Grassley's tweets are easily identifiable.
The Biden Presidency
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
SHOCK POLL: Biden Approval Down to 38, Kamala Harris Support CRATERS to 28 Percent
https://www.mediaite.com/news/shock...-kamala-harris-support-craters-to-28-percent/
https://www.mediaite.com/news/shock...-kamala-harris-support-craters-to-28-percent/
What are typical/average approval ratings for VP's ?
WaPo poll just out. Dems are pretty much fecked.
There is no evidence from the actual voting by Dem base in the last primary that Buttigieg or Kamala are seen as the future.
There's no evidence that the people who run the Democratic party care what the base wants.
It would be a losing ticket and indicative that the Dem power structure is completely out of sync with public sentiment.
But what do they care about then?
Kamala Harris currently has 28% approval rating which I doubt has bottomed out, and Buttigieg is hardly any better.
If this is the best the democrats can come up with, then I fear for their fortunes this decade.
The base will like what they're told to like
Why do people question how much better the Democrats are on some key issues that Demoratic voters care most about?
Cue whataboutism.
Cue whataboutism.
I saw this week back on NYT too. I think inference is straightforward. Dems/Liberal voters might agree with an over arching goal on paper, as in who will say they are against solving the problem of homelessness?, but they are not up for making any sacrifices to achieve it. Economically even most if not majority of the democratic base is right wing.
Agreed! In fairness I think that's mostly agreed, but it gets lost in pedantry about the relativity of right vs. left in international terms. As Thatcher put it, America has "two parties of freedom", or some other ridiculous phrase, but yeah it's been known for a while that the Democrats have very little in common with what most other countries describe as "left wing". They just seem to be very good at persuading people that policies don't dictate whether you're left wing or not, it's just about posturing. They're the left wing party by default, if the Republicans didn't exist I'm sure loads of the folks in Congress would happily call themselves right wing freedom-lovers. And the democratic base love that because they can virtue signal without making the sacrifices necessary for more equitable distribution of resources.
Isn't the US the wrong country to be looking at for an equitable distribution of resources?
Not what made America great... (as some might say!!)
Not what made America great... (as some might say!!)
This is who the democrats have always been though. While they might seem like the good guys to an outsider by default. The reality is they don’t really stand for anything in particular. They don’t claim to be the working-class party. Nor do they claim to be the party that will solve issues such as homeless, make healthcare a priority(even amidst a pandemic), pass any serious legislation to hold cops accountable, or any basic issues plaguing the country. They are just a reactionary party that serves to enable republicans, and gaslight minorities into voting against their interests.
Last edited:
They make a lot of claims in that 2020 Democratic Party Platform about who they are and what they stand for that he then assesses against their actions. We can agree that those claims are disingenuous but they do claim to be the party that considers housing a human right, the party that's tackling income inequality, etc. and they frequently blame Republicans for preventing those goals from being achieved, yet as he demonstrated, that doesn't quite hold up under scrutiny.
So it at the very least attracts the people who don't pay much attention to political realities but do pay attention to political messaging, in turn pulling away people who would otherwise vote for someone who actually stands for those values. So I agree with the general premise that Democrats are very much responsible for many of the things they blame Republicans for, they're a direct obstacle to achieving those goals.
The evidence he shared seemed like a pretty good refutation of some of the claims made by centrist Democrats in here when the question of "how much better are the Democrats on these things that really matter?", going beyond the usual rhetoric that just gets met with more rhetoric rather than genuine self-examination.
I agree with his premise. My point was merely that this is who the democrats have always been. They run on a leftist platform and pivot once in power. Homelessness in SF and other parts of CA are the best examples. Because on paper they do claim to care about homelessness(duh of course they do) but most of the democrat campaigns are heavily funded by tech companies, and real estate people. Which often results in no help for the homeless who end up getting jailed, shuffled from one homeless facility to another. The same can be said for soo many other issues which only begs to ask the question, what do the democrats actually stand for? and the answer falls somewhere in between corporate interests and enabling republicans.
Agreed!
How do you propose actually helping the homeless though? It's a complex problem with a ton of outside influencing factors as my thread was meant to highlight. It's absolutely not just the result of rising housing costs and without addressing all the macro factors, it's not really fair to just lay at the feet of say Newsom and Democrat city councils. The vast majority of the homeless in LA and SF do not end up either jailed or shuffled between homeless facilities. I would also argue that California Dems like Newsom are not trying to enable Republicans in any way although the corporate interest angle is absolutely fair.
Part of the problem is that currently in LA and SF, government-provided permanent affordable housing is insanely expensive for a variety of factors. Calmatter estimates it would cost between 15-30 billion annually. This is a tough problem that I see everyone complain about with few actionable solutions.
There's a whole lot of stuff that could actually be started though - like better mental health care, free health care, social housing, minimum wages, welfare for the unemployed, good public transport, and so on and so forth. I don't know what might already be in place where and to what extent, but while I agree that homelessness is not a simple problem, tons of things are known to contribute to it and a lot of those could be addressed with a bit of goodwill. But as long as the Democrats aren't really invested in creating a welfare and care system that better protects those vulnerable of setbacks (of various kinds), nothing is moving on any of it and nothing will change.
California Democrats have already passed a lot of that though. We have Medi-cal (free health care that would cover any homeless), a minimum wage twice that of the Federal rate and rising to $15 in 2023, and fairly strong unemployment insurance. Public transport is very good in SF and LA has spent tens if not hundreds of billions trying to improve it over the last 25 years but a city built post-WWII for the car simply doesn't lend itself well to an easy transition to workable public transpo.
Better mental health care and better addiction rehab are absolutely needed (though the War on Drugs at a Federal level does inhibit this).
The bolded I don't agree with, for California Dems at least. A lot of them are very much interested in creating a better social welfare system and have taken more steps in that direction than most places in the US but there are still a ton of problems (many such as addiction that get glossed over at times- see the Atlantic article on the New Meth). There are some cities that have programs that California should follow, like Houston, but the situation is more challenging here than there and the problem can't just be placed at the Democrats feet when you have vocal Republican minorities pushing hard for a more "law and order" solution.
For starters, those in power need to stop treating homelessness as some sort of vanity project. Stop building shitting public housing that is neither accessible, affordable, or attended to by the authorities. It takes forever for an application to get processed? why should it take so long? and what are folks supposed to do in the meantime? why do these applications require people with no prior criminal convictions? doesn't that defeat the entire purpose? why build these houses so far away from the city? This is an organization that does incredible work. http://housingworksca.org/. Work with such organizations to tackle the issue and not just build shitty cubes, that no one can live in. More than anything, just start by not taking money from real estate companies. Therein lies half the problem. There are also tons of books that try and address these issues. It just takes political will to divest away from rich donors and actually try to solve the problem. The biggest myth surrounding homelessness is that cities are helpless in solving the issue when in reality homelessness is a direct result of policies enacted by the very same people.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07NMVQQJY/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i1
https://slate.com/business/2014/02/...sharing-economy-drives-up-housing-prices.html
How to Kill a City
Last edited:
That's good. As I said, I don't know how much is being done. I just felt like you were saying that homelessness is ultimately so complex that it can't be tackled and/or it's unclear where to start. My point was that there are indeed a ton of intersecting underlying causes, but that they are often well known (as Entropy mentioned) and can all be tackled by just getting started on them. If the CA Dems are already getting going with that - then great, and let's see them push through!
I can agree with most of this. There definitely needs to be more cheap housing although I don't see a problem with the tiny housing as long as the properties have plenty of sanitation services available. Tiny housing is more affordable, efficient, and addresses all the crucial elements to help get the homeless back on their feet. Cities have to build them away from the city in some cases because of NIMBY neighborhoods. That's not something that can or will change so I see no problem with Democrats working with what they have. They have to, using public campers, buying out cheap motels, etc. I definitely think real estate companies and privately contracting has to be out of the solution and I know its moving that direction so I have some hope.
The real game-changers need to be expanded mental health facilities and a strategy to deal with addiction as those two factors are major inhibitors on solutions.
I think mental health services can only help so much if at the end of the day you are going back to a shitty apartment. People need housing for the same reason as you and me. And giving them the bare minimum and putting tons of regulations on it only forces them to live in fear of losing housing at any given minute.
Again, I see no problem with the tiny housing provided in Oakland. Housing is housing. If it has sanitation services and wi-fi access it allows upward mobility just fine. The tons of regulations is tricky. Ideally, I'd agree but realistically its often a choice between restrictions and distance because a lot of neighborhoods will oppose it whereas housing with restrictions often has a better chance of getting through. I think cities like Houston and Atlanta have provided a decent blueprint to build upon and that's what it seems California is doing.
Mental health services are absolutely essential IMO, without that and addiction strategy, throwing money at the problem won't move the needle.
We'll have to see how the upcoming LA mayoral election goes. We have a billionaire "independent" Rick Caruso who is already spending money on research and messaging and seeding the race with arguments like you made about Democrat failure and how a businessman like himself he will solve the homeless. Democrat contenders are looking like Karen Bass or Kevin DeLeon.
What they are doing in Oakland is great. I was mostly referencing cities like SF, Portland. I agree that mental health services are essential. But overemphasizing it without proper long-term housing in place is still a dead-end scenario. I guess the question then becomes, are you providing housing as a long-term solution or a short-term solution for one save enough money and figure stuff out for themselves.
'SALT' Turns Biden's Budget Bill Into A Joke
First time a woman assumed the duties of the presidency?
First since Nancy Reagan I think.