - so talk about that not privilege, because then you're talking to voters and not each other.

To take BBB as an example - I think the key is to prove that Democrats and the US system can do something. From what I understand a lot of what Manchin had issues with were to do with the climate provisions. I'd strip them out - because if they can do something, they can win more seats at the next election and then Manchin doesn't matter. I'd make it as pure an infrastucture bill as he wanted, I'd make it as big as possible, I'd get Biden in a hard hat and a hi-viz jacket opening new projects every week. I'd also absolutely be hammering Trump on this - I'd be saying that it's now 4 years since Donald Trump's infrastructure week and after four years of Republican failure, we're delivering. And I'd absolutely go populist - I'd have a ban on attending or presiding over multi-billionaire weddings. I'd go after the Sacklers and change the law if that was necessary but find criminal laws to pursue them. Ban insider trading for Congressmen and Senators - and launch investigations etc.

[Berkut]

Yes. And what was the story about? About fucking Manchin and Sinema and their objections, and about the price tag. The result: BBB is "really expensive" and "Democrats are divided / impotent".  ​I get that Democrats are remarkably inept at national news messaging, but that means you need to a lot more work on the grounds to fight these perceptions. I don't see that happening at all. What I see is a lot of Democrats who would rather be seen as gravely nodding at the fact that, yes, it is expensive (because this is what sensible, responsible people do), but it is for a good cause, than to  actually go out there, explain the *why* of it. This is really fighting the current war, with the last war's tactics and weapon. And it's clearly not going well.

Also I feel like lots of Democratic politicians (including Biden) and pundits and commentators - so no doubt reflecting voters and supporters of the Democrats - are basically consensus politicians. They are really into and care about policy and wonkishness. I think they'd be great in the EU or in Germany or another consensus-driven political system where you have 60% of legislators supporting a broad principle and the art of politics is finessing the policy options to get the maximum votes on board. That seems to be the stuff that Democrats like talking about. I don't think that's the way US politics is operating - and perhaps it was when Schumer and Biden were young and making deals. But I don't think it's just generational - you look at the Ezra Klein/Vox stuff and you get the feeling that actually a lot of Democrats just don't understand that they're dealing with people who oppose what they want to do and instead think they just need it "explained" to them. I half blame Aaron Sorkin and the West Wing

What I think they're less good at is making a moral or political case for what they want to do at all. I keep mentioning it because it blew my mind - but I keep coming back to the Politico article about about Democratic consultants saying that, following the Virginia election, they don't think there's any benefit to Democrats running hard on Roe v Wade and the Supreme Court; instead they should focus on practical issues like childcare tax credits. It seems wrong to me on a gut level - if you are not for fighting to win back the Supreme Court and to defend Roe v Wade, then I'm not sure what the point of the Democrats is. But also look at the Republicans who have transformed the court because that's precisely the argument they've been making for the last forty years. They attach it to other stuff but they don't get into the weeds about the exact way they're going to cut taxes.

I also think - which is something all parties of the left need to watch for as they increasingly become parties of graduates - that the Democrats have been captured by grads and post-grads. I always think this when I see politicians talking about equity. I get what the concept means with all the explanations, I know there is a body of academic thinking around it. I'm fairly sure that most voters have no idea what it means and when they hear it just think "they're not talking to us". Just say "fairness" - people know what that means. I don't know if it's the same in the US but it's similar with "privilege" here - not many people know what it means, the ones who do don't like that phrase. But the vast majority of people in polls agree that white people have it easier than people who aren't white and that it's wrong and not fair - so talk about that not privilege, because then you're talking to voters and not each other.

To take BBB as an example - I think the key is to prove that Democrats and the US system can do something. From what I understand a lot of what Manchin had issues with were to do with the climate provisions. I'd strip them out - because if they can do something, they can win more seats at the next election and then Manchin doesn't matter. I'd make it as pure an infrastucture bill as he wanted, I'd make it as big as possible, I'd get Biden in a hard hat and a hi-viz jacket opening new projects every week. I'd also absolutely be hammering Trump on this - I'd be saying that it's now 4 years since Donald Trump's infrastructure week and after four years of Republican failure, we're delivering. And I'd absolutely go populist - I'd have a ban on attending or presiding over multi-billionaire weddings. I'd go after the Sacklers and change the law if that was necessary but find criminal laws to pursue them. Ban insider trading for Congressmen and Senators - and launch investigations etc.

If Manchin has a veto, I don't see why he wasn't brought in behind closed doors right from the start, and hammer out proposal that he would support.

Sure, the ultra left would howl...but they howled anyway.

Instead they tried a shitty compromise bill that nobody liked enough to actually back.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - I struggle more with Sinema because I can't work out her motivations.

But it's clear Manchin is a key vote so all you should be doing is focusing on things that Manchin is willing to support - and pave the roads of West Virginia with gold if that's what it takes to get him on-side.

[HisMajestyBOB]

Yes. And what was the story about? About fucking Manchin and Sinema and their objections, and about the price tag. The result: BBB is "really expensive" and "Democrats are divided / impotent".  ​I get that Democrats are remarkably inept at national news messaging, but that means you need to a lot more work on the grounds to fight these perceptions. I don't see that happening at all. What I see is a lot of Democrats who would rather be seen as gravely nodding at the fact that, yes, it is expensive (because this is what sensible, responsible people do), but it is for a good cause, than to  actually go out there, explain the *why* of it. This is really fighting the current war, with the last war's tactics and weapon. And it's clearly not going well.

Also I feel like lots of Democratic politicians (including Biden) and pundits and commentators - so no doubt reflecting voters and supporters of the Democrats - are basically consensus politicians. They are really into and care about policy and wonkishness. I think they'd be great in the EU or in Germany or another consensus-driven political system where you have 60% of legislators supporting a broad principle and the art of politics is finessing the policy options to get the maximum votes on board. That seems to be the stuff that Democrats like talking about. I don't think that's the way US politics is operating - and perhaps it was when Schumer and Biden were young and making deals. But I don't think it's just generational - you look at the Ezra Klein/Vox stuff and you get the feeling that actually a lot of Democrats just don't understand that they're dealing with people who oppose what they want to do and instead think they just need it "explained" to them. I half blame Aaron Sorkin and the West Wing

What I think they're less good at is making a moral or political case for what they want to do at all. I keep mentioning it because it blew my mind - but I keep coming back to the Politico article about about Democratic consultants saying that, following the Virginia election, they don't think there's any benefit to Democrats running hard on Roe v Wade and the Supreme Court; instead they should focus on practical issues like childcare tax credits. It seems wrong to me on a gut level - if you are not for fighting to win back the Supreme Court and to defend Roe v Wade, then I'm not sure what the point of the Democrats is. But also look at the Republicans who have transformed the court because that's precisely the argument they've been making for the last forty years. They attach it to other stuff but they don't get into the weeds about the exact way they're going to cut taxes.

I also think - which is something all parties of the left need to watch for as they increasingly become parties of graduates - that the Democrats have been captured by grads and post-grads. I always think this when I see politicians talking about equity. I get what the concept means with all the explanations, I know there is a body of academic thinking around it. I'm fairly sure that most voters have no idea what it means and when they hear it just think "they're not talking to us". Just say "fairness" - people know what that means. I don't know if it's the same in the US but it's similar with "privilege" here - not many people know what it means, the ones who do don't like that phrase. But the vast majority of people in polls agree that white people have it easier than people who aren't white and that it's wrong and not fair - so talk about that not privilege, because then you're talking to voters and not each other.

To take BBB as an example - I think the key is to prove that Democrats and the US system can do something. From what I understand a lot of what Manchin had issues with were to do with the climate provisions. I'd strip them out - because if they can do something, they can win more seats at the next election and then Manchin doesn't matter. I'd make it as pure an infrastucture bill as he wanted, I'd make it as big as possible, I'd get Biden in a hard hat and a hi-viz jacket opening new projects every week. I'd also absolutely be hammering Trump on this - I'd be saying that it's now 4 years since Donald Trump's infrastructure week and after four years of Republican failure, we're delivering. And I'd absolutely go populist - I'd have a ban on attending or presiding over multi-billionaire weddings. I'd go after the Sacklers and change the law if that was necessary but find criminal laws to pursue them. Ban insider trading for Congressmen and Senators - and launch investigations etc.

If Manchin has a veto, I don't see why he wasn't brought in behind closed doors right from the start, and hammer out proposal that he would support.

Sure, the ultra left would howl...but they howled anyway.

Instead they tried a shitty compromise bill that nobody liked enough to actually back.

Manchin was meeting with the White House frequently last summer and fall to discuss the bill, his objections, and where they might compromise. The most recent big sticking point was the Child Tax Credit, which Manchin reportedly wanted to remove and Biden refused to remove. Nothing in any of the reporting indicates that this is an issue of the uncompromising ultra-left refusing to budge or compromise with Manchin.

[Valmy]

Why are we worried about the ultra-left? They may blab on social media but ultimately they always will come around, they even vote for Trump's bills.

The entire right wing, whether ultra or not, will just intractably refuse to compromise on any point what-so-ever, and if any one of their politicians do they get hammered as traitors.

Yet somehow the ultra left are the nuts? I mean they say stupid shit on social media but ultimately they are not a big problem legislatively at all. The right from the old establishment to capital hill insurrectionists are all far more radical than AOC as least in how they vote.

[DGuller]

The ultra left are a problem because they scare some people into voting for the right, which is what leaves us with Manchin and Sinema as kingmakers in the first place.

[Sheilbh]

But that feels unhinged to me.

The right tried to storm the capital to disrupt a democratic presidential election. They're now trying to change the voting rules and how states tally their electors. That's happened with the support of a sitting (and future) President, plus the entire House party (except for one) and the vast majority of the party in the Senate and Governor's mansions too.

The ultra left are doing Tik Toks and maybe causing issues in negotiations. We're not talking about street violence and the edge of communist insurrection here. Whatever they're doing it's in the realm of democratic politics however annoying it might be.

It just seems disproportionate to not like AOC to basically go "well, fuck it, I'm going to go vote for the party defending the Qanon shaman".

[The Brain]

Maybe you missed it but many voters are unhinged.