Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

[alfred russel]

An example of a profound failure is the bill last month that lost 51-49 in the senate to nationally protect abortion rights legislatively.

The bill was actually more broad than the about to be overturned USSC protections. Obviously republicans were united in opposition and Manchin voted against it citing that the bill would expand rather than just protect abortion rights.

Democrats really needed 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Maybe any bill couldn't do that. But why not propose an extremely narrow bill that for example only protected abortion rights if the life of the mother was at risk, or if the mother was raped, or in the first 8 weeks? In the case republicans keep 40 votes against and the bill still fails, you've got them in the voting record on some really unpopular issues. In the event the bill gets the votes to pass, you are actually protecting some elements of rights that are going to go away in some states. In either event it seems a superior outcome to what we got.

[Barrister]

Truth of the matter is that Democratic policies are already centrist. They govern (when they can) in a centrist manner. They consistently win the popular vote.

I'm not sure what else can be done here, when the obstacles are structural.

As we have seen, winning the popular vote doesn't actually matter.

Democrats should try to win votes in places that matter.  If you can't change the rules of the game, then you play within the rules of the game as they are.  Which goes to my point - you tailor your message to win votes in purple states, not run up the margins in places where the votes don't matter.


Look, I've had this debate with people on the right too (before a certain portion of the right went crazy).  You're better off getting 60% of what you want, then running a candidate promising 100% of what you want and losing.

[Barrister]

An example of a profound failure is the bill last month that lost 51-49 in the senate to nationally protect abortion rights legislatively.

The bill was actually more broad than the about to be overturned USSC protections. Obviously republicans were united in opposition and Manchin voted against it citing that the bill would expand rather than just protect abortion rights.

Democrats really needed 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Maybe any bill couldn't do that. But why not propose an extremely narrow bill that for example only protected abortion rights if the life of the mother was at risk, or if the mother was raped, or in the first 8 weeks? In the case republicans keep 40 votes against and the bill still fails, you've got them in the voting record on some really unpopular issues. In the event the bill gets the votes to pass, you are actually protecting some elements of rights that are going to go away in some states. In either event it seems a superior outcome to what we got.

Excellent example.

Put the GOP on the defensive by forcing them to defend voting against an extremely popular bill.

Instead they managed to split their own party by pushing a maximalist bill that the GOP could comfortable vote against, and that was never going to pass anyways.

[Razgovory]

They do, well at least the ones that are actual policies.  Except student debt.  The majority support that already.

You sure about that?

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2022-04-25/only-38-of-young-americans-support-total-cancellation-of-student-loan-debt-poll

And that's just when asked in the abstract.  People generally like the idea of free money when asked, but less so when presented as actual policy.

Doing a quick google it suggests that 37% of Americans above the age of 25 graduated from college.  That of course means 63% did not.  Imagine you're a welder struggling with lots of debts of your own - a mortgage, car loan, credit cards - and you hear that a bunch of graduates from fancy schools are suddenly having their debt forgiven.

Or even if you are a college graduate yourself, but you decided to go to a less expensive state school, or gave up on graduate school, because you didn't want to take on so much debt.  Or you scrimped and saved for years in order to pay off your student debt.  Are you going to be happy that Biden is forgiving student loans for other people?

I'm currently imagining the fantasy where I can hold down a job as welder.  A house not in foreclosure! A car!  A credit card!  You want me to believe that someone with such abundant wealth and fortune is jealous?

[Berkut]

Do you really think that would work?
For the sake of argument the Democrats come out and say fuck the gays, women deserve no rights, etc...
I get the feeling the entrenchment of blue team and red team is so deep that they still wouldn't sway many.

Yes, the only way to appeal to voters in Ohio, Michigan and the like is to say "fuck the gays and women deserve no rights".

What I mean is to run to the CENTER.  You know, where the voters are.

What actual Democratic Party platform policies do you think are alienating the CENTER? 

-defund the police
-cancel student debt
-no restrictions on abortion until the moment of birth
-"birthing persons"/Latinx

Defund the police is not a Democratic Party platform

Cancel student debt is dumb, but I don't think it is scaring people away, certainly not centrists.

No restrictions on abortion until the moment of birth is not supported by really anyone, and you fucking know that perfectly well. Further, centrists are MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with Democratic Party views on abortion.

I don't even know what the last thing even means.

[Barrister]

I'm currently imagining the fantasy where I can hold down a job as welder.  A house not in foreclosure! A car!  A credit card!  You want me to believe that someone with such abundant wealth and fortune is jealous?

Have you met other people?  While I know you are an enlightened person who doesn't feel jealousy, most are not.

[Razgovory]

I took some courses on sociology and psychology if that's what you mean.

[grumbler]

Do you really think that would work?
For the sake of argument the Democrats come out and say fuck the gays, women deserve no rights, etc...
I get the feeling the entrenchment of blue team and red team is so deep that they still wouldn't sway many.

Yes, the only way to appeal to voters in Ohio, Michigan and the like is to say "fuck the gays and women deserve no rights".

What I mean is to run to the CENTER.  You know, where the voters are.

What actual Democratic Party platform policies do you think are alienating the CENTER? 

-defund the police
-cancel student debt
-no restrictions on abortion until the moment of birth
-"birthing persons"/Latinx

None of these are actual Democratic Party positions.  They are just your Fox News boogieman lies.  I am hoping that the CENTER isn't foolish enough to believe Faux Snooze lies.  You Faux Snooze-watching folks on the far right are not reachable in any case.

[Barrister]

Defund the police is not a Democratic Party platform

Cancel student debt is dumb, but I don't think it is scaring people away, certainly not centrists.

No restrictions on abortion until the moment of birth is not supported by really anyone, and you fucking know that perfectly well. Further, centrists are MUCH MUCH MUCH more in line with Democratic Party views on abortion.

I don't even know what the last thing even means.

Defunding the police isn't Democratic policy?  Well it has been loudly proposed by "the Squad".  But if it isn't Dem policy then Dem politicians should have no problem saying so.

Cancelling student debt?  Maybe not in the official policy, but Dem politicians like AOC, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren all support it.  Maybe not a huge vote-killer yet, but if it actually happens watch out.

No restrictions on abortion?  Again the activists are simply saying "my body, my choice".  Again - if late-term abortions are so rare Dem politicians should have no problem saying they should be banned.

The last was just my shorthand for all the goofiness around language.  The "not all women have vaginas" people.  Latinx, despite approximately 1% of people of latin/hispanic heritage use that kind of language.  Why do you think that after promising to build a wall Trump's support among hispanics went up in 2020?


All the culture war bullshit is just that - bullshit.  But it's effective.  Democrats need to stop fighting losing culture war battles, surrender where appropriate, and fight on friendlier terrain.

[Barrister]

None of these are actual Democratic Party positions.  They are just your Fox News boogieman lies.  I am hoping that the CENTER isn't foolish enough to believe Faux Snooze lies.  You Faux Snooze-watching folks on the far right are not reachable in any case.

Lets, for the sake of argument, suggest that perhaps the center is foolish enough to believe "Faux Snooze lies".  Or, at least, enough of them are.

What then should be the democratic response be?

I'm going to suggest that just calling them "Faux snooze lies" isn't particularly effective.

[grumbler]

You sure about that?

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2022-04-25/only-38-of-young-americans-support-total-cancellation-of-student-loan-debt-poll

And that's just when asked in the abstract.  People generally like the idea of free money when asked, but less so when presented as actual policy.

Doing a quick google it suggests that 37% of Americans above the age of 25 graduated from college.  That of course means 63% did not.  Imagine you're a welder struggling with lots of debts of your own - a mortgage, car loan, credit cards - and you hear that a bunch of graduates from fancy schools are suddenly having their debt forgiven.

Or even if you are a college graduate yourself, but you decided to go to a less expensive state school, or gave up on graduate school, because you didn't want to take on so much debt.  Or you scrimped and saved for years in order to pay off your student debt.  Are you going to be happy that Biden is forgiving student loans for other people?

The Biden position (which is the Democratic position) is for targeted relief, which is popular according to your source.  Complete cancellation is not popular, but that's not the Democratic policy.

[grumbler]

Defunding the police isn't Democratic policy?  Well it has been loudly proposed by "the Squad".  But if it isn't Dem policy then Dem politicians should have no problem saying so.

Indeed.  They have had no problem saying so.

Cancelling student debt?  Maybe not in the official policy, but Dem politicians like AOC, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren all support it.  Maybe not a huge vote-killer yet, but if it actually happens watch out.

So, you are conceding that your original contention was false.  Smart move.

No restrictions on abortion?  Again the activists are simply saying "my body, my choice".  Again - if late-term abortions are so rare Dem politicians should have no problem saying they should be banned.

The Democratic position is unchanged on late-term abortions.  The Roe (and subsequent) decisions would stand in the Democratic bill.  What would not stand are the bullshit rules designed in the Red States to drive up the cost of abortions and make them maximally inconvenient.  None of the rules that would be prohibited by the Democratic bill have any medical purpose.

The last was just my shorthand for all the goofiness around language.  The "not all women have vaginas" people.  Latinx, despite approximately 1% of people of latin/hispanic heritage use that kind of language.  Why do you think that after promising to build a wall Trump's support among hispanics went up in 2020?

The Democratic Party has no position on such issues as to whether people should be allowed to use the term Latinx.  That is a typical culture war Faux Snooze fake issue.

All the culture war bullshit is just that - bullshit.  But it's effective.  Democrats need to stop fighting losing culture war battles, surrender where appropriate, and fight on friendlier terrain.

90+% of the "culture war bullshit" is the product of addled right wing brains.  They NEED the culture war so that they can be heroes in it, even if it requires believing in vast imaginary conspiracies. 

The problem the Democrats have is in motivating the CENTER to vote, not in getting them to vote Democratic when they do vote.

[Barrister]

Bless your heart grumbler.

[grumbler]

Lets, for the sake of argument, suggest that perhaps the center is foolish enough to believe "Faux Snooze lies".  Or, at least, enough of them are.

What then should be the democratic response be?

I'm going to suggest that just calling them "Faux snooze lies" isn't particularly effective.

If, for the sake of argument, the CENTER is going to believe lies no matter what the evidence says, then the Democrats are screwed.  There is no way the left will ever sacrifice their self-respect enough to lie like the right.  If the voters are only motivated by a belief in vast conspiracies by supervillains, then democracy is dead.

[Oexmelin]

As your interventions make clear, BB, and as we have covered multiple times:

These are not Democratic policies: these are things that have been demonized by Conservatives. Which, fair enough, is politics. 

But, as the Republicans' case also make it clear: "popular politics" can be a fool's errand. Conservative policies are generally quite unpopular. But they sure commit to their bit.

A lot of it is about energy, and committment. Democrats generally cede control of the discourse to Republican talking points. They have nothing else. It is in that vaccuum that people who *do* have something, i.e., the progressives, have an actual alternative discourse. I am pretty sure the American people whouldn't necessarily subscribe to all that progressives propose: yet they sure don't have a clear sense of what Republicans propose either, and yet they vote for these fuckers. Above all, the progressives seem to be about the only ones in the democratic party that *do* have policies that touch matters like "everyday life". But obviously, these are not the things that Republicans emphasize in their opponents.

I don't think there is a magical solution that suddenly makes the Democrats the winning ticket, whether turning into democratic Republicans, or democratic Socialists. I tend to think that either strategy can actually yield results. One thing seems sure though: the sort of ambivalent, non-committal, programme-by-committee, tsk-tsk-ing, awaiting for a sudden realization of your opponent's own immorality kind-of approach seem capable of delivering tiny, uncertain winning margins - which is terribly high risk strategy. Is that sort of approach, the Center? It seems that way to me - but I am no centrist. The problem with "centrism" is that the need to distance yourself from extremes often dispenses you from having any clear sense about what, exactly, you stand for.

At this stage, I am pretty sure that any sort of moderate Democrat would be painted as some sort of extreme radical. The trick isn't to find some sort of Republican that would run Democrat. That won't happen. The trick is finding a Democrat that is passionate, has a clear sense of what they stand for, know how to answer to the death cult, and authority cult of the Conservatives (and just isn't content to whine about it), and isn't a fucking billion years old.