Nah, it's really only the beginning. A massive change like that was always unlikely to happen top-down -- and a grass roots movement has been building and building since Bernie's first campaign. "The Squad" as they've come to be called grew with the election as the Democrats' overall majority shrank, increasing their influence. Progressive policies are massively appealing to all sorts of voters when it comes down to brass tacks. A recent Fox News poll revealed that something like 60-65% of their viewers supported some level of Medicare for All, raising the minimum wage, and a couple other cornerstones of the Progressive platform. The establishment wing of the DNC is old and getting older - Pelosi's 80 and Schumer is 70 in a week, so there's likely to be a power vacuum in the near'ish future. If Progressives keep picking up seats the way they have, they'll be well placed to extend their influence.
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Nah, it's really only the beginning. A massive change like that was always unlikely to happen top-down -- and a grass roots movement has been building and building since Bernie's first campaign. "The Squad" as they've come to be called grew with the election as the Democrats' overall majority shrank, increasing their influence. Progressive policies are massively appealing to all sorts of voters when it comes down to brass tacks. A recent Fox News poll revealed that something like 60-65% of their viewers supported some level of Medicare for All, raising the minimum wage, and a couple other cornerstones of the Progressive platform. The establishment wing of the DNC is old and getting older - Pelosi's 80 and Schumer is 70 in a week, so there's likely to be a power vacuum in the near'ish future. If Progressives keep picking up seats the way they have, they'll be well placed to extend their influence.
Aye, and blocked an investigation into ’Iraq-gate’ regarding interference in the Iran-Iraq war. Hell of a legacy he put together.
Doug Jones or Sally Yates will be a breath of fresh air.
Genuinely what does this mean ? I hear it mentioned a lot but imo it seems nothing more than a few local campaigns, the dsa(Which has less than 100,000 members in a country of 300+ million), Progressives NGO's and online media organizations.
You can count the number of the squad on one hand. It's good that they won with ease but also Joe Biden running not on a progressive platform won the most votes of all time. As for their influence I'm not sure how they've increased it ?
They seem to be in the same position as before which is basically on the fringe end of the party.
People like the idea of Medicare for all but that doesn't mean they are going to vote for it because the one single candidate who supported it didn't even make it to the presidential election. Biden and Trump didn't run on any sort of policy and they still ranked up massive voting numbers.
Pelosi and Schumer will be replaced by younger versions of themselves because the base of the Democratic party(Putting aside the fact the Democratics isn't really a party but just a fundraising organization) have no interest in progressive politics.
There is a progressive left wing politics out there especially with people under 40 but I can't see the Democratic party as the vehicle for it. Which imo ia potentially a good thing.
It means policy that was considered lunacy by even the Democrats less than 5-10 years ago is now something that a lot of Republicans want. Whether they'll vote for it, or push their party to adopt those ideas remains to be seen. For every natinal office that goes to a progressive, there are loads more in local and state elections. Again, building from the ground up. DSA are a relatively small part of the Progressive movement and lots avoid it because of how demonized the word socialist is. I have friends who won't claim it but agree on almost 100% of the policy stances. It is what it is, but citing small membership in one group doesn't mean their ideas are only backed by 100,000 people.
As for "the Squad" (I hate that term, so I'm not sure why I even used it); if you consider it to be essentially the mouthpiece for the vocally Progressive wing of the party, it certainly isn't a large portion, but with the likes of Cori Bush, Mondaire Jones, and Jamaal Bowman being elected and you add in Ro Khanna, Katie Porter, Lucy McBath, Pramila Jayapal, et al who were elected in 2016 , there's a fast growing group of very vocal, very progressive Representatives. The Progressive Caucus made up 34% of House Dems in 2012 - Obama's midterm bloodbath. Today it's 42%. There's a noticeable trend upwards as the party gets younger.
Obviously the system is set up to benefit establishment politicians who need Big Pharma money to maintain their power, which is why it will take overwhelming public support to make Medicare for All a non-partisan issue. Again, the numbers show quickly growing bipartisan support (relatively speaking - I'm not saying a majority of Republicans are in favor... yet). At the same time, this is an issue that is literally life or death for so many Americans - so don't expect the push towards it to get any less fierce. Especially after the pandemic when the hospital bills start coming due for millions of Americans.
I suppose your point is fair on the DNC - I hate them and think they're corrupt as the day is long - but until there's a way out of the 2-party system that doesn't happily hand control of all three branches of government to the minority group who just spent 4 years showing how comfortable they are with near-fascism, the only option at the moment is going to be the Progressives trying to drag the Democrats to the left, even if it means dragging them kicking and screaming.
As for "the Squad" (I hate that term, so I'm not sure why I even used it); if you consider it to be essentially the mouthpiece for the vocally Progressive wing of the party, it certainly isn't a large portion, but with the likes of Cori Bush, Mondaire Jones, and Jamaal Bowman being elected and you add in Ro Khanna, Katie Porter, Lucy McBath, Pramila Jayapal, et al who were elected in 2016 , there's a fast growing group of very vocal, very progressive Representatives. The Progressive Caucus made up 34% of House Dems in 2012 - Obama's midterm bloodbath. Today it's 42%. There's a noticeable trend upwards as the party gets younger.
Obviously the system is set up to benefit establishment politicians who need Big Pharma money to maintain their power, which is why it will take overwhelming public support to make Medicare for All a non-partisan issue. Again, the numbers show quickly growing bipartisan support (relatively speaking - I'm not saying a majority of Republicans are in favor... yet). At the same time, this is an issue that is literally life or death for so many Americans - so don't expect the push towards it to get any less fierce. Especially after the pandemic when the hospital bills start coming due for millions of Americans.
I suppose your point is fair on the DNC - I hate them and think they're corrupt as the day is long - but until there's a way out of the 2-party system that doesn't happily hand control of all three branches of government to the minority group who just spent 4 years showing how comfortable they are with near-fascism, the only option at the moment is going to be the Progressives trying to drag the Democrats to the left, even if it means dragging them kicking and screaming.
@forevrared
In theory, if things progress as they are now, you can see a moderate left, Warren-like technocrat win a Democratic primary in a few decades.
But:
1. The Democrats have shown they can win on massive turnout without a campaign and without talking policy.
2. The Democrats' base is shifting to suburban and wealthy areas, the traditional Republican base. These voters turned out in huge numbers in the primary. They either oppose leftist ideas or can be made to do so by talking about taxes.
3. Depending on the area and ethnicity you are looking at, younger minority voters (who in theory should be the base for the Left) are either voting less or have switched sides.
4. There is no central organisation, but a handful of overlapping ones with little/moderate influence (Justice Dems, Our Revolution, and the DSA in the big cities).
5. Bernie had recordbreaking grassroots donations and recordbreaking volunteer support, exceeding Obama, but could not increase youth turnout nearly enough or win enough existing voters for the primary.
6. A well-designed student loan bailout or a compromise healthcare bill that slightly reduces the uninsured will *kill* the left as an electoral force, and some moderate Dem is going to recognise this, and failing that, maybe a Republican will.
7. Not going to go into detail on this one, but the centre has shown it can drum up identity-based backlashes to leftists among young college-educated people.
8. The role of the media - hard to emphasise this one. 10 days of negative Bernie coverage (starting a little before Nevada) and a week of positive Biden coverage (starting a little before SC) made a massive difference. The Democratic base trusts their media, and CNN/MSNBC/NYT are amazingly hostile. I keep thinking back to my personal experience canvassing in mid-February, when Biden wasn't mentioned *once*, we heard Bernie a lot, and some Petes and Warrens, and that area went to Biden with 60% of the vote.
9. Climate change - the window for that was exceedingly short and is now lost. Who knows how politics shifts after that, and how much it matters anyway.
There will always be another Trump to discipline the base into voting for soggy oatmeal, there will be the same Obama to call up the contenders and tell them to stand aside for the chosen centrist, and there isn't a Bernie who has appeal among independents (the Squad don't).
The chance is gone - in retrospect the best shot was 2016 when he had amazing approval numbers from independent voters, Trump was the historically unpopular challenger not the moderately unpopular incumbent, and Hillary was disliked by a solid portion of the base- and I'm not sure when it comes back, if at all.
In theory, if things progress as they are now, you can see a moderate left, Warren-like technocrat win a Democratic primary in a few decades.
But:
1. The Democrats have shown they can win on massive turnout without a campaign and without talking policy.
2. The Democrats' base is shifting to suburban and wealthy areas, the traditional Republican base. These voters turned out in huge numbers in the primary. They either oppose leftist ideas or can be made to do so by talking about taxes.
3. Depending on the area and ethnicity you are looking at, younger minority voters (who in theory should be the base for the Left) are either voting less or have switched sides.
4. There is no central organisation, but a handful of overlapping ones with little/moderate influence (Justice Dems, Our Revolution, and the DSA in the big cities).
5. Bernie had recordbreaking grassroots donations and recordbreaking volunteer support, exceeding Obama, but could not increase youth turnout nearly enough or win enough existing voters for the primary.
6. A well-designed student loan bailout or a compromise healthcare bill that slightly reduces the uninsured will *kill* the left as an electoral force, and some moderate Dem is going to recognise this, and failing that, maybe a Republican will.
7. Not going to go into detail on this one, but the centre has shown it can drum up identity-based backlashes to leftists among young college-educated people.
8. The role of the media - hard to emphasise this one. 10 days of negative Bernie coverage (starting a little before Nevada) and a week of positive Biden coverage (starting a little before SC) made a massive difference. The Democratic base trusts their media, and CNN/MSNBC/NYT are amazingly hostile. I keep thinking back to my personal experience canvassing in mid-February, when Biden wasn't mentioned *once*, we heard Bernie a lot, and some Petes and Warrens, and that area went to Biden with 60% of the vote.
9. Climate change - the window for that was exceedingly short and is now lost. Who knows how politics shifts after that, and how much it matters anyway.
There will always be another Trump to discipline the base into voting for soggy oatmeal, there will be the same Obama to call up the contenders and tell them to stand aside for the chosen centrist, and there isn't a Bernie who has appeal among independents (the Squad don't).
The chance is gone - in retrospect the best shot was 2016 when he had amazing approval numbers from independent voters, Trump was the historically unpopular challenger not the moderately unpopular incumbent, and Hillary was disliked by a solid portion of the base- and I'm not sure when it comes back, if at all.
I wholeheartedly agree. They (the GOP) have not only completely abandoned any decorum, principle or spirit of cooperation for the sake of the common good, but are even openly challenging the rule of law and are attempting to hijack an election. They push for every political advantage while peddling alternative facts, conspiracy theories and anti-science to the masses.
However much you try to reason or appease, it’s futile. It’s like trying to appease Nazi Germany in the 30s. You best dig up your own trenches and get ready for war. Cause the other side is already openly engaged in it.
Full marks for alliteration, though.
With an freezer of ice cream worth more than your yearly salary, voice for the people indeed.
wE wIlL PuSh jOE biDeN lEft
Last edited:
And so it begins...
I think it's because twitter pushed replies with the most engagement (replies+RTs+quote tweets+likes) to the top rather than most liked, but that was one of the most depressing reads in a while. I gave up after about 6 of them.
The next 4 years are going to be brutal.
Biden will pretty much keep all the awful elements of the Trump presidency and the people who were screaming about fascism and a new civil war will defend it by yasssss queening. That first tweet trying to ''game theory'' Biden is just pure insanity, politics is a form of mental illness.
Pure hell world stuff.
Last edited:
The last legacy of the Bernie campaign is showing democrats the potential income of small donations.
Biden wanting some of that Trump buy a brick monie.
Gotta get that money!
He does have a point. It takes money to do these things and anyone who voted for him should know that getting off to a slow start because of Trump’s obstruction would only hurt their own political interests.
Nah, I'm not buying it. Asking regular people to pay for his transition during a pandemic and resulting economic downturn, when his party is full of millionaires with billionaire donors... it's not a good look. To be honest, it doesn't even really matter if they need the money or not, he shouldn't be asking for it.
Its not a particularly difficult concept to grasp. The transition requires money and those willing to donate are welcome to do so. There's no mandate to donate and the bit about millionaires and billionaires could be easily used against him with the usual accusation that they would want added influence for their investment in the transition. The Dems should be moving away from that and relying as much on crowdsourcing their funds as possible.
We need to keep the grassroots out of politics and keep big business at the forefront. That's a bad move by Biden.
That is just beyond words. Maybe he could launch a Kickstarter.
No he shouldn't. They should be wall to wall on the obstruction of the current administration to sign off on the transition funds. People are squeezed enough and this is a red tape problem.
That works during the campaign, but crowdfunding the transition? That just seems like taking the Bernie/AOC/left method of small donors for campaigning, and twisting it around. Now you're going from involving regular people in politics to involving regular people in the orderly running of government - by paying. What's next, asking regular people to "chip in" for the infrastructure deal? Campaigning is an individual thing, but the transition is very much a government thing.
As @GiddyUp says, they should make as big a fuss as possible about the obstruction of the actual transition funds.
Well I suppose you could argue that we are in the middle of a pandemic and are about to attempt a vaccine roll-out unprecedented in history, so any hiccups in the transition could cost lives or people’s homes when they get evicted.
It is still an awkward request though.
It is still an awkward request though.
This is basically the new administration showing that they will ask the base to do the donkey work while appeasing/trying their hardest to placate Rs at every turn. A direct result of their current electioneering strategy, wooing/consolidating the suburban former lean R/upper income college educated whites - those who still hold delusions about bipartisanship.
I agree with this. Biden doesn't have money right now because something's wrong with how US government works. Asking people to chip in to compensate makes no sense; that's what taxes are for.
I guess it would become a bit better if Biden could promise that this is an exceptional one-off that he'll fix as one of the first things he's in office. But on the other hand, Trump has already broken actual laws while in office (like the Hatch Act by using federal property for his campaign), so even enshrining the transition in law might not help.
The court stenographers have started their jobs
(Blinken is the new Secretary of State, WestExec is the consultancy firm he founded after leaving the Obama admin)
From the article:
(Blinken is the new Secretary of State, WestExec is the consultancy firm he founded after leaving the Obama admin)
From the article:
He's a cnut but he's our cnut?
Not to mention putting more pressure on Trump to accept defeat.
So like the Trump thread, this one seems to be about criticising Biden? Cool.
Biden was never popular on the Cafe.
He was simply the only choice when compared to that abomination.
Surely, Americans here must be a bit grateful to have improved upon that utter moron?