5 ms·

Blame the senator from West Virginia who refused to vote on some of the Dems bills.

by wil421 4y ago

rayiner 4y ago
Blame Democrats for the college educated urban-dominated coalition they’ve deliberately chosen. I recall some activist types talking a few years ago about whether pro life Dems like Manchin should be kicked out of the party. Though it’s the House not the Senate, Dems just lost a longtime majority-Hispanic seat in south Texas: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/14/texas-special-election-tx-34-mayra-flores-dan-sanchez https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/14/texas-special-electi.... To give you an idea of the temperature of that room, the Dem candidate had run as “a ‘conservative Democrat’ and ‘pro-life’ Catholic.” National Dems are making a deliberate choice to abandon those Dem voters, just as they did with working class white people in the Midwest. Remember when Dems had 60 Senate seats, including in states like South Dakota? It wasn’t ancient history it was 2008.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  The Dems might have had 60 seats in name only, but even that was for a few months (Jul 2009 to Jan 2010). More importantly, a couple Democrats like Lieberman do not tow the party line, and frequently vote like Repubs, so I would not say Democrats ever had 60 seats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_Senate_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_Senate_elec... > Democrats held at least 57 seats as a result of the election. When the new senators were first sworn in, the balance was 58–41 in favor of the Democrats, with the unresolved election in Minnesota causing that seat to remain vacant. The April 2009 party switch of Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter from Republican to Democrat and the July 2009 resolution of the Minnesota election in favor of Democrat Al Franken increased the Democratic majority to 60–40 (providing the Democrats, including the two Independent senators who caucus with them, a supermajority and thus able to hypothetically over-ride any filibusters). Republicans gained a seat in a January 2010 special election in Massachusetts, thereby making the balance 59–41 before the start of the next election cycle.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    They had 60 votes to get Obamacare enacted, which was a historic achievement. Obviously your coalition won’t agree on everything and you have to keep the marginal votes on board. That’s just how politics works. My point is that there is a more potent democratic coalition out there even within the framework of the Senate system. To the contrary, the Senate system long benefited Democrats because it favors working class rural areas over moneyed industries (finance, tech, etc.) concentrated on the coasts.
    - suture 4y ago
      The country and politics of the nation have shifted. The divide is rural/urban now. The cities have the vast majority of the wealth but not the accompanying representation. The rural areas of the country are overwhelmingly conservative and increasingly white nationalist in sentiment. What the state of things 50 years ago was is no longer relevant.
      - acheron 4y ago
        Approximately nobody is “white nationalist”. Believing nonsense like that is not helping you.
        suture 4y ago
        The election of Donald Trump was clearly a white nationalist backlash. This is obvious and it was an enabling event for more extreme elements of white nationalism. One only needs to look at the rhetoric used to see this. Don’t confuse “white nationalist” with “white supremecist” (though the latter is a subset of the former). The underpinnings of white nationalism have been around for a while but really came to the fore in 2016. The desire to keep “our America” and other catch phrases are indicative. EDIT: Having white, nationalist sentiments or leanings is not necessarily bad or wrong. It’s quite natural for a majority population to have such sentiments when their status as a majority gets threatened. The demographics and gender power structure of the nation is noticeably changing and having a backlash against that change is common.
- suture 4y ago
  Republicans abandoned people who are in favor of abortion. Republicans abandoned liberal Republicans like Bill Weld. Every party abandons people. Democrats consistently hold majority views on a wide range of policy issues and consistently have more votes in national elections. Gerrymandering so that urban centers lose their voting power and other election rigging techniques is what is holding back Democratic policies. The Democratic Party should not abandon its highly popular core principles to cater to the deranged apportionment that the U.S. has.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > Republicans abandoned people who are in favor of abortion. Republicans abandoned liberal Republicans like Bill Weld. Every party abandons people. Sure. My point is that the party made this choice deliberately. Trying to pin the blame on Joe Manchin, who is doing yeoman’s work holding onto a key part of the old FDR coalition, is disingenuous. > Democrats consistently hold majority views on a wide range of policy issues and consistently have more votes in national elections. The views of the party leadership and donor base and closely affiliated NGOs do not have consistent majority support. For example, Dems have basically allowed NARAL, etc., to be the voice of the party on abortion. But a strong majority of Americans oppose second trimester abortions, which are guaranteed by Roe, and a quarter of democrats identify as “pro life.” That’s more than ones who identify as “very liberal.” The party used to get that, carving out a space for folks like Manchin in WV and Tom Daschle in SD. > Gerrymandering so that urban centers lose their voting power and other election rigging techniques is what is holding back Democratic policies. Republicans have won the Congressional popular vote slightly more than half of the time since 1990. They’re about to do it again. Gerrymandering doesn’t affect that. Even in the electoral college, it benefitted Democrats not only throughout the 1960s-1980s, but as recently as 2012. Obama would have been able to win a second term even if he lost the popular vote. > The Democratic Party should not abandon its highly popular core principles to cater to the deranged apportionment that the U.S. has. Democratic leaders and donors are deeply confused about what those “core principles” are, and who is in their coalition. The coalition is one of urban liberals who vote democrat for ideological reasons, and minorities and immigrants who vote Democrat out of self interest. My parents are the type of immigrant who turned Virginia blue. They care about Obamacare. They’ll accommodate some things the urban liberals want to get that. But that doesn’t mean they agree with college educated urban white people about what kids should learn in schools. The fact is that a big chunk of the Democratic coalition has social values closer to Republicans than to liberal Democrats. Moreover, those are the party’s marginal votes in states like Arizona and Nevada and Georgia. Urban Democrats should live in that reality.
flavius29663 4y ago
did they put the Medicare for all on vote? if not, you can't just assume that if they didn't want more reckless government spending(thank God they stpped at that, the damage is already immense) they also don't want medicare for all.
refurb 4y ago
Blame bad bills that their own party members vote against…maybe?
maxwell 4y ago
I'm not talking about passing anything, just putting it to a vote.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

Blame the senator from West Virginia who refused to vote on some of the Dems bills.

by wil421 4y ago

Blame the senator from West Virginia who refused to vote on some of the Dems bills.

Blame Democrats for the college educated urban-dominated coalition they’ve deliberately chosen. I recall some activist types talking a few years ago about whether pro life Dems like Manchin should be kicked out of the party. Though it’s the House not the Senate, Dems just lost a longtime majority-Hispanic seat in south Texas: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/14/texas-special-election-tx-34-mayra-flores-dan-sanchez https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/14/texas-special-electi.... To give you an idea of the temperature of that room, the Dem candidate had run as “a ‘conservative Democrat’ and ‘pro-life’ Catholic.” National Dems are making a deliberate choice to abandon those Dem voters, just as they did with working class white people in the Midwest. Remember when Dems had 60 Senate seats, including in states like South Dakota? It wasn’t ancient history it was 2008.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
The Dems might have had 60 seats in name only, but even that was for a few months (Jul 2009 to Jan 2010). More importantly, a couple Democrats like Lieberman do not tow the party line, and frequently vote like Repubs, so I would not say Democrats ever had 60 seats. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_Senate_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_Senate_elec... > Democrats held at least 57 seats as a result of the election. When the new senators were first sworn in, the balance was 58–41 in favor of the Democrats, with the unresolved election in Minnesota causing that seat to remain vacant. The April 2009 party switch of Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter from Republican to Democrat and the July 2009 resolution of the Minnesota election in favor of Democrat Al Franken increased the Democratic majority to 60–40 (providing the Democrats, including the two Independent senators who caucus with them, a supermajority and thus able to hypothetically over-ride any filibusters). Republicans gained a seat in a January 2010 special election in Massachusetts, thereby making the balance 59–41 before the start of the next election cycle.
- rayiner 4y ago
  They had 60 votes to get Obamacare enacted, which was a historic achievement. Obviously your coalition won’t agree on everything and you have to keep the marginal votes on board. That’s just how politics works. My point is that there is a more potent democratic coalition out there even within the framework of the Senate system. To the contrary, the Senate system long benefited Democrats because it favors working class rural areas over moneyed industries (finance, tech, etc.) concentrated on the coasts.
  - suture 4y ago
    The country and politics of the nation have shifted. The divide is rural/urban now. The cities have the vast majority of the wealth but not the accompanying representation. The rural areas of the country are overwhelmingly conservative and increasingly white nationalist in sentiment. What the state of things 50 years ago was is no longer relevant.
    - acheron 4y ago
      Approximately nobody is “white nationalist”. Believing nonsense like that is not helping you.
      - suture 4y ago
        The election of Donald Trump was clearly a white nationalist backlash. This is obvious and it was an enabling event for more extreme elements of white nationalism. One only needs to look at the rhetoric used to see this. Don’t confuse “white nationalist” with “white supremecist” (though the latter is a subset of the former). The underpinnings of white nationalism have been around for a while but really came to the fore in 2016. The desire to keep “our America” and other catch phrases are indicative. EDIT: Having white, nationalist sentiments or leanings is not necessarily bad or wrong. It’s quite natural for a majority population to have such sentiments when their status as a majority gets threatened. The demographics and gender power structure of the nation is noticeably changing and having a backlash against that change is common.
suture 4y ago
Republicans abandoned people who are in favor of abortion. Republicans abandoned liberal Republicans like Bill Weld. Every party abandons people. Democrats consistently hold majority views on a wide range of policy issues and consistently have more votes in national elections. Gerrymandering so that urban centers lose their voting power and other election rigging techniques is what is holding back Democratic policies. The Democratic Party should not abandon its highly popular core principles to cater to the deranged apportionment that the U.S. has.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > Republicans abandoned people who are in favor of abortion. Republicans abandoned liberal Republicans like Bill Weld. Every party abandons people. Sure. My point is that the party made this choice deliberately. Trying to pin the blame on Joe Manchin, who is doing yeoman’s work holding onto a key part of the old FDR coalition, is disingenuous. > Democrats consistently hold majority views on a wide range of policy issues and consistently have more votes in national elections. The views of the party leadership and donor base and closely affiliated NGOs do not have consistent majority support. For example, Dems have basically allowed NARAL, etc., to be the voice of the party on abortion. But a strong majority of Americans oppose second trimester abortions, which are guaranteed by Roe, and a quarter of democrats identify as “pro life.” That’s more than ones who identify as “very liberal.” The party used to get that, carving out a space for folks like Manchin in WV and Tom Daschle in SD. > Gerrymandering so that urban centers lose their voting power and other election rigging techniques is what is holding back Democratic policies. Republicans have won the Congressional popular vote slightly more than half of the time since 1990. They’re about to do it again. Gerrymandering doesn’t affect that. Even in the electoral college, it benefitted Democrats not only throughout the 1960s-1980s, but as recently as 2012. Obama would have been able to win a second term even if he lost the popular vote. > The Democratic Party should not abandon its highly popular core principles to cater to the deranged apportionment that the U.S. has. Democratic leaders and donors are deeply confused about what those “core principles” are, and who is in their coalition. The coalition is one of urban liberals who vote democrat for ideological reasons, and minorities and immigrants who vote Democrat out of self interest. My parents are the type of immigrant who turned Virginia blue. They care about Obamacare. They’ll accommodate some things the urban liberals want to get that. But that doesn’t mean they agree with college educated urban white people about what kids should learn in schools. The fact is that a big chunk of the Democratic coalition has social values closer to Republicans than to liberal Democrats. Moreover, those are the party’s marginal votes in states like Arizona and Nevada and Georgia. Urban Democrats should live in that reality.

flavius29663 4y ago

did they put the Medicare for all on vote? if not, you can't just assume that if they didn't want more reckless government spending(thank God they stpped at that, the damage is already immense) they also don't want medicare for all.

refurb 4y ago

Blame bad bills that their own party members vote against…maybe?

maxwell 4y ago

I'm not talking about passing anything, just putting it to a vote.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]