POLITICS: what have you done for us lately?

[friendship]

AOC is the Peavey amps of politicans

Solid, reliable, gets the job done, but ultimately unexciting? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. She seems more like Science to me.

[adamajah]

AOC is more like the OP-Z of guitar amps

[jirodreamsofdank]

As I've said before, AOC needs to learn two very important things if she wants to stay around for a while:

1. Demanding Congress adopt every single platform RIGHT FUCKING NOW never works and often breeds resentment and fractures/averts alliances. Especially if you do it in a situation where there's no way in hell the opposition-controlled sister chamber and White House will hop on board.

That's why you pass Medicare for All and Green New Deal bills - to force the opposition to vote down or veto these very popular policies.

It didn't work for the tea party

The forces behind the Tea Party effectively control the country today and rendered 3/4 of Obama's years as moot.

nor did it work with the alt right or Obama's first term, both of which were situations where the same party controlled Congress and the White House!

In 2009-10, Obama failed to lead from the front and enforce party discipline, which is why it was historically ineffectual for a single-party government.
He was obsessed with reasonable Republicans and bipartisanship, if he just proved how rational he was eventually the Republicans would come around.

Obviously, this was bullshit. The only bipartisan consensus this country has reached in the last 60 years has revolved around bombing people of color on the other side of the world, overthrowing people of color who get uppity and incarcerating people of color at home.

2. Her district is very left-leaning. My district is not. The blue districts that turned their backs on Hillary in 2016 are not. What she wants may very well work for her constituents, but as we saw in the 2018 election it does not mesh well with other parts of the country, even those that are younger and more left-leaning than their parents.

Her policies are very popular, even among Republicans. This is standard "you have to be measured and moderate" hand-wringing that has no relationship to reality.

Our public discourse is ruled by some vague idea of "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" moderation being the common sense middle ground - thing is, there is no constituency for that. There are far more economically liberal and socially conservative voters than vice versa - and most fall into lib/lib or con/con.

Climate change is a guillotine hanging over all of our heads by a rapidly fraying rope. The political class's plan is, at best on the establishment Democratic side, to ignore it and continue kicking it down the road.

[jrfox92]

Her policies are very popular, even among Republicans. This is standard "you have to be measured and moderate" hand-wringing that has no relationship to reality.

Okay, seriously.
I need to know what you're smoking.

[dubkitty]

read some feckin' poll results, yo.

[jirodreamsofdank]

Her policies are very popular, even among Republicans. This is standard "you have to be measured and moderate" hand-wringing that has no relationship to reality.

Okay, seriously.
I need to know what you're smoking.

The sweet leaf of... reality.

The two policy initiatives she's taken any kind of lead on thus far are the Green New Deal and taxing the hyper-wealthy, both of which polled with majority support among Republicans and supermajority support among Democrats. Neither of these should be a shock, as I said there's a significant bloc of economically liberal/socially conservative Americans and the GOP's donor class has been able to rope them in with culture war (and racism) for 50 years.

You could throw in Medicare for All, though I don't think you can credit her with any kind of leadership so far, which continually polls well.

[jirodreamsofdank]

[jrfox92]

So, I looked up these "polls".
Saying that "republicans support AOC's policies" is quuuuiiiiiittteee a stretch to what the actual data shows.

NSFW: show

Note the curious way that they poller decided to describe the GND, also, the time period.
Also note that the data shows just how small the data group is that even knows enough to be polled properly.


So, I'd say that at best it's pretty much inconclusive and at worst, misrepresentative of how people view AOC's GND.

NSFW: show

This poll, on the other hand, kind of supports your argument regarding taxes, but it's certainly not a "majority".

[jirodreamsofdank]

So the low end of GOP support for a 70% marginal tax rate is 45%, I've seen polls higher.
Let's take that poll as gospel - barely a minority among Republicans, a majority among independents and a supermajority among Democrats. How is that not a popular policy proposal?

That other poll... shows exactly what I said? Again, it's not a shock - Republicans have managed to terrify a populace that has historically been happy with government programs and public works by scaring them with "welfare queens driving Cadillacs." They still fundamentally like public works and infrastructure and the promise of a brighter future.

[jirodreamsofdank]

Overall, the country is governed well to the right of the public's economic ideology and in line with its social ideology.

[Benn Roe]

The blue districts that turned their backs on Hillary in 2016 are not.

Jiro already said virtually everything I wanted to respond with, and then some, but the above quoted phrase needs some attention too. Are you implying that people stayed home in 2016 because Hillary was too far to the left? If anything, many people stayed home because she has historically been such a textbook moderate, she doesn't really stand for anything. Bernie forced her to the left, but nobody seemed to be buying it. But that's really the thing about this myth of the level-headed moderate, swooping in to enact sensible bipartisan compromise: what counts as "the middle" is constantly moving to the left, so moderates just come across as disingenuous and noncomittal to most people. I think you'd be surprised how many leftists "turned their backs on Hillary", by way of just not voting at all.

[Bassist_Diver]

As I've said before, AOC needs to learn two very important things if she wants to stay around for a while:

1. Demanding Congress adopt every single platform RIGHT FUCKING NOW never works and often breeds resentment and fractures/averts alliances. Especially if you do it in a situation where there's no way in hell the opposition-controlled sister chamber and White House will hop on board.

That's why you pass Medicare for All and Green New Deal bills - to force the opposition to vote down or veto these very popular policies.

That will get shot down in the Senate or vetoed by the dipshit in chief. All that does is delay implementing extremely important legislature. If they were separate bills this wouldn't be a problem, but doing everything in one-fell swoop has never worked.

It didn't work for the tea party

The forces behind the Tea Party effectively control the country today and rendered 3/4 of Obama's years as moot.

nor did it work with the alt right or Obama's first term, both of which were situations where the same party controlled Congress and the White House!

In 2009-10, Obama failed to lead from the front and enforce party discipline, which is why it was historically ineffectual for a single-party government.
He was obsessed with reasonable Republicans and bipartisanship, if he just proved how rational he was eventually the Republicans would come around.

Obviously, this was bullshit. The only bipartisan consensus this country has reached in the last 60 years has revolved around bombing people of color on the other side of the world, overthrowing people of color who get uppity and incarcerating people of color at home.

Nice strawman. None of those have anything to do with trying to implement legislation that pushes a majority of a platform in a single bill.

2. Her district is very left-leaning. My district is not. The blue districts that turned their backs on Hillary in 2016 are not. What she wants may very well work for her constituents, but as we saw in the 2018 election it does not mesh well with other parts of the country, even those that are younger and more left-leaning than their parents.

Her policies are very popular, even among Republicans. This is standard "you have to be measured and moderate" hand-wringing that has no relationship to reality.

Our public discourse is ruled by some vague idea of "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" moderation being the common sense middle ground - thing is, there is no constituency for that. There are far more economically liberal and socially conservative voters than vice versa - and most fall into lib/lib or con/con.

LOL no. See above replies

Climate change is a guillotine hanging over all of our heads by a rapidly fraying rope. The political class's plan is, at best on the establishment Democratic side, to ignore it and continue kicking it down the road.

Refer back to my first point. Make it a separate bill and DON'T include all the other state-funded pieces that still scare the shit out of enough people to make the bill unpassable in the Senate.

The blue districts that turned their backs on Hillary in 2016 are not.

Jiro already said virtually everything I wanted to respond with, and then some, but the above quoted phrase needs some attention too. Are you implying that people stayed home in 2016 because Hillary was too far to the left? If anything, many people stayed home because she has historically been such a textbook moderate, she doesn't really stand for anything. Bernie forced her to the left, but nobody seemed to be buying it. But that's really the thing about this myth of the level-headed moderate, swooping in to enact sensible bipartisan compromise: what counts as "the middle" is constantly moving to the left, so moderates just come across as disingenuous and noncomittal to most people. I think you'd be surprised how many leftists "turned their backs on Hillary", by way of just not voting at all.

No, I'm implying a huge number of people voted for Donald Fucking Trump because Hillary is on the ticket. You're in Philly, which is traditionally very left. The midwest, however, is not. Look what happened when Bernie and AOC stumped for the hard left candidates in the more rural great plains - not a single one was elected. The country is indeed moving left, nobody is denying that, but there IS still a very large chunk of the population that is moderate

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245813/lea ... gains.aspx

If y'all want to make moderates less "disingenuous and noncomittal [sic]" you absolutely cannot shove everything down their throats at once and then shame them if they don't take it. That didn't work in 2016 when the dems went after everyone who wasn't on-board with identity politics. This shit takes time and until the dems realize this they're going to be fighting an uphill battle for a looooong time.

[jirodreamsofdank]

That will get shot down in the Senate or vetoed by the dipshit in chief. All that does is delay implementing extremely important legislature. If they were separate bills this wouldn't be a problem, but doing everything in one-fell swoop has never worked.

Yes, that's what I said: you force the opposition to deny people the policies they support.
'They' are separate bills - and technically speaking, I don't believe that there's a straight-up "bill" for the GND or Warren/Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez's various tax proposals either.

What is this "extremely important legislation" that's being delayed because there's a Medicare For All bill in committee?

Nice strawman. None of those have anything to do with trying to implement legislation that pushes a majority of a platform in a single bill.

What strawman? You said "it" - staking out a position considered radical - didn't 'work out for the Tea Party. I explained how it worked out incredibly well for the Tea Party. You may have missed the entire era between 2010 and 2018, but I didn't. I explained how failure to do anything like that rendered Obama's first two years with a Democratic Congress ineffectual - rather than lead he sought bipartisan consensus that was never going to come, neutering his signature 'achievement' (Obamacare) in the process. When you negotiate with yourself before you even start negotiating with the other side, you're going to lose.

LOL no. See above replies

The ones with polling that illustrates exactly what I said? Or the quadrant map I showed you that illustrated where the electorate actually lies?

Refer back to my first point. Make it a separate bill and DON'T include all the other state-funded pieces that still scare the shit out of enough people to make the bill unpassable in the Senate.

I don't know what the fuck you're even talking about...

There is no "Green New Deal" that is "passable in the Senate." None. Zip. Nada. Even the shit that wouldn't work - cap and trade schemes - is unpassable with the contemporary GOP.

The GOP is a party of the ultrawealthy who can ride out the future in their compounds and millenarian white evangelicals who are just waiting until Armageddon. They have nothing to offer.

[jirodreamsofdank]

I think you'd be surprised how many leftists "turned their backs on Hillary", by way of just not voting at all.

More important than leftists, people of color. Somehow a person directly linked to the 'tough on crime' era of Democratic politics had relatively limited appeal to people who have borne the brunt of mass incarceration.

The Clinton campaign was explicit about their desire to win over 'moderate' Republicans - "for every blue collar Democrat we lose, we gain two suburban Republicans" - and the Bloomberg and Kissinger ass-kissing, etc.. And to no one's surprise, they didn't get those suburban Republicans.

[dubkitty]

not to mention that the Clintons were also responsible for "ending welfare as we know it," which now means someone can only apply for food stamps for one period of a couple of months every five years. fuck those sellout bastards and the mule they rode in on.