US Politics

Ultimately you've got some Dems (like Jones) who're in no-win situations where their seats are going Republican barring another nonce being up against them. So long as that's the case they should be going as progressive as they can, since they're all but out anyway.
 
berbatrick said:
I know, that Republican might vote to end environmental regulations, confirm torture supporters, and support tax cuts!
Click to expand...

One thing it definitely wont do is advance Democratic platform policies. Policy gets made by gravitating towards the middle and cooperating with the other side where possible - not by 'my way or the highway' jihadism that yields nothing by continued gridlock.
 
Cheesy said:
Ultimately you've got some Dems (like Jones) who're in no-win situations where their seats are going Republican barring another nonce being up against them. So long as that's the case they should be going as progressive as they can, since they're all but out anyway.
Click to expand...

The likes of Tester, Heidtcamp, Manchin, Jones et al are going to support polices that their more conservative Dem constiutents voted for.
 
Raoul said:
The GOP have their own problems. Doesn't mean the Dems should stoop to the same grildlock promoting ways.
Click to expand...

The GOP has their amazing wins, passing policies , blocking popular policies, ignoring niceties, effecting massive gridlock including shutting down the government, and staying in power. The Dems need to learn.
 
berbatrick said:
The GOP has their amazing wins, passing policies , blocking popular policies, ignoring niceties, effecting massive gridlock including shutting down the government, and staying in power. The Dems need to learn.
Click to expand...

They didn't stay in power for any of those reasons. They effectively used Obama as an evil foil to whip their flock into a frenzy and combined it with effective gerrymanderibng. The Dems should not stoop to such childish ways.
 
Raoul said:
They didn't stay in power for any of those reasons. They effectively used Obama as an evil foil to whip their flock into a frenzy and combined it with effective gerrymanderibng. The Dems should not stoop to such childish ways.
Click to expand...

And they won an increasing number of seats through those mechanisms. The Dems aren't going to win them back by being friendly and cooperative.
 
Cheesy said:
And they won an increasing number of seats through those mechanisms. The Dems aren't going to win them back by being friendly and cooperative.
Click to expand...

They don't have to be friendly, but ultimately the name of the game is to advance policy not impede any policy from happening because it doesn't meet some puritanical standard for one extreme wing of one party or the other.
 
Raoul said:
They don't have to be friendly, but ultimately the name of the game is to advance policy not impede any policy from happening because it doesn't meet some puritanical standard for one extreme wing of one party or the other.
Click to expand...

But the point is that they are regularly supporting policies/politicians the left opposes. Hence the anger. The Republicans may have used Obama as an 'evil foil' but it worked for them, and they showed that trying to compromise with the middle-ground isn't necessarily the ideal strategy right now when one side is so extreme.
 
Cheesy said:
But the point is that they are regularly supporting policies/politicians the left opposes. Hence the anger. The Republicans may have used Obama as an 'evil foil' but it worked for them, and they showed that trying to compromise with the middle-ground isn't necessarily the ideal strategy right now when one side is so extreme.
Click to expand...

I don't think either side is extreme right now. There are factions within both parties who are willing to work together. Today's bipartisan protect Mueller bill was a good example. There's plenty of room for policy overlap that could advance various policies which is infinitely better than gridlock.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think either side is extreme right now. There are factions within both parties who are willing to work together. Today's bipartisan protect Mueller bill was a good example. There's plenty of room for policy overlap that could advance various policies which is infinitely better than gridlock.
Click to expand...

The Republicans currently support a probable rapist and climate change denier who regularly undermines press freedoms and goes on bizarre rants online against anyone who dares challenge an ounce of his credibility. Some Republicans will talk a good game against Trump but on 90% of cases they'll ultimately secede to his agenda because they want to stay in power. I'm not against compromise as a political ideal, but I don't think we should pretend this current Republican Party is in any way normal or reasonable.
 
The full chart is here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

The most disloyal Republican is Rand Paul, whose score is 75%. That means he defies his party for 25% of his votes (using the most stringent baseline possible; it's closer to 20% by using a more appropriate baseline.)

I'm using Ron Wyden as a baseline Dem, who votes with Trump 15% of the time. That means Jones and Manchin defy their party for 45% of their votes (using a generous baseline)
 
Cheesy said:
The Republicans currently support a probable rapist and climate change denier who regularly undermines press freedoms and goes on bizarre rants online against anyone who dares challenge an ounce of his credibility. Some Republicans will talk a good game against Trump but on 90% of cases they'll ultimately secede to his agenda because they want to stay in power. I'm not against compromise as a political ideal, but I don't think we should pretend this current Republican Party is in any way normal or reasonable.
Click to expand...

As well they should since they were voted in by the same people who voted for the Trump agenda.
 
berbatrick said:
The full chart is here: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

The most disloyal Republican is Rand Paul, whose score is 75%. That means he defies his party for 25% of his votes (using the most stringent baseline possible; it's closer to 20% by using a more appropriate baseline.)

I'm using Ron Wyden as a baseline Dem, who votes with Trump 15% of the time. That means Jones and Manchin defy their party for 45% of their votes (using a generous baseline)
Click to expand...

Paul, like his dad, is a bit of an outlier in all of this since he's basically the only bonafide member of the libertarian wing of the GOP.
 
Raoul said:
Paul, like his dad, is a bit of an outlier in all of this since he's basically the only bonafide member of the libertarian wing of the GOP.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it shows how tight a ship the GOP runs that their rebel is 75% in line.
 
Cheesy said:
So you think the Trump agenda is alright?
Click to expand...

Different people are going to have different thoughts on various aspects of his agenda. For example you will probably see progressives who find common ground on issues like free trade and anti-interventionism. You have to therefore take the individual issues on their own merits and support where support is possible.
 
Looks like a predictable result of today's all or nothing, hyper-compartmentalized, all or nothing social media culture.
 
Last edited:
Cheesy said:
The Republicans currently support a probable rapist and climate change denier who regularly undermines press freedoms and goes on bizarre rants online against anyone who dares challenge an ounce of his credibility. Some Republicans will talk a good game against Trump but on 90% of cases they'll ultimately secede to his agenda because they want to stay in power. I'm not against compromise as a political ideal, but I don't think we should pretend this current Republican Party is in any way normal or reasonable.
Click to expand...

They also have a self-proclaimed Nazi running for a seat.
 
Raoul said:
Looks like a predictable result of today's all or nothing, hyper-compartmentalized, all or nothing social media culture.
Click to expand...

Or as a result of the Dems repeatedly trying to operate as the sensible party of the two and being rewarded with continuous failure. I doubt social media has much to do with it...it's been around since the days of Obama and the drop happened almost exclusively after the shock of Trump's election.
 
Cheesy said:
Or as a result of the Dems repeatedly trying to operate as the sensible party of the two and being rewarded with continuous failure. I doubt social media has much to do with it...it's been around since the days of Obama and the drop happened almost exclusively after the shock of Trump's election.
Click to expand...

They haven't necessarily failed on policy - more like been indecisive. The Republicans are in charge because of Obama, gerrymandering and the fact that the Dems haven't had a coherent message where they were able to decide between establishment and progressive wings. That has nothing to do with their ability (or lack thereof) of being able to work with Republicans. Some do, many don't. At the end of the day politicians shouldn't be in the game to obstruct and policy and reinforce gridlock. They should be working to advance policy wherever possible.
 
Raoul said:
They haven't necessarily failed on policy - more like been indecisive. The Republicans are in charge because of Obama, gerrymandering and the fact that the Dems haven't had a coherent message where they were able to decide between establishment and progressive wings. That has nothing to do with their ability (or lack thereof) of being able to work with Republicans. Some do, many don't. At the end of the day politicians shouldn't be in the game to obstruct and policy and reinforce gridlock. They should be working to advance policy wherever possible.
Click to expand...

But it becomes inherently hard to argue that compromise is the ideal approach when the Republicans during Obama's term were astonishingly obstructionist and regularly refused to work with Obama, and then managed to get power as a result. If they're able to do that and then implement their own policies, then why should the Dems be opting for compromise? It clearly hasn't worked until now, and the decline in a belief for compromise (which was the point being discussed) likely has a lot more to do with the election of Trump than any social media-related decline.
 
Cheesy said:
But it becomes inherently hard to argue that compromise is the ideal approach when the Republicans during Obama's term were astonishingly obstructionist and regularly refused to work with Obama, and then managed to get power as a result. If they're able to do that and then implement their own policies, then why should the Dems be opting for compromise? It clearly hasn't worked until now, and the decline in a belief for compromise (which was the point being discussed) likely has a lot more to do with the election of Trump than any social media-related decline.
Click to expand...

I don't think it does become harder to argue that if you believe that the fundamental objective of politicians is to attempt to advance policy on behalf of the constituents who voted them in. The argument that Dems should strive to be obstructionist just because Republicans were goes completely against the very reason we send politicians to Washington. I want my representatives to actually pursue legislation that moves the needle in a positive direction. If they can't achieve that every time, i want them to not stop trying until they succeed. As mentioned a few posts up, there are plenty of areas where Rs and Ds see varying degrees of overlap on policy with Trump and they should work to galvanize those agreements not run away from them. There is overlap between Trump's anti-free trade policy and Sanders'. There is overlap between Rand Paul's view of foreign policy and many progressives. There is considerable overlap between Trump's view on infrastructure development and the entire establishment Dem contingent. There are many other examples. All of these are opportunities for progress.
 
Raoul said:
I don't think it does become harder to argue that if you believe that the fundamental objective of politicians is to attempt to advance policy on behalf of the constituents who voted them in. The argument that Dems should strive to be obstructionist just because Republicans were goes completely against the very reason we send politicians to Washington. I want my representatives to actually pursue legislation that moves the needle in a positive direction. If they can't achieve that every time, i want them to not stop trying until they succeed. As mentioned a few posts up, there are plenty of areas where Rs and Ds see varying degrees of overlap on policy with Trump and they should work to galvanize those agreements not run away from them. There is overlap between Trump's anti-free trade policy and Sanders'. There is overlap between Rand Paul's view of foreign policy and many progressives. There is considerable overlap between Trump's view on infrastructure development and the entire establishment Dem contingent. There are many other examples. All of these are opportunities for progress.
Click to expand...

This is (again) completely missing the point that Democrats are inherently disadvantaged when it comes to this because while they're generally willing to work across the bench, the Republicans mostly aren't. There may be an overlap in policy positions, but when it comes to obstructing the Dems the Republicans will abandon the few principles they have to do whatever they can to get them out. The Tea Party used that approach and it worked. The Republicans never really attacked the ACA on its merits or problems...they just attacked it as Obama's healthcare policy, an approach that by and large worked. They are currently lead by someone who actively disputed whether Obama was an American.

The Dems may be elected to represent their constituents, but they need to realise that if they want to get back into power they need to have a coherent, active message that is strongly against the policies of Trump and the Republicans, otherwise they'll prompt the same sort of apathy we saw in 2016. Compromise is good to a point, but it shouldn't be seen as some hallowed ground to stand on when the Republicans repeatedly ignore it and are in power.
 
Cheesy said:
This is (again) completely missing the point that Democrats are inherently disadvantaged when it comes to this because while they're generally willing to work across the bench, the Republicans mostly aren't. There may be an overlap in policy positions, but when it comes to obstructing the Dems the Republicans will abandon the few principles they have to do whatever they can to get them out. The Tea Party used that approach and it worked. The Republicans never really attacked the ACA on its merits or problems...they just attacked it as Obama's healthcare policy, an approach that by and large worked. They are currently lead by someone who actively disputed whether Obama was an American.

The Dems may be elected to represent their constituents, but they need to realise that if they want to get back into power they need to have a coherent, active message that is strongly against the policies of Trump and the Republicans, otherwise they'll prompt the same sort of apathy we saw in 2016. Compromise is good to a point, but it shouldn't be seen as some hallowed ground to stand on when the Republicans repeatedly ignore it and are in power.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Dems are any more interested in reaching "across the aisle" than the Rs are. There are moderates on both sides who are willing to work together on polices where there is overlap. We just saw it as recently as yesterday on the protect Mueller bill that cleared committee. The problem is both sides are being controlled by extremists who don't want their moderate factions to work together and instead want only a puritanical form of progress that their respective extremist wings approve of. That's the tribal/clan mentality I referenced yesterday, which is being driven by compartmentalized groupthink on social media. "You either support 100% of our agenda, or we are going to primary you". That's a big problem on both sides. Back to the original point - politicians aren't sent to Washington to incubate an egg for 2 or 6 years, they are sent their to affect meaningful change on behalf of their constituents. If they don't do that then they are failing themselves, their constituents, and the process at large.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
I don't think the Dems are any more interested in reaching "across the aisle" than the Rs are. There are moderates on both sides who are willing to work together on polices where there is overlap. We just saw it as recently as yesterday on the protect Mueller bill that cleared committee. The problem is both sides are being controlled by extremists who don't want their moderate factions to work together and instead want only a puritanical form of progress that their respective extremist wings approve of. That's the tribal/clan mentality I referenced yesterday, which is being driven by compartmentalized groupthink on social media. "You either support 100% of our agenda, or we are going to primary you". That's a big problem on both sides. Back to the original point - politicians aren't sent to Washington to incubate an egg for 2 or 6 years, they are sent their to affect meaningful change on behalf of their constituents. If they don't do that then they are failing themselves, their constituents, and the process at large.
Click to expand...

Left-wingers actually wanting politicians to advocate left-wing policy isn't extreme. Most Republicans ultimately tend to fall in line with Trump most of the time, and a lot of left-wingers feel the politicians they sent to Washington aren't doing enough to affect meaningful change. As citizens they're well within their rights to argue not enough is being done and to try and push their party more to the left. Nothing extreme about that.
 
Cheesy said:
Left-wingers actually wanting politicians to advocate left-wing policy isn't extreme. Most Republicans ultimately tend to fall in line with Trump most of the time, and a lot of left-wingers feel the politicians they sent to Washington aren't doing enough to affect meaningful change. As citizens they're well within their rights to argue not enough is being done and to try and push their party more to the left. Nothing extreme about that.
Click to expand...

Nothing extreme about that other than continued guaranteed gridlock. If you take off the left wing goggles you can clearly see that this is not an effective plan to govern for either party.
 
Raoul said:
Nothing extreme about that other than continued guaranteed gridlock. If you take off the left wing goggles you can clearly see that this is not an effective plan to govern for either party.
Click to expand...

So the Democrats should continually secede to a Republican agenda, while acknowledging the Republicans won't do the same for them? Even though the latter strategy has given the Republicans the Presidency, Senate, Congress, and a whole host of state positions?
 
shabadu84 said:
I worry he's at his most dangerous when he's out of the limelight
Click to expand...

He's trying to worm his way back into Trump's good graces by promoting a plan to get rid of Mueller. Fortunately, Trump didn't bite. Its generally too late for Bannon anyway since his political goose is already cooked.
 
shabadu84 said:
I worry he's at his most dangerous when he's out of the limelight
Click to expand...

Nah I suspect he's largely fecked it now. His only real influence was with Trump and he's gotten too much exposure to operate as a behind-the-scenes type figure.
 
Cheesy said:
So the Democrats should continually secede to a Republican agenda, while acknowledging the Republicans won't do the same for them? Even though the latter strategy has given the Republicans the Presidency, Senate, Congress, and a whole host of state positions?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I've said from the beginning that they should work with moderate factions of the GOP where there is policy overlap. The Dems are obviously not going to get most of their platform positions through since they lost the Presidential election on top of not having control of Congress. They can however get various things done - infrastructure, trade, foreign policy etc.
 
Raoul said:
Not at all. I've said from the beginning that they should work with moderate factions of the GOP where there is policy overlap. The Dems are obviously not going to get most of their platform positions through since they lost the Presidential election on top of not having control of Congress. They can however get various things done - infrastructure, trade, foreign policy etc.
Click to expand...

But the problem is that the 'moderate' factions of the GOP are still mostly quite extreme for the most part and agree with Trump on the vast majority of issues. McCain, Flake, Graham, Paul etc may diverge sometimes but most of the time they'll still happy to forward his agenda despite stated reservations, and they aren't fundamentally going to go against their party.

For left-wing Dems, there's very little to be agreed upon with the GOP right now. Their economic goals generally involve severe cuts/a reduction of the state (except when it suits them to do otherwise) and for the Dems, that's got to be something they oppose if they hope to regain power again. The approach you're advocating is one I'd argue they've largely tried until now, and for the most part it's only gotten them a whole host of defeats. There will be rare cases when they can agree with - and work with - the GOP, but on the vast majority of issues they should be staunchly opposing them. Otherwise they aren't going to win over voters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.