Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Themius]

So is Jacobin going to just be four years of, "Yeah, well this moderate liberal democrat who has the most progressive policy positions of any US president to-date, yet has remained steadfast as a moderate liberal and not a progressive, JUST ISN'T BEING AS PROGRESSIVE AS HE COULD BE AND GOSH DARNIT WE COULD HAVE NEVER PREDICTED THIS!

I mean, critique is welcome, and we can spend all week throwing shade on Biden and Democrats for the $1,400 check nonsense. But the faux-outrage of progressive media that the non-progressive president isn't governing has a hardcore progressive is exhausting. I don't know how their writers find the energy for that.

"Most progressive policy of any us president".... are you sure about that? I'm missing the "Most progressive ever" thing here... he's progressive relative to Trump and the policies are progressive relative to Obama. But remember that the reason he is backing these positions is because of pressure from the left and the public. Why discount that? Is now the time while the pressure is on to ease up the pressure with a midterm coming up that looks hella fucking sketchy for democrats?

We know that progressives managed to win or keep seats yet took the blame for the house losing seats... We know that their policies are popular among both sides (when you frame the question around an issue while leaving out whether it is backed by an R or D). There are genuine problems, and there are good "progressive" things but they do not happen just because....

They didn't happen because Biden is a progressive president.

[cubby]

Give me a reason to assume they won't immediately fall back into past patterns given all indications at present are that they have every intention of doing so. This is why I said stop acting like a battered wife, because you're making excuses for a history of bad behavior and excusing warning signs when they flare up again while admitting they have a history of spineless capitulation.

"It'll be different this time, and even if it isn't he didn't really mean it/he had no choice because of the circumstances."

Lol, ok - that analogy does make sense. Sorry I missed it that first time, it's apt.

The reason it will be different this time (I swear officer, he didn't mean it) is because of the past four years. This is the first time the Dems have controlled it all since 2010 - and we've seen what the GOP does regarding compromise. My hope is that Schumer and Pelosi have learned from the past 10 years, and especially the past four, and will act accordingly.

The problem with that is the razor thin margin of control in the Senate. We don't have two seats buffer at all. So that will be at least challenging, especially with McConnell on the other side.

- - - Updated - - -
@Elegiac you going to leave me hanging on your relocation plans? Have we already discussed this?

[Elegiac]

The reason it will be different this time (I swear officer, he didn't mean it) is because of the past four years. This is the first time the Dems have controlled it all since 2010 - and we've seen what the GOP does regarding compromise. My hope is that Schumer and Pelosi have learned from the past 10 years, and especially the past four, and will act accordingly.

And like I said: all indications thus far point to them not having learned a damn thing. So I'm still waiting for an actual reason beyond you promising it'll be different this time because the year isn't the same, rofl.

The problem with that is the razor thin margin of control in the Senate.

You have a very funny definition of "control" if the minority leader is still the one dictating how the body is run.

[Themius]

Particularly when you have to question what the alternative was.

Do you push for a hard progressive? Will that alienate voters, even a little, perhaps driving down voter turnout among your potential voters? Will that risk losing the election, to Trump?

Speaking as an actual goddamned progressive, incrementalism is the only way you achieve anything, short of armed revolution with at least the threat of widespread killing unless you get your way. Don't bitch that the steps taken aren't "far enough", not unless you've got some quantifiable, objective basis for that. .

I disagree with the bolded for America. An armed revolution isn't totally necessary.

Incrementalism does not work in this country and rarely has. Just about every major landmark decision has come down to huge mass involvement of the populace behind an issue. It hasn't come from "incrementally" getting there. Significant changes in our laws often happened quickly after years and years of back and forth and back and forth. Usually resulting in a near total stagnation of the issue until a critical moment is reached and then a major change is implemented. The issue here is that a small step forward can lead to a huge step back within just a few years...

Will pushing hard for progressives alienate voters? No. I do not think so... they tend to have popular policy ideas that are backed by the majority generally when polling happens. The idea though that people need to "ease up" just doesn't make sense to me. Why when things begin to move why not push harder for the outcomes you want? How does it benefit progressives to ease off and not be critical about policies that don't go far enough? It doesn't.

You argue and start from what you want, and when you get a little as a compromise. You argue and fight for what you want. The democrat party as a whole has utterly failed on their centrist right agenda mostly because they start from a compromise and whittle down to... a compromise of a compromise...

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, ok - that analogy does make sense. Sorry I missed it that first time, it's apt.

The reason it will be different this time (I swear officer, he didn't mean it) is because of the past four years. This is the first time the Dems have controlled it all since 2010 - and we've seen what the GOP does regarding compromise. My hope is that Schumer and Pelosi have learned from the past 10 years, and especially the past four, and will act accordingly.

The problem with that is the razor thin margin of control in the Senate. We don't have two seats buffer at all. So that will be at least challenging, especially with McConnell on the other side.

- - - Updated - - -
@Elegiac you going to leave me hanging on your relocation plans? Have we already discussed this?

The "moderate" senate democrats are currently talking with republicans about their "bernie sanders" issue....

[cubby]

And like I said: all indications thus far point to them not having learned a damn thing. So I'm still waiting for an actual reason beyond you promising it'll be different this time because the year isn't the same, rofl.

You have a very funny definition of "control" if the minority leader is still the one dictating how the body is run.

Because it's like Day 7 out of 700+ days. You're saying it's over when it hasn't even begun.

And in this one particular case, McConnell can still hold control. Schumer will control the agenda once this is resolved.

- - - Updated - - -

The "moderate" senate democrats are currently talking with republicans about their "bernie sanders" issue....

What do you mean? Can you elaborate?

[Themius]

The irony is that the two Senators most vehemently defending the filibuster are also the most likely to lose their seats if this Congress doesn't do anything, lol.

This is honestly why regardless of if things improve in the short run, me and the bae are looking at long term prospects outside the country. The US is fundamentally unfixable and it's just a matter of time until they run into a Trump who isn't incompetent.

Where are you running to?

[Elegiac]

Because it's like Day 7 out of 700+ days. You're saying it's over when it hasn't even begun.

Cool, when we get to day 700 and the sole legislative achievement is a half-assed stimulus passed under budget reconciliation are you going to be using this excuse too?

And in this one particular case, McConnell can still hold control. Schumer will control the agenda once this is resolved.

The agenda that will just get filibustered into oblivion. Riiiiiight.

- - - Updated - - -

Where are you running to?

Preferably somewhere that my "best" choice of political representative isn't the functional equivalent of these clowns:

[Themius]

Because it's like Day 7 out of 700+ days. You're saying it's over when it hasn't even begun.

And in this one particular case, McConnell can still hold control. Schumer will control the agenda once this is resolved.

- - - Updated - - -



What do you mean? Can you elaborate?

Around the filibuster issue. And reconciliation. Just moderates speaking with a few "moderate Rs" about how they'll not do either (also said publically) and how they really really need to come to something... something something..

[cubby]

Cool, when we get to day 700 and the sole legislative achievement is a half-assed stimulus passed under budget reconciliation are you going to be using this excuse too?

Exactly. You're literally condemning a process that hasn't even begun. Please - you know me better than that. In fact, if we're looking at legislative lock by the summer, I won't hesitate to step to your side of this position.

The agenda that will just get filibustered into oblivion. Riiiiiight.

Well, we'll need Manchin in on things - and I'm sure the GOP is pushing all the buttons in WV. Hopefully he's smart enough to see that achieving something will help his chance at reelection. My biggest fear is that he's considering switching parties.

[Endus]

I disagree with the bolded for America. An armed revolution isn't totally necessary.

Incrementalism does not work in this country and rarely has. Just about every major landmark decision has come down to huge mass involvement of the populace behind an issue. It hasn't come from "incrementally" getting there.

I think you're missing the point for the trees, here.

Most of those major landmark decisions were increments towards a goal. The Emancipation Proclamation was just a single first, important, step on the path towards racial justice. That's a path that's had to go through Jim Crow laws and segregation (technically a step forward from enslavement), through the Civil Rights movement, and onward into today, where it's still being trodden, with the BLM movement among others. It absolutely did not amount to one single, giant leap all of a sudden.

The same goes for pretty much any other example you can think of. Pick an issue, and I'll point out how there were a multitude of prior, earlier steps towards that goal, either legislative or cultural or both (as legislative attitudes reflect culture, largely, they can't be considered separately).

Some of those small steps can be so momentous in the moment that they'll trigger passions so hard they cause riots and even civil wars, but it doesn't make them something other than the incremental step that they were.

The entire point of incrementalism as a viewpoint is that you look for the long-term goals, and determine if you're moving closer or further away, and as long as the answer is "closer", you're okay with that, or even if you manage to hold steady against a strong regressive movement trying to set you back. The alternative, which is becoming far too common, is to pick some arbitrary short-term goalpost, ignore the long-term view, and then demand to achieve that short-term goalpost in full right now or shit's fucked RIOT. Take the push for M4A, if you want an example; they generally lose sight of the long-term goal (making sure everyone's health is protected) in favor of one specific step forward on that issue, rejecting any different steps because they're not this step. Even if they're steps on paths leading to that same long-term goal.

[cubby]

Around the filibuster issue. And reconciliation. Just moderates speaking with a few "moderate Rs" about how they'll not do either (also said publically) and how they really really need to come to something... something something..

Look, I'm sorry, but I'm literally not following your point here. Call it brain fart at the end of a long work day for me - but can you, like, spell it out for me like I was six years old. What does the Bernie issue have to do with the filibuster issue, specifically. How is that the "Bernie" problem?
(I swear I'm not being anything more than unintentionally dense here - it's just not clicking at all for me atm)

- - - Updated - - -

(I mean, for christ's sake, I'm not even using "literally" correct - help!)

[Elegiac]

Exactly. You're literally condemning a process that hasn't even begun

And you're not listening.

I'm asking for reasons why, given the current red flags, we should assume this time will be any different and the best answer you can come up with is "it's 2021, it'll be different this time, just trust me".

Well, we'll need Manchin in on things

Which is the hilarious part since Manchin would be able to get whatever he fucking wanted for WV in a filibuster-free Senate where he was the deciding vote. It's not even a position in favor of his self-interest, it's just plain stupid. And you're admitting the Democrats don't have control of the Senate anyway so what's it to you if Manchin switches parties.

[Themius]

And you're not listening.

I'm asking for reasons why, given the current red flags, we should assume this time will be any different and the best answer you can come up with is "it's 2021, it'll be different this time, just trust me".



Which is the hilarious part since Manchin would be able to get whatever he fucking wanted for WV in a filibuster-free Senate where he was the deciding vote for the Senate. It's not even a position in favor of his self-interest, it's just plain stupid.

But you'll keep making excuses I guess.

Well how do you know it isn't in his own self interest... R's are a little more friendly than D's for corporations. I would bet that a man with a daughter who ran up epipen prices which could have potentially killed people.. probably thinks keeping the filibuster in place is in his own self interest. I mean he can't be senator forever, can he? Maybe he's lining up a nice board seat?

[cubby]

And you're not listening.

I'm asking for reasons why, given the current red flags, we should assume this time will be any different and the best answer you can come up with is "it's 2021, it'll be different this time, just trust me".

I am listening. You're not hearing me. There are no red flags yet. We haven't even started yet. Again, you're assuming defeat before a new army can even get onto the field. And the reasons it will be different than 10 years ago are for those very same 10 years. Schumer and Pelosi have learned. That's my hope at least. And you have no "red flags" saying otherwise.

Which is the hilarious part since Manchin would be able to get whatever he fucking wanted for WV in a filibuster-free Senate where he was the deciding vote for the Senate. It's not even a position in favor of his self-interest, it's just plain stupid.

It is interesting that Manchin isn't seeing the forest for the trees right now.

And you're admitting the Democrats don't have control of the Senate anyway so what's it to you if Manchin switches parties.

Because the Democrats don't, not completely, not yet at least. The Operating Agreement has to go through first. And even then, the Committee rules are different than even during a 51-49 control. You're aware of how the Senate operates differently (at least historically) in a 50-50 split, right? It is literally different.

You keep making these "they need to do things differently" arguments, but you don't say what those should be. What would you suggest the Democrats do, exact. Specifically.

[Elegiac]

Well how do you know it isn't in his own self interest... R's are a little more friendly than D's for corporations. I would bet that a man with a daughter who ran up epipen prices which could have potentially killed people.. probably thinks keeping the filibuster in place is in his own self interest. I mean he can't be senator forever, can he? Maybe he's lining up a nice board seat?

What I'm hearing is promising his committee assignments and advertising money to Murkowski if she jumps ship and telling Manchin to eat shit, instead.

- - - Updated - - -

There are no red flags yet.

We're literally discussing the red flags.

[Shadowferal]

Manchin is being Manchin. *agrees with cubby* Schumer knows the game and Manchin is expected...and the line that Schumer will look at to see anything unexpected. Like say, if any of the "squad" agreeing with Manchin.

Other lines getting scrutiny; the fractures in the GOP. And Manchin knows if he's a single voice in the dems playing hardball over something they don't want to budge on, Schumer might find that one vote on the other side.

[cubby]

We're literally discussing the red flags.

You think you are, but we're not. There are no red flags yet. If you think the operating rules agreement is a red flag, it's not - it's still McConnell in control. Once the Senate is doing regular business, then we can talk red flags.

And I'm in agreement with you on one thing, there is a LOT to worry about this year. If the Dems don't get stuff passed, they are fucked.

[Elegiac]

Schumer and Pelosi have learned.

Fucking. Prove it. Show actionable evidence over the past ten years that they've learned from their mistakes. And if the response is "wait and see" you're going on ignore.

[Themius]

I think you're missing the point for the trees, here.

Most of those major landmark decisions were increments towards a goal. The Emancipation Proclamation was just a single first, important, step on the path towards racial justice. That's a path that's had to go through Jim Crow laws and segregation (technically a step forward from enslavement), through the Civil Rights movement, and onward into today, where it's still being trodden, with the BLM movement among others. It absolutely did not amount to one single, giant leap all of a sudden.

The same goes for pretty much any other example you can think of. Pick an issue, and I'll point out how there were a multitude of prior, earlier steps towards that goal, either legislative or cultural or both (as legislative attitudes reflect culture, largely, they can't be considered separately).

Some of those small steps can be so momentous in the moment that they'll trigger passions so hard they cause riots and even civil wars, but it doesn't make them something other than the incremental step that they were.

The entire point of incrementalism as a viewpoint is that you look for the long-term goals, and determine if you're moving closer or further away, and as long as the answer is "closer", you're okay with that, or even if you manage to hold steady against a strong regressive movement trying to set you back. The alternative, which is becoming far too common, is to pick some arbitrary short-term goalpost, ignore the long-term view, and then demand to achieve that short-term goalpost in full right now or shit's fucked RIOT. Take the push for M4A, if you want an example; they generally lose sight of the long-term goal (making sure everyone's health is protected) in favor of one specific step forward on that issue, rejecting any different steps because they're not this step. Even if they're steps on paths leading to that same long-term goal.

The emancipation was never set up for equality though. Lincoln didn't really think of black people as equal or deserving of being treated fairly... part of his plan included sending the new free to settle colonies in Latin America because there was just no way for blacks and whites to live together. So from the viewpoint of what the government was trying to accomplish they did it. Racial justice wasn't so much part of it. The jim crow laws, the segregations, the disaster that was reconstruction were all failures due to the government becoming tired with working on the issue.

The failures that happened after the civil war, letting states back in when we knew they weren't loyal (10% rule). The years following we had de jure slavery (and still do) and then de facto slavery. I never said there weren't a multitude of issues and small things prior... what I am arguing is that the fight is there... but it waxes and wanes... and finally it bubbles over.

Like say we have a progress bar that starts at 10 and needs to get to 100.. we will spend years, decades between 10-40 and ultimately end up at 100 within short time. The other issue I take with incrementalism is just that... it can be undone, and we just see it happening over and over and over and over.

We get a lot and then it gets whittled and whittled and whittled. and then we get a person who is pushed by progressives policies and we get a little back but not as much as what was whittled away and I am not certain anything good will come of this presidency in the long term.

There is a thin thin thin margin and it is very likely the democrats could lose their advantage, they won't lose their advantage because of progressives bitching... they'll likely lose it because of the same issues I had on election night. When Biden won out of the gate prominent democrats were literally attacking progressives (who won their elections or took moderate democrat seats) for the "tight" margins and saying the democrats need to focus on "kitchen table issues" the ones white "working class" people care about... never mind that that's the side more likely to make over 100k...

For a modern example of incrementalism in failure, look at the ACA something that the democrats passed specifically to appease Republicans when they could have done more. As they felt they would incrementally expand it. Instead...we just see attacks attacks and weakening. Even when their own constituents want it. are we close or further away from M4A? If we are closer is it thanks to incrementalism? Or because the public is more vested in this issue and due to pressure from the outside we are closer? If we take any larger steps forward (which is seems we may) what made that possible wasn't incrementalism. Looking at that example we have gone backwards from progressing towards M4A yet... it seems closer and more feasible now, not because we are incrementally moving towards it, but because it is on the forefront of many people's minds.

- - - Updated - - -

Fucking. Prove it. Show actionable evidence over the past ten years that they've learned from their mistakes. And if the response is "wait and see" you're going on ignore.

She'll prove it, after just one more term

[Poopymonster]

Our bored beltway pundits.

Glad to see that the official white house pet twitter is trolling them.
https://twitter.com/TheOvalPawffice

..not gonna lie, I just squeed over the idea of the Oval Pawffice. My SO came to check what the fuck that noise was, they haven't heard me squee. Then we squeed together over how fucking adorable the idea of. The Oval Pawffice.