I’ll keep this short.
Can we, as Democrats, resolve not to bash other Democrats?
I’m not talking about a Democratic version of the famous 11th Commandment Republicans adopted during the Reagan era. Of course we should criticize people when they’re wrong. But, for example, Joe Manchin. Manchin has been a source of frustration for left-leaning Democrats for years. He has defenders, though, including me, because he holds his seat in West Virginia. A couple of weeks ago, Manchin went out of his way to bash AOC.
I know AOC isn’t perfect. After a couple of weeks of gratuitous attacks on her, she over-retaliated against some people (I forget who). Generally she’s been judicious (and notably, really good) at responding. I can’t remember who she went after, but it was too much.
After the election, a puzzling debate ensued over, among other things, “Defund the Police.” Many people said that the slogan hurt Democrats in the election. There are about a million things wrong with this, but a) We don’t get to pick the slogans for protest movements, and b)
WE WON THE ELECTION!
I get it, it’s a weird year. Donald Trump’s votes went UP in every demographic EXCEPT white men. (No I don’t have a source on this; I heard it from a reliable friend who had a good source.)
But we won. Yes we lost seats in the House, but we gained at least one seat in the Senate, and took the presidency back. Cheer up!
The last straw, for me, was this tidbit from yesterday.
“The Lincoln Project raised $4.8 million between November 24th and December 16th hyping the Georgia Senate runoff elections. Since then, it has spent $1.1 million on independent expenditures in those races and paid Steve Schmidt $1.5 million.
I know we’re all supposed to be happy that Steve Schmidt (John McCain’s David Axelrod, more or less) is a Democrat now, and I am I guess, but there is NO evidence that the Lincoln Project changed a single vote. Yes, they made great ads, and I’m a firm believer in occasionally preaching to the converted (witness this post). But let’s not overrate their contribution, and if you’d rather work with Schmidt than AOC, please reconsider. Big tent and all that.
Happy new year everyone! Raise the glass of your choice and hug your friends (socially distantly). We’ve got a lot to do, let’s do it together.
Biden feels like the only bright spot and even he didn’t win by as much as I was hoping.
This is actually a great Rorschach test for confirmation bias.
Does the election “prove” that only Biden could beat Trump? Or does it prove another candidate could have met expectations in the presidential and downballot?
I’m not aware of any real evidence either way, not that that will stop anyone.
I don’t know if it proves either one. Biden was my choice in the primary and I do not regret that.
He was not my first choice in the 2020 primary, but after this election, he’s my first choice in the 2024 one.
I agree with JimC we should celebrate the win more than we are. Only the GOP could treat two popular vote losses as a mandate foe their radical right wing agenda. Only the Democrats can treat a narrow win like another unexpected loss.
I think we all can agree not to bash Democrats. Instead we can fight over what that means. Happy 2021!
I think at the end of the day, the AOC Democrat can and will continue to win primaries in safe blue districts. Like Markey did, incumbents in deeply blue seats need to adapt to that reality or die. I also think there is a ceiling to this confrontational brand of politics as soon as you leave the gentrified city centers.
The real blue collar cities like New Bedford and Fall River voted for Kennedy and Auchincloss in September. Some of them saw higher Trump totals in November than four years ago. Erie and Scranton barely voted for Biden, arguably a native son. I don’t see those places going for AOC or Bernie Sanders anytime soon. I worry Harris won’t be able to carry them.
So we need the AOCs to keep the majority honest, but we need the frontline Dems like Conor Lamb to keep it in power.
I guess this is the election where I realized that we need the Joe Manchin’s of the world to get anything done. Is he the best Democrat in the Senate? No, but he’s the best Democrat West Virginia would send to the Senate. The re-election of Collins, the incumbent retention locally, the failure of ranked choice voting, and the narrow Biden win losing TX and FL Latinos, have all convinced me that most voters will not be engaged by the high level calls to big structural change or socialism liberals and leftists want. They want their proverbial potholes filled and good jobs to flow. That’s about it.
Biden is in many ways the man for the moment. I know a lot of Republicans and independents for whom he is the first president they ever voted for. Maybe like a reverse Reagan Democrat, the Biden Republican will become a permanent part of a center-left coalition. It’ll require both wings to fly.
I think we see this in the DeLeo way of herding cats on Beacon Hill, keeping a lot of the radically progressive and radically conservative stuff away from the press and the floor. As progressives we must critique that practice, but it makes sense if your goal is to hold a fractured coalition together. Pelosi does this on the national level and so will Biden.
Biden shares many of those same attributes. Like Pelosi, DeLeo, Walsh, Menino, and the Chicago Daleys he’s a Catholic Democrat raised in the tradition of ward heeler politics. The strength in this is bringing all the factions together in a common cause. The weakness is that this common ground is often a much softer and less stable place to effect long term change. I am cautiously optimistic the center left can hold together, otherwise, it will hang separately.
I don’t even think there is that much daylight between what you describe, but more like two sides of the same coin. I think our friend johntmay is an example of someone who both wants jobs that pay well for everyone and some of the more “socialist” goals like public health care. Besides, at some level aren’t the big structural changes ultimately a means to the end of tangible improvements to one’s life anyway? Maybe this requires (as seems to be so often the case with Democrats) better messaging to show the connection between the two.
I don’t agree with this line —
And that’s not to pick on Manchin; I just don’t think that’s true anywhere (with the possible exception of Elizabeth Warren). Chuck Schumer and Kirstin Gillibrand, both of who I generally like, are certainly not the best Democrats New York could send. I know less about New Jersey, but Cory Booker isn’t entirely inspirational. Etc. Etc.
Wellstone — he overachieved for Minnesota. Hate to say but Mitch overachieves for Kentucky.
Oh I mean that from ideology not efficacy. Like, he’s probably the only Democrat getting elected from that state so we have to live with him. And he’s better than any Republican presently in the Senate.
I understood you, I just wonder about the premise. It seems like he’s the best we can do, but I think a more talented Democrat could win there. Kristen Sinema is to the right of me, but she seems just about perfect for Arizona.
Only six Senate Democrats voted against Mitch McConnell yesterday, effectively killing any chance for a desperately need $2000 stimulus check. Nice work, Democrats.
This happened literally at the same time that JimC was posting yesterday.
Also yesterday. A convicted spy, who spied on the U.S., was given a hero’s welcome in the foreign country which benefited by his spying. The welcome was largely paid for by Donald Trump’s largest contributor.
That country gets somewhere between $10 and $11 million a day from the U.S., which can’t afford to send checks to it’s own citizens.
Should they have voted yes on the election investigation and the social media regulation? Maybe. It’s unclear how they could move on the money without McConnell standing in the way. Something to pursue if they flip the GA Senate seats for sure.
Also is there any proof that the Israeli government contributed money to the Trump campaign? That would surely have been a more impeachable offense than what he did. I was against giving them a lot for nothing. Jerusalem, Pollard, annexation. On top of the Iron Dome Obama gave them in exchange for nothing. That said, I do not believe their government itself contributed to Trump’s campaign.
One more thing. In the long run they are pushing former liberal Zionists like me and Peter Beinart into the BDS camp. I don’t want to support BDS, but I suspect a Biden administration will put cold water on annexation of Area B or Area C and the Netenyahu government might finally be toppled by something different. It’ll still be center right on Palestine, but maybe a genuine partner with Abbas and the US for a negotiated settlement. The status quo is untenable.
They should have voted “no” on the election “investigation” because it is nothing but right-wing lies, with about as much substance as the Vince Foster allegations against Hillary Clinton. They should have voted “yes” on Section 230 because the Trumpists are actually correct about that (in my opinion). And of course they should have supported an immediate $2,000 benefit.
Social media platforms like Facebook have played in a crucial role in destroying the fabric of American society with their endless repetition of clearly demonstrated lies. If they had the same liability exposure as publications like the Washington Post and New York Times, they would miraculously and suddenly “discover” a myriad of ways to stop the dangerous rubbish that they drive into the national psyche.
I actually haven’t paid attention to who voted for what because the entire charade strikes me as empty posturing. One way or another, the ultra-wealthy have done fine in 2020, and will do fine in 2021, while the rest of us are being crushed by both economic suffering and by fear.
I don’t think Mr. Schumer shares very many of my values and priorities. Never has, never will. Do you think a wealth tax will get any traction at all in a Senate presided over by Mr. Schumer? How about wiping out the health insurance industry? Do you think that will happen on Mr. Schumer’s watch? I don’t.
I got a fund-raising letter from AOC, suggesting that her district will be gerrymandered away in response to the 2020 census. That will not surprise me one bit. I also don’t think any amount of grassroots fund-raising will change the outcome of that process. I don’t know if it will happen or not. What I am saying is that Chuck Schumer will not be an ally of AOC or any other progressives if such a bloodbath starts. I’m also saying that I’ve got better things to do with whatever I might contribute than to give to ANY politician today.
So far as I’m concerned, Israel continues to be Exhibit A in the case against allowing religion and government to mix.
I have one more brief comment that I may expand into a diary. I don’t buy the media stories that Mr. Trump is acting “erratic” or “unpredictable” or anything else in these final days before the Georgia election. I think he’s very consciously stabbing the GOP in the heart. I think that if he is not jailed — and perhaps even if he IS — he is setting up his own third-party for a run in 2024. I think his plan is to take out the GOP as a political force. He’ll run against the Democrats because they’re incumbents and he’ll run against the remnants of the GOP claiming that they “betrayed” him. I think the best way to understand and predict Donald Trump’s behavior today is to immerse yourself in old clips of the WWF.
I think the point was they did not have the opportunity to vote one way on the investigation and another on section 230, since they were combined into a single bill.
Understood. I’m just saying that two of the three provisions of the Mitch McConnell poison-pill weren’t that bad.
Perhaps the Democrats were calling Mitch McConnell’s bluff — I’m not sure that’s a bad thing.
My bottom line is that if Mr. McConnell stays Senate Majority Leader after Tuesday’s vote, then it doesn’t matter much anyway because the incoming administration will be hobbled by GOP thuggery the same way that Barack Obama was sabotaged.
If Democrats prevail in Georgia, then the absolutely vital aspects of the pandemic recovery can begin for real.
He may not have to. He is still the 2024 frontrunner and his choice for RNC chair got easily re-elected. The latest stabbed in the back narrative means he has a credibility with his base that actual popular vote winners Gore and Hillary Clinton lacked to make comebacks and that other incumbent losers like Ford, Carter, and Bush Sr. were unable to harness. It’s unfortunate since all of those names were worthier choices to “pull a Grover Cleveland” than Donald Trump. Hopefully the NY prosecutors take him down a peg and Twitter bans him when he’s finally a private citizen again. He could also get Covid again since he is reckless and not have access to experimental drugs this time around…
My money is heavily on him (or anyone named Trump) not running in 2024. Everyone will have moved on by then.
I tend to agree with you. I certainly hope his plan to dominate in 2024 fails.
The GOP was in serious trouble before Donald Trump and Trumpism. The Tea Party was a symptom of a fundamentally dysfunctional political organization. That clearly visible vulnerability is one reason I’m convinced that they’ve been compromised by Russian money. I think they’ve been kept alive by illegal Russian money, and I think the full extent of their dependence on the GOP will be exposed as a functional DoJ returns to life.That is one reason why the GOP will turn handsprings to stop the incoming Joe Biden administration from resuscitating the DoJ. The GOP will do all in their power to block every competent nomination for DoJ and every other position that might strengthen the ability of the administration to investigate and prosecute the full extent (and success) of the Russian attack on American democracy.
Keep you eyes on the SolarWinds crisis. We’re still in the very early stages of learning how bad it was — we haven’t even begun to examine who was responsible and why.
Also, any member of either chamber of Congress who on Wednesday follows through with their threats to object to certain electoral college slates must be hammered without mercy until their next election as an enemy of democracy.
Nancy Pelosi should not have allowed these GOP members to be seated. They are guilty of sedition and should be treated as such.
I might add she did allow a Republican who narrowly won her election (by just six votes!) to be seated. On the one hand, that’s the right thing to do to keep our system of government going. On the other hand, when one side never plays by the field to begin with, how are we to govern?
That was absolutely the right thing to do absent evidence the count was incorrect (and I assume there was an automatic recount for such a narrow margin). If anything this is a case study on why everyone needs to vote.
The House (not the Speaker unilaterality) can judge the qualifications of its members, but even then only on the narrow grounds of being constitutionally eligible and duly elected. The whole House can censure by majority vote, but it takes 2/3 to expel which I doubt would happen. Of course to literally be guilty of sedition or any other crime they would have to be found such by a jury of their peers following a trial.
I agree that refusing to seat a given member requires a vote of the House, and cannot be unilaterally imposed by the speaker. I do not think a two-thirds majority is needed (refusing to seat is, as I understand it, different from expulsion).
Each member of the House takes an oath where they swear to uphold the Constitution and so forth. While I am aware of the consequences of the 1969 Supreme Court decision allowing Adam Clayton Powell to take his seat, I am also aware of pieces like last month’s article in The Week (https://theweek.com/articles/954673/constitution-answer-seditious-members-congress).
The counter-argument is that the 14th amendment was intentionally crafted to exclude any member of Congress who supported the Confederacy. The language in question is very clear:
The allegations against Adam Clayton Powell were completely different than this. He was accused of corruption, not sedition.
These are elected officials who are actively and explicitly encouraging armed rebellion. They are doing everything in their power to incite riots intended to subvert the results of the last election.
If these behaviors are NOT illegal, then the fact that they are not is evidence that our system of government is not sufficiently protected from attempts to overthrow it.
The fact that the GOP is still controlling the military, the state department, and the executive branch is Exhibit A in the case that our political system is broken. The fact that Donald Trump still president is Exhibit B.
These are criminals who should be investigated, tried, convicted, and incarcerated for sedition.
Yes, majority for seating and 2/3 for expulsion. The members in question have not taken up arms against the US. As much as it stinks they have every legal right to go through the motions of objecting. They are engaging in POLITICAL warfare and the consequences ought to the be therefore political along the lines I previously suggested.
An armed mob of insurrectionists, incited by the sitting president and these Collaborators, invaded and vandalized the US Capital today. At least one woman is dead.
Do you STILL want to argue that this is anything except insurrection and sedition?
Well, I obviously wrote the above comment before today. I believe the people who stormed the Capitol today are insurrectionists. To charge the lawmakers themselves I would need to see or hear them directly inciting a riot, or once it began, egging them on with their words. Simply availing themselves of Congressional procedures does not meet that standard.
Did you watch the videotape of Donald Trump this morning, speaking to the mob? Did you see the tweet he sent after the insurrection began? That’s the one that belatedly got him banned from Twitter, Facebook, and others.
By continuing to spread these delusional lies, these lawmakers are encouraging today’s violence.
America is on or over the brink of civil war. Those who speak in support of the insurrectionists should not sit in the House or Senate.
The tweets I saw had him saying be peaceful. He said other things that were cringeworthy and outright lies, but nothing criminal. I have yet to hear a single member of Congress speak in support of the insurrectionists. In fact I’m pretty sure that when they reconvened every last one, including the objectors to the certification, denounced them.
Either you’re following different news coverage than me, live in alternate universe, or will not recognize insurrection until you’re hit over the head (or shot) by an insurrectionist.
I SAW the videotape, did you?
“If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore”
What the HECK do you call THAT, spoken to an armed mob?
This was the conclusion of Donald Trump’s address to the mob (https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6, emphasis mine):
Do you REALLY think he was talking about a quiet peaceful stroll through Washington DC? What do you think he meant by “pride and boldness”? There was nothing peaceful in those words — they were incendiary.
He urged that mob to invade the U.S. Capitol, and they did exactly that.
Yesterday was the start of an insurrection, just as real as the bombardment of Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861 — Donald Trump is at the head of that insurrection, and the members of the House and Senate who are speaking and voting in support of his lies are themselves insurrectionists.
You have yet to quote anything to me that a half-way decent defense attorney will not spin, probably successfully, as rhetoric and metaphor. The closest anyone came was Giuliani’s reference to trial by combat. Come back with Trump saying, “I want you to march to the Capitol and occupy it by force,” and we’ll talk.
This is the sort of criticism I’d rather see, Bob. You’re criticizing their actions. What I’m trying to avoid is attacks from one wing to the other.
Happy New Year Jim.
I have one question for you on this request.
The Democratic Party has full control of the state house of representatives and state senate. I count 31 Republicans in the house, out of 156 and 4 Republicans out of 40 in the senate.
How do I, as a Democrat, voice my opposition to all of the problems our state faces without stepping on the toes of Democrats who clearly run the state as they wish?
Am I limited to voicing my objection to Charlie Baker, who was endorsed by 10 Democratic mayors in this state?
I assume that Jim is talking about Democrats at the national level.
Within MA, the “Democratic” brand is worse than meaningless. In true legally-corrupt fashion, the Massachusetts Democratic Party is apparently powerless to have any influence at all on who claims to be a “Democrat”, what they promise during a campaign, or what they do after winning office. Massachusetts state law simultaneously prohibits ANY other political organization from using the word “Democrat” in their name.
So far as I can tell, “Democratic” affiliation is a content-free filing by any politician who wants to actually win an election. It comes with the advantage that the only race that needs to be won is an essentially open primary that generally attracts a tiny sliver of the eligible voters.
I view any suggestion that party loyalty should be a factor in ANY local or statewide race (I’m not talking about races for national House or Senate seats) as foolishness at best.
I vote in pretty much every election. I never vote for any candidate for local or statewide office that I don’t feel I know, and I much prefer to vote only for candidates that I’ve met face-to-face and had a chance to talk with.
Making Ron Mariano speaker of the MA house is a slap in the face (or kick in the whatever) to every voter who opposes the pervasive corruption that is so endemic to Massachusetts government.
If Jim is limiting this to the national level, sure. I’m fully willing to support them all. The Democratic brand in Massachusetts, from my perspective, is a caricature of the person working class non-college educated voters see when they voted for Brown, or Baker, or Trump in an angry push back to that wealthy liberal who sees them as less than worthy of respect or attention because they have not improved themselves with a college degree.
I’m not sure if the party will ever return to being the party of the working class. Clearly our state party feels no incentive to do so and is content to being the party friendly to business and a few key social issues, much like our national media.
This vacuum has been filled by the Trump followers. No one else wants them. He applauds them, invites them, and holds them close. He tells them that it’s the minorities that are at the root of their dismal lives. That is false, of course, but no less false than the Democrats telling them that their plight is their own doing by not getting that college degree.
I’m trying hard to agree with you, John. I enthusiastically agree with you about the duplicity of too many Massachusetts “Democrats” in elected office.
I wish that you wouldn’t so relentlessly harp on your peculiar claim that Democrats tell working class people that “their plight is their own doing by not getting that college degree”. It isn’t true, I think you know it isn’t true, and it makes me feel as though you’re trolling me.
I suspect that we agree on much more than when we differ about. I wish you would stop putting your thumb in my eye.
But is it true. From Biden’s Campaign Page”
In order to maintain our competitiveness, our current system of kindergarten through 12th grade education is essential but no longer sufficient. Roughly 6 out of 10 jobs in the United States require education beyond a high school diploma.
I hit send too quickly. While it may be true that “6 out of 10 jobs” require more than a high school diploma, there is evidence that this requirement is not truly necessary and more of an economic barrier to keep certain people out.
Even so, what of the 4 out of 10 that do not? In any case, it looks like we are talking about roughly half the voters here. What does Joe offer them? What does the Democratic Party offer to the guy at the Quick Lube, the friendly face at the drive up coffee spot, the clerk refilling the produce bins at the market? From what I can see, and please show me if I am wrong, we tell them “The only way for you to get a sustainable wage is higher education”, with no mention of who is going to lube our cars, hand us our coffee, or refill the lettuce bins when they all leave for college and a brighter future.
A living wage and health care as a universal right, just off the top of my head.
I do not recall Mr. Biden running on either of those things, although I’m not the kind to begrudge the public option or $15 minimum wage, they are distinct from universal healthcare and a true living wage which is closer to $22/hour for an expensive state like ours.
Joe Biden favors a $15/hour minimum wage and expanding health coverage.
Where in the USA can one live at a socially acceptable level on a $15 wage?
I don’t know, but you can’t get everything you want all at once.
Minimum wage has not moved since 2009. That’s eleven years. While I agree that “all at once” is a hard climb, eleven years, with eight of them with a Democrat in the White House seems to illustrate that it’s not a priority at all.
An increase in the minimum wage requires a majority vote in the House and Senate and then a presidential signature. When, since 2009, has that been possible?
I invite you to examine the history of the federal minimum wage (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/history/chart).
So long as half of America believes that purple elephants dance around the sun in order to produce wealth (or equally absurd ideologies), there will be no sane economic policy for anybody.
When has the Democratic Party leadership even tried to make it possible? President Obama was quick to rescue the banks and afraid to prosecute anyone on Wall Street.
That’s a different argument. I’ve already agreed with you, numerous times, that Democratic Party leadership should have been and must now be FAR more aggressive about addressing the obscene wealth concentration that is destroying the very fabric of America.
That’s got nothing do with your spurious claims about making higher education more available to working-class families.
Good dental care should be available to working-class families. Higher education more available to working-class families.
Clean air and water should be more available to working-class families. Four weeks vacation and generous sick day leave should be available to working class families.
None of that is my relative to my central point.
Working class families, regardless of the occupation of the parents, should never be living in poverty or reliant on government services for basic living conditions that any American would find acceptable.
I am not against higher education, flossing, clean air & water.
I am against the notion that the remedy for working class families with certain occupations deemed “essential” but not requiring a college degree, is more education to permit them to qualify for a different occupation. I want a Democratic Party that fights for labor policy/laws/regulations that result in higher pay for those occupations as much as the party fights for access to higher education for those who want it.
I was right there with you on this issues until you once again mischaracterized the stance of most Democrats.
I’m opposed to green-skinned alien lizards taking over brains of humans and forcing them to vote for the GOP.
You’re opposed to something that exists only in your mind.
There are enormous swaths of America where $15/hour enables a modest middle-class lifestyle. For example, see https://www.niche.com/places-to-live/search/counties-with-the-lowest-cost-of-living/.
For example, in McDowell County WV the median annual income is $26,547. That’s an hourly wage of $13.27/hour (assuming 50 weeks per year and 40 hours per week).
Of course, the reason for that is either that nobody lives there (and therefore there are no jobs at any wage) or nobody wants to live there.
Using labor — hours or days on a clock (virtual or real) — to distribute wealth is itself a key gear in the machinery that grinds all but the top 0.01% into sausage for the ultrawealthy to consume. So long as America continues to distribute wealth based on labor, the already obscene wealth concentration will accelerate.
The minimum wage could be $30/hour and it still won’t change that reality.
Let’s be honest. In 2018, the United States spent about $3.6 trillion on healthcare, which averages to about $11,000 per person. At $15 per hour, that’s $31,200 per year, less, say $8,500 assuming one person with premiums and co-pays. $31,200-$8,500 = $22,700. I don’t care what the “median annual wage” of some county is. I will assume that many of them have no health care or are on food stamps or some sort of public assistance….and none of them are living in a manner and style that anyone reading Blue Mass Group would find acceptable.
We distribute wealth through political power and labor has very little power in the Democratic Party; a drastic change since the period of 1940-1970.
First …
Then …
You don’t care about facts. You’re denying reality just like the Sedition Caucus. You’re inventing numbers to rationalize your premise.
I just showed you that the median income in McDowell County WV is $26,547. That means that even with the healthcare costs you assume, your number $22,700 is just below that median income that you don’t care about.
If the workers you’re talking about have no health care insurance, then they don’t have that $8,000/year cost that you took off the top — they’re well above the median income. If they receive food stamps, an earned income tax credit, or similar assistance programs then they have even more.
I cited one county. There are MANY more.
You are simply denying facts that don’t fit your bias.
You really ARE trolling us.
Here’s a statistic: 6 out of 10 professional first base players are left-handed. Is it true to say, in response to this, “Major league baseball is discriminating against right-handed players by saying that they don’t deserve to play first base”? Of course not. There is a measured, documented, and easily explained advantage to being left-handed while playing first base (the glove hand of a left-hander extends towards the playing field and shortens the distance of throws from third base — among the closest plays in the game. All of the infield plays at first base happen to the right of the player, and a right-hander has to make those plays back-handed).
The evidence that higher-paying jobs require more education is overwhelming and has been for generations. When I graduated from college in 1974 with a BSEE, I started at twice the salary of my father who, did not have a college degree. Inflating education and experience requirements in order to create barriers against “certain people” was made illegal in the first round of affirmative action laws. While it surely still happens, it is simply a lie to assert that Democrats intentionally do this in order to oppress working-class men and women. In fact, Democrats have been doing just the opposite for decades.
We’ve been over this ground a bazillion times before, you’ve offered nothing new, and you relentlessly repeat the same lies that have been shown to be lies each time you offer them.
I wish you’d stop posting these inflammatory allegations. I also wish I was better at ignoring them.
This community needs your excellent, insightful, and well-written commentary on a multitude of issues of great importance. I wish it weren’t overshadowed by red herrings like this.
It’s not a troll in my playbook. Baker offers middle class and working class voters, and we cannot deny he performed better with both than his last Democratic opponent, a pledge to lower or maintain low taxes. Instead of fighting for progressive taxation, living wages, paid leave, or public option the legislature always punts those issues to the voters while backslapping themselves over legislation like the ROE Act which is unlikely to impact nearly as many working people, but does satisfy the “hate has not home here” stickers.
If anything our party nationalizes local elections which fails to sufficiently differentiate us from the socially liberal Republicans that always win the Corner Office, but does allow a lot of fiscally conservative Democrats like DeLeo and Mariano to pretend to be progressive.
Granted I think John consistently underestimates the appeal of an authentically progressive agenda to working class voters. They didn’t flock to Bernie this time and despite having a far more progressive platform, Gonzalez did an order of magnitude worse than Martha Coakley. So I am not sure what to make of it. Progressive economic arguments have become counter intuitive to a lot of voters, other than direct payments which seem to be pretty popular. Maybe we should run on that?
Not a troll Tom. The Democratic Party needs to offer non-college working class people more than $15 hour. The Democratic Party needs to be honest with it all and now that we know these are “essential jobs” as many were required to work during the height of the pandemic, skill level and education credentials don’t count as much as some would want them to.
That’s not what your claim was and not what I’m responding to.
It is your stubborn insistence that “Democrats telling them that their plight is their own doing by not getting that college degree” that is just a lie.
I agree with you that essential jobs should have higher compensation, and I’ve never argued otherwise. I agree with you that some of those essential jobs don’t require college, and I’ve never said otherwise.
It is when you accuse Democrats of demeaning those without higher education that you go off the rails and into la-la-land. Democrats don’t say that. Never have.
Saying that most first basemen are left-handed does not demean people who are right-handed. Saying that more and more high-paying jobs require higher education does not demean those who don’t have higher education.
In particular, it does not not demean those who don’t have access to higher education solely because they can’t afford it. Democrats strive to make higher education available to those who want it. You have been attacking those programs here for as long as you’ve been here.
What is the party line to non-college educated workers who can’t survive on their incomes, much less raise a family? I say it’s “get a better education and improve your job skills” and you tell me that is not the case. Okay Tom….what is the official party platform on jobs that we all know are essential but do not pay a wage that will sustain a family?
I agree with you that America desperately needs a better answer for workers who can’t survive on their incomes. Your focus on those without college distracts attention from the real issue — wealth concentration and the abject failure of the modern US economy to fairly distribute the enormous wealth it generates.
I agree with you that the party does not now have an adequate answer. In my opinion, some sort of UBI for every American (perhaps means-tested, but I think it would be better to keep it simple) is required. The first COVID stimulus program was an excellent model for what I’m talking about.
Universal government-sponsored single-payer health care is a second key aspect of the required answer. I think our health care system should be modeled after our public education system of an earlier era — compulsory participation, strong federal standards and funding, and explicitly intended for every American (regardless of immigration status, by the way).
No American should be denied access to higher education (including vocational and skills training) because they can’t afford it.
In today’s economy, especially in the absence of a UBI and universal health care, “get a better education and improve your job skills” is the most effective and most humane answer on the table. There is absolutely nothing demeaning to anyone about that answer.
From the state party platform one of the “demands” is:
This is supplemented by saying the party will fight for:
This is before we even get to the entire section on Labor & Workforce Development.
The national platform goes into even greater detail.
I’m still waiting for your solution on this one, besides of course primarying. I want to know specifically, how would you change the law to allow parties to enforce their platforms that is not anti-democratic?
One simple change is to remove the restriction on the name “Democrat”, and allow actual competition among organizations for both candidates and voters.
I would strongly oppose that because it could lead to lots of mischief of the ratscrewing variety, but organizations are free to back candidates in Democratic primaries. THAT is the proper context in which to fight over who gets carry the Democratic banner.
I don’t know what “ratscrewing variety” mischief is — is that a term of art within the inner workings of the party? I do know that I’m sick to death of elected officials who claim to be Democrats acting like Republicans.
You tread very close to arrogance when you presume to say what is or is not a “proper context in which to fight over who gets to carry the Democratic banner”. I’m reminded of the practice of certain governments that use their regulatory power to declare which religion is “the one true faith”.
I think that one of the best ways to ensure that the phrase “Democratic Party” corresponds to what actual Massachusetts Democrats believe is to allow Massachusetts voters to choose for themselves whatever organization proclaims itself to be “Democratic”.
I have not had an actual choice about which party best represents me in the nearly fifty years that I’ve been a registered voter in MA. For the entire period, my choice has been between a bunch of incompetent, ignorant, right-wing crazies and the pervasively corrupt bunch of hypocrites and posers (with a handful of genuinely marvelous people and elected officials) who call themselves “Democrats”.
I’d like to have ACTUAL choice, thank you very much.
The word, for which I used a printable synonym (think vulgar alternative to “screw”) is a very common term in politics to describe making mischief in a way that makes it difficult for a party to campaign. One common example in states that have open primaries is that members of one party vote in the other’s primary, not for the candidate they honestly like, but for the candidate they feel will be weakest against their own party’s candidate in the general. Sorry, I thought this was fairly well-known.
Truth is I’m not sure how strongly the party enforces their claim to the name, since there are such groups as Progressive Democrats of Massachusetts, but it has always made sense to me that the claim can be made for the same reasons that businesses are allowed to trademark their names. Of course there are ways to form additional parties, but they should come up with names of their own.
I sympathize with your frustration over DINOs, but I don’t understand why vigorous primaries are not the solution. Incumbents can be primaried and you can register as you please, so what specifically would you like to do that you can’t do now?
I’m familiar with the practice you mention, I didn’t realize it had a name. I’m not too worried about it, frankly. Massachusetts already has that in practice because of the ease with which a ballot can be drawn for a particular party.
I’ve forgotten the current law — if I am registered as “unenrolled”, and I pull a ballot for a given party in a primary, does that change my registration? I seem to recall that at one time it was necessary to change registration back to unenrolled. I also think I remember that requirement being removed.
I’d love a new party to be created called “Social Democrats” or the “Social Democratic Party”. I’d like it to be explicitly aligned with the SDP in Germany.
I’d like that new party to not have to worry about being harassed by any other party about it’s name.
Businesses are not able to trademark names that have come into common practice. Businesses who make no effort to protect their trademarks lose trademark protection.
The Massachusetts Democratic Party is guilty of both, in my opinion.
Unenrolled voters remain unenrolled even if they pull a party ballot for a primary. Personally, I’d prefer to limit primaries to party members with those who lean left being Dems and those who lean right being Republicans. I’d be more open to more parties if we had RCV and I do worry about Republicans forming a “Democratic” group with the express goal of confusing voters. I guess I could be OK with an SDP since using that example and tying it to Europe reminds me that in those countries the main conservative party is often called the Christian Democratic Party. We do already have a recognized Green Party in Massachusetts as well. I’m not sure how I feel about internationally aligned parties.
I think it is worth noting that according to Progressive Massachusetts every Democrat in the General Court is ahead of every Republican with only one exception – Colleen Garry, who has often not received party funds or participated in coordinated campaigns, but also easily defeated a progressive challenger in the primary a couple years ago. If the measurement is endorsement of candidates in major races, she tends to stick with the team and David Nangle may be worst offender. However, he WAS successfully primaried this year even with two challengers whom I was afraid would split the vote.
You of course have the prerogative of contacting your own legislators to voice your concerns regardless of their party affiliation, and as we are painfully aware should not assume they will vote a certain way on account of the letter after their name.
John, to answer your question, I would never limit criticism. I am requesting that people focus on actions, not beliefs. I know a lot of centrist Democrats, and frankly they can get on my nerves with their reflexive criticism of left-leaning Democrats. But some are sincere.
Recently (not here) I got into a discussion with someone on Facebook, and it became pretty clear that he liked Steve Schmidt (a former McCain guy) WAY more than he liked anyone in the Squad. This is just weird to me; I was raised to believe in the Big Tent, and I do believe in the Big Tent. Welcome to the party Steve! But we’re all in this together, you don’t automatically get a better seat.
That said, I got myself all worked up thinking about the Space Force the other day. Pelosi said, “The president got the Space Force, we got family medical leave.” (I may be misremembering slightly, but it was something like that.) Well, first, that leave was only for federal workers, and second, there was no need to negotiate over the bill, because Democrats controlled the House. At best, Pelosi was being disingenuous. Why do we have a Space Force? What a colossal waste.
Oh come on, Jim — surely you know the answer to that.
How else will we repel the alien lizards who burrow into the brain of a human host and force it to do their will (https://www.thedailybeast.com/cops-probing-if-nashville-bomber-anthony-quinn-warner-believed-in-lizard-conspiracy-went-hunting-for-aliens)?
Good point.