Democratic Primary Thread: The Deuce

[HarthorneWingo]

We can end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by bringing all the parties together and start negotiations for a withdrawal. It’s not that difficult. They want us out and we don’t want to be there. It’s too late to put Iraq back together. That was the big risk going in and it came to fruition. There’s nothing to be accomplished by remaining in their countries.

This is not to say that we do this irresponsibly. We do this diplomatically and through the United Nations and Netanyahu can suck rocks.

The rest of the world is waiting for us to, in RealGM/Knicks parlance to GTFO and STFU.

[robillionaire]

We’ve been in these wars for 20 years. We aren’t accomplishing anything there. Breaking News: Bin Ladin is dead. What am I missing?

Trump never wanted to end the wars. Please.

my thoughts on the "it takes time" vs. "demand better now" conversation

For one, it can't be denied that the current status quo is extreme. The things we are experiencing (do I need to list them all?) are not normal. To change things in this system it can take time. but we can't ignore in that time there will be a lot of preventable deaths. easy to say these things take time but harder to tell that to someone who lost a family member to a preventable illness or someone who had their village bombed. in addition to that, any reforms made in this time can be immediately rolled back or removed by the gop, starting us back at square one. We saw this over the past 4 years. So the question people may begin to ask themselves is "how much time do we have left before it's too late?" and alternatively "how many more?"

the incremental progress I have witnessed over the past couple decades is the incremental erosion of privacy and rights and the incremental rise of a fascist regime and police state and the incremental expansion of income inequality and funneling of wealth to the top 1%. I am not seeing the incremental progress or reasons to be hopeful about the future with the continuation of business as usual; the benefits of doing things the way we have been doing them are not readily apparent. Things are not better or even trending in that direction. They weren't for most people before Trump either. That's why he's in power. The system created the conditions and environment that could allow such a corrupt demagogue to preside over us and I have little doubt that someone much worse than him is coming down the pipeline if we stay the course. Any sigh of relief you have in November should be quickly replaced with concern about what comes next. No going back to brunch this time. The people who put Trump there aren't going to disappear.

For those who are not content with kicking the can down the road for an indeterminate amount of time, who are thoroughly disgusted to their core with this reality we are experiencing and can't live with it another day, we are staring down a contradiction. We can also take the "time" route and wait another 10-15 years for the demographics to change enough to where we MAYBE have the numbers to topple the status quo via electoral means(if the elections aren't obviously rigged with more voter suppression than ever thought possible). by then climate change may already be irreversible and we will be in a complete hellscape somehow even worse than we are experiencing today

The only other option we will have is to stay in the streets day in and day out in protest and to grind the entire system to a halt. no matter who wins this election I anticipate the entire decade of the 2020s to be one of mass sustained protest movements and uprisings as people's lives depend on it. Which is why the oligarchy is already having to ramp up the authority of militarized secret police in response. Good timing for them, because we now see that millions are about to be evicted and foreclosed starting next month, combined with record unemployment and loss of health care tied to that employment which will certainly result in massive medical bankruptcies(an abhorrent concept that should not exist). If we're being honest with ourselves I don't expect this type of militarized police suppression to be much different under Biden either, after seeing how occupy wall street, standing rock, ferguson and baltimore protests were handled under obama. Maybe slightly toned down rhetoric by Biden (obama did call the protesters thugs) but ultimately still pretty brutal. My big question is that under a dem president, will dems still side with protesters and acknowledge these types of federal crackdowns on peaceful protesters are tactics akin to fascism? Or are most just appalled now because it's Trump behind the wheel and not their guy? I hope it's the former, because I'm worried about how bad it will get if there is mostly bipartisan support for the roundups.

so let us vote and plan for the long game, but it's becoming apparent it may also take a bit more persuading than that if we want to secure a habitable planet and a future for humanity that isn't a nightmare. If we can't rely on our politicians to take principled stands on anything clearly it's going to be up to us. To replace them with those who will or take matters into our own hands

I estimate that it will take two decades of Democrats controlling all three branches of Congress if you want to the progressive dream to become reality. The US government is a slow ocean liner not a speed boat. There’s a set of checks and balances for good reason. If you have the President unitary power you’d quickly slip into authoritarianism. Trump has obliterated the guard rails of Democracy and they’re barely holding on because the Senate is so craven and immoral. Even in the best situation for him Republican are so dysfunctional that they weren’t able to get really anything passed.

It will probably take more than 3 decades to repair the damage Trump has done and that’s just the reality unless Democrats just continue to turn out and dominate elections. That’s been the biggest their biggest problem even before the voting rights act was gutted. But if people had shown up for Hillary the way they showed up for Obama the country would be 2 years at least two years ahead of where you are now. You can’t scream at Democrats for not doing anything if they don’t have power

It’s a long process and there are setbacks and disappointments along the way but take Black Lives Matter for example. Ferguson was 6 years ago, Trayvon Martin was 7. They could have remained a protest/activist organization, but what did they do instead? They worked through the system, they joined Obama’s task force on policing, they pressured politicians to the point where 70% of the country supports them. I never would have imagined that even 3 years ago. And I know that what the Democrats passed is not everything they want but they understand perfect can’t be the enemy of good and they need to keep the pressure on at all levels to move the ball down the field.

Martin Luther King, Jr., reminded us that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

good points. I like that MLK quote and frequently use it myself because it's an optimistic way to look at things and can inspire hope in dark times. But I think it can potentially be harmful as well, if people take it to mean that it's some sort of foregone inevitable conclusion that the arc will eventually bend in our favor, so we get comfortable and complacent. we still have to put forth the effort to bend it

[HarthorneWingo]

my thoughts on the "it takes time" vs. "demand better now" conversation

For one, it can't be denied that the current status quo is extreme. The things we are experiencing (do I need to list them all?) are not normal. To change things in this system it can take time. but we can't ignore in that time there will be a lot of preventable deaths. easy to say these things take time but harder to tell that to someone who lost a family member to a preventable illness or someone who had their village bombed. in addition to that, any reforms made in this time can be immediately rolled back or removed by the gop, starting us back at square one. We saw this over the past 4 years. So the question people may begin to ask themselves is "how much time do we have left before it's too late?" and alternatively "how many more?"

the incremental progress I have witnessed over the past couple decades is the incremental erosion of privacy and rights and the incremental rise of a fascist regime and police state and the incremental expansion of income inequality and funneling of wealth to the top 1%. I am not seeing the incremental progress or reasons to be hopeful about the future with the continuation of business as usual; the benefits of doing things the way we have been doing them are not readily apparent. Things are not better or even trending in that direction. They weren't for most people before Trump either. That's why he's in power. The system created the conditions and environment that could allow such a corrupt demagogue to preside over us and I have little doubt that someone much worse than him is coming down the pipeline if we stay the course. Any sigh of relief you have in November should be quickly replaced with concern about what comes next. No going back to brunch this time. The people who put Trump there aren't going to disappear.

For those who are not content with kicking the can down the road for an indeterminate amount of time, who are thoroughly disgusted to their core with this reality we are experiencing and can't live with it another day, we are staring down a contradiction. We can also take the "time" route and wait another 10-15 years for the demographics to change enough to where we MAYBE have the numbers to topple the status quo via electoral means(if the elections aren't obviously rigged with more voter suppression than ever thought possible). by then climate change may already be irreversible and we will be in a complete hellscape somehow even worse than we are experiencing today

The only other option we will have is to stay in the streets day in and day out in protest and to grind the entire system to a halt. no matter who wins this election I anticipate the entire decade of the 2020s to be one of mass sustained protest movements and uprisings as people's lives depend on it. Which is why the oligarchy is already having to ramp up the authority of militarized secret police in response. Good timing for them, because we now see that millions are about to be evicted and foreclosed starting next month, combined with record unemployment and loss of health care tied to that employment which will certainly result in massive medical bankruptcies(an abhorrent concept that should not exist). If we're being honest with ourselves I don't expect this type of militarized police suppression to be much different under Biden either, after seeing how occupy wall street, standing rock, ferguson and baltimore protests were handled under obama. Maybe slightly toned down rhetoric by Biden (obama did call the protesters thugs) but ultimately still pretty brutal. My big question is that under a dem president, will dems still side with protesters and acknowledge these types of federal crackdowns on peaceful protesters are tactics akin to fascism? Or are most just appalled now because it's Trump behind the wheel and not their guy? I hope it's the former, because I'm worried about how bad it will get if there is mostly bipartisan support for the roundups.

so let us vote and plan for the long game, but it's becoming apparent it may also take a bit more persuading than that if we want to secure a habitable planet and a future for humanity that isn't a nightmare. If we can't rely on our politicians to take principled stands on anything clearly it's going to be up to us. To replace them with those who will or take matters into our own hands

I estimate that it will take two decades of Democrats controlling all three branches of Congress if you want to the progressive dream to become reality. The US government is a slow ocean liner not a speed boat. There’s a set of checks and balances for good reason. If you have the President unitary power you’d quickly slip into authoritarianism. Trump has obliterated the guard rails of Democracy and they’re barely holding on because the Senate is so craven and immoral. Even in the best situation for him Republican are so dysfunctional that they weren’t able to get really anything passed.

It will probably take more than 3 decades to repair the damage Trump has done and that’s just the reality unless Democrats just continue to turn out and dominate elections. That’s been the biggest their biggest problem even before the voting rights act was gutted. But if people had shown up for Hillary the way they showed up for Obama the country would be 2 years at least two years ahead of where you are now. You can’t scream at Democrats for not doing anything if they don’t have power

It’s a long process and there are setbacks and disappointments along the way but take Black Lives Matter for example. Ferguson was 6 years ago, Trayvon Martin was 7. They could have remained a protest/activist organization, but what did they do instead? They worked through the system, they joined Obama’s task force on policing, they pressured politicians to the point where 70% of the country supports them. I never would have imagined that even 3 years ago. And I know that what the Democrats passed is not everything they want but they understand perfect can’t be the enemy of good and they need to keep the pressure on at all levels to move the ball down the field.

Martin Luther King, Jr., reminded us that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

good points. I like that MLK quote and frequently use it myself because it's an optimistic way to look at things and can inspire hope in dark times. But I think it can potentially be harmful as well, if people take it to mean that it's some sort of foregone inevitable conclusion that the arc will eventually bend in our favor, so we get comfortable and complacent. we still have to put forth the effort to bend it

Re MLK’s quote, let’s not take that out of context or use that as an excuse for not taking the urgent action that these times require. MLK wasn’t just preaching about equality in his church. He understood the urgency of the times and took to the streets. There were riots and clashes with police. John Lewis got his skull smashed by police. Bernie Sanders scuffled with police and got arrested over unfair housing discrimination. And Joe Biden got the hairs on his legs massaged.

[duetta]

I estimate that it will take two decades of Democrats controlling all three branches of Congress if you want to the progressive dream to become reality. The US government is a slow ocean liner not a speed boat. There’s a set of checks and balances for good reason. If you have the President unitary power you’d quickly slip into authoritarianism. Trump has obliterated the guard rails of Democracy and they’re barely holding on because the Senate is so craven and immoral. Even in the best situation for him Republican are so dysfunctional that they weren’t able to get really anything passed.

It will probably take more than 3 decades to repair the damage Trump has done and that’s just the reality unless Democrats just continue to turn out and dominate elections. That’s been the biggest their biggest problem even before the voting rights act was gutted. But if people had shown up for Hillary the way they showed up for Obama the country would be 2 years at least two years ahead of where you are now. You can’t scream at Democrats for not doing anything if they don’t have power

It’s a long process and there are setbacks and disappointments along the way but take Black Lives Matter for example. Ferguson was 6 years ago, Trayvon Martin was 7. They could have remained a protest/activist organization, but what did they do instead? They worked through the system, they joined Obama’s task force on policing, they pressured politicians to the point where 70% of the country supports them. I never would have imagined that even 3 years ago. And I know that what the Democrats passed is not everything they want but they understand perfect can’t be the enemy of good and they need to keep the pressure on at all levels to move the ball down the field.

Martin Luther King, Jr., reminded us that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

It will take us two decades of Democratic control to have a prayer of saving as much of humanity as possible from climate change - inasmuch as the GOP apparently harbors a death wish for our species.

If we experience another two years and a cloud of dust Presidency, tens of millions more will die in the decades to come than had to die in the alternate scenario.

To dominate the Congress and Presidency the way that we need to dominate it, you need a very big tent party.

[j4remi]

Very good post. I agree with you.

That's why I think the real question, when we're looking at politicians, should be "how do we yank this person's leash" right? I think that's more useful than just thinking of the person as the enemy, without nuance.

Going back to your example above Corey Booker has a corporatist bent to him. Yes, you can primary him, but that takes a lot of resources, and that's to remove someone who agrees with you 40% of the time and is pretty well established in some useful areas.

It takes less to apply pressure to him, and make recalculate his political math. But he was never an enemy in the truest sense of the word, if that makes sense.

More like Corey Booker is still someone that will agree with Progressives 95% of the time.

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?house=senate

He’s a good example of how the term Progressive has been coopted to just mean if you agree with Bernie or not. I dare someone to listen to him talk about criminal justice reform, corporate regulations and baby bonds and not come away thinking he’s not Progressive. He represents a state where a ton of Pharmaceutical companies have their head quarters and are pretty large employers. As long as he’s not the deciding vote, he shouldn’t be villainized for playing the long game (sure criticized) because as his voting record indicates his lifetime in the Senate shows he’s still very Progressive.

the term progressive doesn't really seem to mean much to me other than to suggest that this individual would like to see some sort of vague ill-defined progress to some non-specific objective. I don't really like to use the label at all because I don't think it really tells you anything tangible about what someone really stands for in their political views other than that they would like to improve society somewhat. Most people do. So it's not my concern about what labels people slap on Booker. Has he supported a lot of good measures? Yes. Was he rightfully criticized for taking money from big pharma and then voting in their favor siding with the GOP to prevent us from being able to get cheaper medicine? Sure. It's not really villainizing it's just accountability and holding feet to the fire when it needs to be done.

Ironically, I've lived in North Jersey throughout Booker's rise to fame right around the places he used to gain clout (like Newark). A LOT of locals thought he was a phony well before Bernie ever popped off. Booker is an opportunist, same as Gillebrand.

It's also completely off base for Pointgod to claim Booker was thinking about NJ employment when he killed that bill. He expressed support for importing drugs even as that whole mess unfolded. He killed the bill citing safety provisions (because apparently you can't trust Canadian imports ). Anyway, it was pretty rapid that they rewrote the bill with new provisions and attached his name to it (turned a small bill into almost a novella). The pharma bill was pretty blatant.

[GONYK]

I estimate that it will take two decades of Democrats controlling all three branches of Congress if you want to the progressive dream to become reality. The US government is a slow ocean liner not a speed boat. There’s a set of checks and balances for good reason. If you have the President unitary power you’d quickly slip into authoritarianism. Trump has obliterated the guard rails of Democracy and they’re barely holding on because the Senate is so craven and immoral. Even in the best situation for him Republican are so dysfunctional that they weren’t able to get really anything passed.

It will probably take more than 3 decades to repair the damage Trump has done and that’s just the reality unless Democrats just continue to turn out and dominate elections. That’s been the biggest their biggest problem even before the voting rights act was gutted. But if people had shown up for Hillary the way they showed up for Obama the country would be 2 years at least two years ahead of where you are now. You can’t scream at Democrats for not doing anything if they don’t have power

It’s a long process and there are setbacks and disappointments along the way but take Black Lives Matter for example. Ferguson was 6 years ago, Trayvon Martin was 7. They could have remained a protest/activist organization, but what did they do instead? They worked through the system, they joined Obama’s task force on policing, they pressured politicians to the point where 70% of the country supports them. I never would have imagined that even 3 years ago. And I know that what the Democrats passed is not everything they want but they understand perfect can’t be the enemy of good and they need to keep the pressure on at all levels to move the ball down the field.

Martin Luther King, Jr., reminded us that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

It will take us two decades of Democratic control to have a prayer of saving as much of humanity as possible from climate change - inasmuch as the GOP apparently harbors a death wish for our species.

If we experience another two years and a cloud of dust Presidency, tens of millions more will die in the decades to come than had to die in the alternate scenario.

To dominate the Congress and Presidency the way that we need to dominate it, you need a very big tent party.

Bingo. If you get a filibuster proof majority, you're not going to like or be able to rely on all those people on every issue. The country is too diverse. But you need that kind of majority to make huge changes quickly.

[j4remi]

It will take us two decades of Democratic control to have a prayer of saving as much of humanity as possible from climate change - inasmuch as the GOP apparently harbors a death wish for our species.

If we experience another two years and a cloud of dust Presidency, tens of millions more will die in the decades to come than had to die in the alternate scenario.

To dominate the Congress and Presidency the way that we need to dominate it, you need a very big tent party.

Bingo. If you get a filibuster proof majority, you're not going to like or be able to rely on all those people on every issue. The country is too diverse. But you need that kind of majority to make huge changes quickly.

Two thoughts to go deeper on this.
1. While I agree that you need a big tent to undo the damage, you also don't want the tent to be so big that you can't WHIP the votes in crucial moments. The Kavanaugh vote is one where I think there's a lot of room for debate about whether or not it could have gone differently. There's the "Republicans were never going to break" belief which is fair.

But there was also a handful of Republicans who seemed susceptible to pressure as their seats were going up for a vote and they'd positioned themselves as moderate. What relieved some of the pressure on them was that a handful of Dems also had seats up for grabs and decided the safest strategy to survive was to distance from Schumer. Manchin took it a step further and said Schumer could kiss his ass. Now I'm not about to say Susan Collins would have definitely flipped if the Dems actually united like Republicans are so comfortable doing; but I do feel extremely confident that Manchin's comments made it nearly impossible to get any Republican to flip on that issue.

Another example would be the group of Dems that tried to work out a deal with Republicans during impeachment where each party would pick a person that HAD to testify in the hearings. Republicans wanted Joe Biden or his son. They wanted to puff up their case against Biden. This was done without leadership and got shot down; but it was a powerplay from Dems who I think we should be keeping an eye on. The ones that will try to make power plays against legislation by siding with Republicans. Obviously we can't just dump those guys; but I do think that's where the big tent strategy gets hazy.

2. I don't think a filibuster proof majority should even be necessary after what Mitch Mcconnell has done. He's rendered the filibuster worthless and I don't get why Dems should jump back on board with respecting the filibuster when it was used to hamper them while in power but has been ignored by the Republicans once they got power back (same with the Supreme Court BS they pulled for Garland's seat). This is one spot I differ from Bernie and side with Elizabeth Warren...just to throw it in; just as I think we should respond to the Republicans' abuse of the filibuster by doing away with it, I think our response to the Supreme Court abuse should be to court stack first and THEN make some changes to the rules (I remember Vanderbilt Law had some cool proposals for SC reform that I could try and find if anyone was interested).

None of this is to reject what yall are saying; it's just to say, as with everything else we need to strike a balance and practice moderation with that approach.

[HarthorneWingo]

I estimate that it will take two decades of Democrats controlling all three branches of Congress if you want to the progressive dream to become reality. The US government is a slow ocean liner not a speed boat. There’s a set of checks and balances for good reason. If you have the President unitary power you’d quickly slip into authoritarianism. Trump has obliterated the guard rails of Democracy and they’re barely holding on because the Senate is so craven and immoral. Even in the best situation for him Republican are so dysfunctional that they weren’t able to get really anything passed.

It will probably take more than 3 decades to repair the damage Trump has done and that’s just the reality unless Democrats just continue to turn out and dominate elections. That’s been the biggest their biggest problem even before the voting rights act was gutted. But if people had shown up for Hillary the way they showed up for Obama the country would be 2 years at least two years ahead of where you are now. You can’t scream at Democrats for not doing anything if they don’t have power

It’s a long process and there are setbacks and disappointments along the way but take Black Lives Matter for example. Ferguson was 6 years ago, Trayvon Martin was 7. They could have remained a protest/activist organization, but what did they do instead? They worked through the system, they joined Obama’s task force on policing, they pressured politicians to the point where 70% of the country supports them. I never would have imagined that even 3 years ago. And I know that what the Democrats passed is not everything they want but they understand perfect can’t be the enemy of good and they need to keep the pressure on at all levels to move the ball down the field.

Martin Luther King, Jr., reminded us that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

It will take us two decades of Democratic control to have a prayer of saving as much of humanity as possible from climate change - inasmuch as the GOP apparently harbors a death wish for our species.

If we experience another two years and a cloud of dust Presidency, tens of millions more will die in the decades to come than had to die in the alternate scenario.

To dominate the Congress and Presidency the way that we need to dominate it, you need a very big tent party.

Bingo. If you get a filibuster proof majority, you're not going to like or be able to rely on all those people on every issue. The country is too diverse. But you need that kind of majority to make huge changes quickly.

Can you specifically define what you mean by "a big tent" in practical terms?

We need to get rid of the filibuster. We'll never get 60 votes on important legislation. It’s our turn to play “dirty” and steamroll these mofos.

[HarthorneWingo]

Bernie brought a bill to the Senate floor to cut the Pentagon's budget by 10% and it got voted down. Kampala Harris and a number of other "Democrats" voted with the Republicans. The vote went 23-77.

Read on Twitter

[HarthorneWingo]

Allow me to introduce to Trump-hating Republican Governor of Maryland Larry Hogan. Larry's been bashing Trump at every opportunity lately, probably just like John Kasich, if not more (since I really haven't seen Kasich out there on TV much). Do you think that he would be a good invite to the DNC Convention?

Watch on YouTube

[Clyde_Style]

Judge just sprung Cohen from jail saying it was an act of retaliation by Barr. That's a serious rebuke of the AG by the judicial system and pretty much enables Cohen to sue to crap out of Barr now.

Anyway, Cohen's book is going to be most damaging one probably and it is coming out in September.

[HarthorneWingo]

While Joe Biden has invited his good buddy John Kasich to speak on his behalf at the DNC Convention, he has not even spoke to AOC like at all. Right.

[Phish Tank]

While Joe Biden has invited his good buddy John Kasich to speak on his behalf at the DNC Convention, he has not even spoke to AOC like at all. Right.

wrong.

She's shaping Biden's climate policy.

[HarthorneWingo]

Joe Biden said yesterday that Donald Trump is the country’s first racist president. He must be either senile, stupid, or a liar. I wonder what James Clyburn thought when he heard this? Joe needs to go back in the closet.

Watch on YouTube

[duetta]

Can you specifically define what you mean by "a big tent" in practical terms?

We need to get rid of the filibuster. We'll never get 60 votes on important legislation. It’s our turn to play “dirty” and steamroll these mofos.

In practical terms, you need a big enough base that you don't get wiped out in low-turnout midterm elections (like we did in 2010). We have to be able to persevere in the mid-terms when there is no national superstar (like Obama) on the ballot (and yet our party is still in power). And we have to be able to control state legislatures (so that they cannot gerrymander House districts against us)>

I agree that the filibuster needs to go - and that we will be better off as a democracy when simply majorities can pass (and later reverse) legislation. Right now, the GOP operates on the principle that Democrats do not get to govern. We can't allow that happen going forward.

I'm willing to live in a country where a simple majority can make change happen. Remember, the GOP couldn't even get 50 votes to repeal the ACA. So the filibuster had little impact on preserving it. On the other hand, Moscow Mitch used the filibuster to destroy all momentum in the Obama presidency. He left us at the mercy of the Joe Liebermans and Blanche Lincolns of the party, both of whom were more interested in representing the health insurance industry than ordinary Americans in their states.

[HarthorneWingo]

Can you specifically define what you mean by "a big tent" in practical terms?

We need to get rid of the filibuster. We'll never get 60 votes on important legislation. It’s our turn to play “dirty” and steamroll these mofos.

In practical terms, you need a big enough base that you don't get wiped out in low-turnout midterm elections (like we did in 2010). We have to be able to persevere in the mid-terms when there is no national superstar (like Obama) on the ballot (and yet our party is still in power). And we have to be able to control state legislatures (so that they cannot gerrymander House districts against us)>

I agree that the filibuster needs to go - and that we will be better off as a democracy when simply majorities can pass (and later reverse) legislation. Right now, the GOP operates on the principle that Democrats do not get to govern. We can't allow that happen going forward.

I'm willing to live in a country where a simple majority can make change happen. Remember, the GOP couldn't even get 50 votes to repeal the ACA. So the filibuster had little impact on preserving it. On the other hand, Moscow Mitch used the filibuster to destroy all momentum in the Obama presidency. He left us at the mercy of the Joe Liebermans and Blanche Lincolns of the party, both of whom were more interested in representing the health insurance industry than ordinary Americans in their states.

Right. McConnell used the filibuster both as a sword and shield. But we can’t worry about what Republicans will do 10-20 years down the road.

The important thing is to makes people’s lives better through economic and social policies. If we get all three branches, then we just have to steamroll them and push our legislation through. There’s no denying that, is there? Because I’m not sure quite what you’re getting at.

As for the nature of this big tent, I get the feeling that you and the other neoliberals on the board want to reach out to the right rather than our own base of voters 45 years old and younger. So if Biden loses bc we didn’t get enough of that demographic, are you all then going to blame the “Bernie Bros”?

Also, two of Biden’ VP candidates - Harris and Duckworth - just voted against a mere 10% budget cut to the Pentagon. Is that what we can expect from a Biden Administration?

[GONYK]

Interesting campaign video. Biden expands on a lot of his views through a conversation with Obama.

Watch on YouTube

[Clyde_Style]

Can you specifically define what you mean by "a big tent" in practical terms?

We need to get rid of the filibuster. We'll never get 60 votes on important legislation. It’s our turn to play “dirty” and steamroll these mofos.

In practical terms, you need a big enough base that you don't get wiped out in low-turnout midterm elections (like we did in 2010). We have to be able to persevere in the mid-terms when there is no national superstar (like Obama) on the ballot (and yet our party is still in power). And we have to be able to control state legislatures (so that they cannot gerrymander House districts against us)>

I agree that the filibuster needs to go - and that we will be better off as a democracy when simply majorities can pass (and later reverse) legislation. Right now, the GOP operates on the principle that Democrats do not get to govern. We can't allow that happen going forward.

I'm willing to live in a country where a simple majority can make change happen. Remember, the GOP couldn't even get 50 votes to repeal the ACA. So the filibuster had little impact on preserving it. On the other hand, Moscow Mitch used the filibuster to destroy all momentum in the Obama presidency. He left us at the mercy of the Joe Liebermans and Blanche Lincolns of the party, both of whom were more interested in representing the health insurance industry than ordinary Americans in their states.

It will be necessary to hold power long enough to abolish the easily abused electoral college system and to amend the constitution to create actual defensible and actionable procedures for the transition of power after a presidential election. The constitution basically asserts the faith that a fair transition will occur, but provides no mechanism for it to be transacted.

Essentially, democratic processes needs to be reconfigured in multiple ways and that can only happen with a fairly broad and unbeatable coalition. These changes will require cooperation from moderate factions, because the left by itself is not big enough to pull it off. IOW, these kinds of changes are not inherently radical, but they will be portrayed as such. As it is now, there is a lot of heavy lifting to be done to fix this mess and that requires broad levels of cooperation, not radical posturing and gripes about half measures. These are full measures that can only happen without that kind of undermining drama.

[GONYK]

While Joe Biden has invited his good buddy John Kasich to speak on his behalf at the DNC Convention, he has not even spoke to AOC like at all. Right.

wrong.

She's shaping Biden's climate policy.

Bernie seems very pleased with the conversations that he, Biden, and AOC have been having

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[Clyde_Style]

While Joe Biden has invited his good buddy John Kasich to speak on his behalf at the DNC Convention, he has not even spoke to AOC like at all. Right.

wrong.

She's shaping Biden's climate policy.

Bernie seems very pleased with the conversations that he, Biden, and AOC have been having

Read on Twitter

?s=20