The Biden Presidency

[wareyin]

This has indeed been a big problem for progressives (or any group left of center in this country) for a long time. they didn't do the leg work. They showed up every 4 years and expected massive change. there are notable exceptions, but left-wing movements in the US tend to be more sizzle than steak.

However, that has changed. Progressives are making actual gains. Not just with candidates but with policy as well. Progressive ballot initiatives are winning in states like South Dakota, Missouri, and Florida. Progressive candidates like Katie Porter and Steve Levin flipping districts that had been red for decades. And instead of seeing a new energized voting bloc to engage, the establishment Dems attack them harder than they have ever attacked conservatives.

What progressive policies in SD and MO are you referring to? I assume the FL one was a raise to the minimum wage? I'm not aware that raising minimum wage is only a progressive issue. "Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are largely united in backing a $15 an hour federal minimum wage: 86% favor this, including nearly six-in-ten (59%) who say they strongly support it." From that source, even 43% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents also favor raising minimum wage. Claiming something that 86% of Democrats and 43% of Republicans support as a progressive issue is misleading.

And really, CA and NY are your impressive flipped districts? What's next, surprise for a progressive Dem from Hawaii?

You have Democrats like Manchin, Donnely, Bredesen, and McCaskill openly attacking them in interviews. You have Democratic leadership changing the rules and consolidating power at the top. You have Congressional Democrats attacking Ilhan Omar for referencing a rap lyric to call out a lobbyist while not saying a goddamned thing about republicans practically quoting from the Protocols of Zion to scare their base. You have constant finger-wagging and lecturing from a bunch of professional second-place finishers who are still treating this like it's still the 80s.

Manchin? Seriously? The WV Senator who voted for Trump's agenda more than half the time? That's the guy you lead with? And the Dems aren't saying anything about the Republican's open racism? My goodness but this is more than misleading, that's either willfully blind or dishonest.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Claiming something that 86% of Democrats and 43% of Republicans support as a progressive issue is misleading.

Claiming something that everyone supports but only progressives have pushed for is not a progressive issue is misleading. See also: universal health care and legal weed.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Claiming something that everyone supports but only progressives have pushed for is not a progressive issue is misleading. See also: universal health care and legal weed.

Right, that's the whole point. These issues are widely popular, including with significant popularity among right wing voters too. Democrats are afraid to run on these issues though for some reason. Minimum wage hike won overwhelming support in a state where Biden and local Democrats, who notably shied away from championing the cause, took significant losses.

The best we can hope for is that there will be some token language supporting these policies on the back page of some campaign website, but we all know that these issues are not even close to being something the party will actually champion or expend political capital on.

Why aren't policies like this, which are pro-worker and enjoy wide support from the general public, not the tip of the political messaging spear for the Democratic party? Why are they relegated to some dark corner of the platform that nobody talks about or has any intention of following through on?

Because it's opposed by the donor class. The party is completely captured by wealthy interests.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Not for nothing, but progressives have gotten far more than nothing. Instead it sounds as though the very vocal minority within the Democratic Party thinks they should have gotten everything rather than far more than they would have gotten had the Dems caved and run Sanders and been beaten again.

Care to be specific? What recent news from Biden's staffing decisions leads you to believe that the progressive wing of the party is receiving concessions for their support of the party candidate?

 

[wareyin]

Claiming something that everyone supports but only progressives have pushed for is not a progressive issue is misleading. See also: universal health care and legal weed.

I see. Is it your contention that only progressives, and not the Democratic party as a whole, has pushed to raise the minimum wage? I can find examples Nancy Pelosi pushing for, and praising, bills to raise the minimum wage. Is she now a progressive?

 

[wareyin]

Care to be specific? What recent news from Biden's staffing decisions leads you to believe that the progressive wing of the party is receiving concessions for their support of the party candidate?

The fact that people who are 86% behind your claimed progressive polices of raising minimum wage are staffing things, rather than the people who oppose them by a majority?

Progressives really don't seem to understand that getting the closest possible to what they want is still good when compared to everything that they want being taken away, do they?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The fact that people who are 86% behind your claimed progressive polices of raising minimum wage are staffing things, rather than the people who oppose them by a majority?

Progressives really don't seem to understand that getting the closest possible to what they want is still good when compared to everything that they want being taken away, do they?

Please be specific. Who is being proposed to a position of power with progressive policies relevant to that position? These roles have specific missions. Are these people being selected actually going to wield power in a way to advance popular, progressive issues? If so, who?

Democrats, as a group, may support these issues, but the Democrats being selected to staff these positions are often explicitly opposed to these issues.

Like Neera Tanden, union busting, social security slashing, anti-minimum wage neo-lib being proposed for OMB. Should progressives be pleased that this austerity hawk will be in this position?

Is the Sunrise Movement wrong for crying foul that Biden has appointed US Rep. Cedric Richmond, a man thoroughly bought and paid for by the petrochemical industry, as climate liaison?

Are BLM activists wrong for being upset that Rahm Emmanuel is being considered for a role, despite his attempt to cover up a police murder while mayor?

 

[wareyin]

Please be specific. Who is being proposed to a position of power with progressive policies relevant to that position? These roles have specific missions. Are these people being selected actually going to wield power in a way to advance popular, progressive issues? If so, who?

Democrats, as a group, may support these issues, but the Democrats being selected to staff these positions are often explicitly opposed to these issues.

Like Neera Tanden, union busting, social security slashing, anti-minimum wage neo-lib being proposed for OMB. Should progressives be pleased that this austerity hawk will be in this position?

Is the Sunrise Movement wrong for crying foul that Biden has appointed US Rep. Cedric Richmond, a man thoroughly bought and paid for by the petrochemical industry, as climate liaison?

Are BLM activists wrong for being upset that Rahm Emmanuel is being considered for a role, despite his attempt to cover up a police murder while mayor?

You're kind of going back and forth, here. Are these people "being considered" or are they already in place as a slap down to progressives? It's hard to be specific when arguing against such nebulous tactics.

The point that you are attempting to not understand is still clear, however. Progressives did their best to hurt Biden's chances before the general election, then grudgingly accepted that a Biden presidency would be far better for them (not to mention their goals and the country as a whole) than another 4 years of Trump. Now, having a President who will further some of their goals rather than one who actively opposes all of their goals, these same progressives are demanding a reward for having acted in their own self interest.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You're kind of going back and forth, here. Are these people "being considered" or are they already in place as a slap down to progressives? It's hard to be specific when arguing against such nebulous tactics.

The point that you are attempting to not understand is still clear, however. Progressives did their best to hurt Biden's chances before the general election, then grudgingly accepted that a Biden presidency would be far better for them (not to mention their goals and the country as a whole) than another 4 years of Trump. Now, having a President who will further some of their goals rather than one who actively opposes all of their goals, these same progressives are demanding a reward for having acted in their own self interest.

So did everyone else that ran during the primary. Kamala Harris basically called Biden an anti-integration bigot.

Seems that everyone that participated in the hotly contested primary is getting a concession except for the progressives. Curious.

I suppose that makes sense to you if you consider the progressives not true members of the party but rather political hostages. I tend to agree with you here, the progressives would do well to remember that the party will never grant them a seat at the table no matter how nicely they cooperate. They are political adversaries.

 

[Donal]

What progressive policies in SD and MO are you referring to?

In South Dakota it was marijuana legalization. Missouri passed that and a minimum wage increase in 2018. In 2020, they voted to expand Medicaid. The fact that you couldn't even look for those shows what a joke the "50 State Initiative" establishment Dems claim is.

I assume the FL one was a raise to the minimum wage? I'm not aware that raising minimum wage is only a progressive issue. "Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are largely united in backing a $15 an hour federal minimum wage: 86% favor this, including nearly six-in-ten (59%) who say they strongly support it." From that source, even 43% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents also favor raising minimum wage. Claiming something that 86% of Democrats and 43% of Republicans support as a progressive issue is misleading.

then why did the Biden campaign and the DNC, in general, shy away from it? Why were they not down there beating that drum and putting Biden's face next to it every chance they got? Why wasn't the national party next to every state and congressional candidate attaching them to it?

And really, CA and NY are your impressive flipped districts? What's next, surprise for a progressive Dem from Hawaii?

You understand that states are not monoliths, right? That you can have blue districts in red states and red states in blue districts? that why Peter King can hold a seat in Long Island for almost 30 years. And Jim Clyburn can hold a seat in South Carolina for the same amount of time.

How New York City can have 20 years of Republican mayors (yes, Bloomberg is a Republican).

And if the seats Levin and Proter currently hold were so easy to win, why didn't the Dems flip them until now? Are they just that inept or do they not care?

Manchin? Seriously? The WV Senator who voted for Trump's agenda more than half the time? That's the guy you lead with?

You ignored the others. Also, why not lead with Manchin? We constantly hear about how the Dems can't pursue an actual Democratic agenda because it will cost people like Manchin their seats. What is the point of protecting his seat then? Why is it OK for him to go on the Sunday talk shows and take an unprovoked shot at progressives? What value does he bring that he must be protected at the expense of actual Democrats? All you did was validate my point.

And the Dems aren't saying anything about the Republican's open racism? My goodness but this is more than misleading, that's either willfully blind or dishonest.

No, it is a fact. Look at how they attack progressives, inventing accusations of anti-Semitism, and didn't say a thing about republican ads featuring tropes that would have been at home in 1930s Germany.

 

[wareyin]

So did everyone else that ran during the primary. Kamala Harris basically called Biden an anti-integration bigot.

Seems that everyone that participated in the hotly contested primary is getting a concession except for the progressives. Curious.

There was a reason I didn't say "during the primary." It's because I didn't mean during the primary. I meant after the primary was over. Try re-reading it but in the context of what I actually said and meant this time.

I suppose that makes sense to you if you consider the progressives not true members of the party but rather political hostages. I tend to agree with you here, the progressives would do well to remember that the party will never grant them a seat at the table no matter how nicely they cooperate. They are political adversaries.

Toddlers, Trump, and now progressives all wish to be rewarded for acting in their own self interest. Not acting as adversaries to the Democratic Party would probably go a long way towards Dems not treating progressives as adversaries, but it is better to throw a temper tantrum unless one gets a special treat for eating the apple slices with one's lunch.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

There was a reason I didn't say "during the primary." It's because I didn't mean during the primary. I meant after the primary was over. Try re-reading it but in the context of what I actually said and meant this time.



Toddlers, Trump, and now progressives all wish to be rewarded for acting in their own self interest. Not acting as adversaries to the Democratic Party would probably go a long way towards Dems not treating progressives as adversaries, but it is better to throw a temper tantrum unless one gets a special treat for eating the apple slices with one's lunch.

I'm curious how you think progressives tried to sandbag Biden's election during the general. By trying to pull him towards more popular policies? Are you suggesting that progressives didn't turn out for Biden?

I'm still trying to figure out your second comment. What exactly do you think political power actually means? Why should progressives even get involved if they didn't actually want things done? You understand that people don't support political campaigns from the goodness of their hearts. Voters want things. Groups wants things. They support candidates that promise to give them those things. Not getting those things is a reason to withdraw support. Political parties are not unanimous, but to be a working coalition, there has to be some give and take, not just loud demands for unity drowning out dissent.

I don't really understand how not getting appropriate recognition and a slice of power is a "tantrum" other than the wishful thinking of centrists who want the benefit of progressive support without the cost of actually delivering progressive policies.

 

[wareyin]

In South Dakota it was marijuana legalization. Missouri passed that and a minimum wage increase in 2018. In 2020, they voted to expand Medicaid. The fact that you couldn't even look for those shows what a joke the "50 State Initiative" establishment Dems claim is.

Asking you to flesh out your vague handwaving is not showing what a joke anything is. So your examples are marijuana legalization, Medicaid expansion, and minimum wage increases. Minimum wage increases were passed and praised by Pelosi in the House last year, Medicaid expansion was a huge part of the ACA back in 2009/2010. Marijuana legalization was being pushed at the national level by mainstream Democrats in the House earlier this year.

The fact that you didn't know any of that was mainstream Democratic stuff is the joke, I'm afraid.

then why did the Biden campaign and the DNC, in general, shy away from it? Why were they not down there beating that drum and putting Biden's face next to it every chance they got? Why wasn't the national party next to every state and congressional candidate attaching them to it?

Why was the House passing all of this stuff under mainstream Democratic leadership?

You understand that states are not monoliths, right? That you can have blue districts in red states and red states in blue districts? that why Peter King can hold a seat in Long Island for almost 30 years. And Jim Clyburn can hold a seat in South Carolina for the same amount of time.

Yes, states are not monoliths. Finally you have said something about politics that wasn't misleading or flat out wrong. It's still silly to act like electing a Democrat to the Senate from California is exciting stuff though.

How New York City can have 20 years of Republican mayors (yes, Bloomberg is a Republican).

Bloomberg and Giuliani were both Republican and Democratic at different parts of their career. I don't think New York Mayors who swap parties when convenient helps your case.

And if the seats Levin and Proter currently hold were so easy to win, why didn't the Dems flip them until now? Are they just that inept or do they not care?

To be clear, you are saying that not winning a seat means your political group is either inept or doesn't care? Are you sure that's a winning message for the progressives right now?

You ignored the others. Also, why not lead with Manchin? We constantly hear about how the Dems can't pursue an actual Democratic agenda because it will cost people like Manchin their seats. What is the point of protecting his seat then? Why is it OK for him to go on the Sunday talk shows and take an unprovoked shot at progressives? What value does he bring that he must be protected at the expense of actual Democrats? All you did was validate my point.

I ignored the others because they were all either out of office, or not even Google knew who they were. Manchin, a Republican in all but name, was the only active politician you listed. As he is such a bad example to use to demonstrate mainstream Democratic politicians, and he was the one you lead with, your point fails.

No, it is a fact. Look at how they attack progressives, inventing accusations of anti-Semitism, and didn't say a thing about republican ads featuring tropes that would have been at home in 1930s Germany.

If you are unaware of Democrats speaking out against Republican ads and Republican actions that "would have been at home in 1930s Germany," I humbly suggest you open a newspaper, watch the news, or even any media source that is supported by advertising during the election.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The problem isn't progressives, it's the predisposed obedience of Democrats to the expected disapproval of the media and the Right that makes them censors each other instead of proudly declaring that they can live with a multitude of opinions in their party.

 

[wareyin]

I'm curious how you think progressives tried to sandbag Biden's election during the general. By trying to pull him towards more popular policies? Are you suggesting that progressives didn't turn out for Biden? Progressive candidates are popular, centrist equivocators got absolutely wrecked on election day. How'd that Kasich endorsement play out in Ohio?

That's odd. I remember your arguments here about Biden being senile and/or having dementia, and committing sexual assault. Have you forgotten them?

I'm still trying to figure out your second comment. What exactly do you think political power actually means? Why should progressives even get involved if they didn't actually want things done? You understand that people don't support political campaigns from the goodness of their hearts. Voters want things. Groups wants things. They support candidates that promise to give them those things. Not getting those things is a reason to withdraw support. Political parties are not unanimous, but to be a working coalition, there has to be some give and take, not just loud demands for unity drowning out dissent

.
I don't really understand how not getting appropriate recognition and a slice of power is a "tantrum" other than the wishful thinking of centrists who want the benefit of progressive support without the cost of actually delivering progressive policies.

The progressive policies that mainstream Democrats have already been pushing nationally (in some cases for decades) that progressives are claiming as a win for progressives when they pass in a state? Seems to me that 1) Centrist Dems are already delivering those policies and 2) Getting most of what you want is better than getting none of what you want is still a concept that progressives can't grok.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's odd. I remember your arguments here about Biden being senile and/or having dementia, and committing sexual assault. Have you forgotten them?

I'm still trying to figure out your second comment. What exactly do you think political power actually means? Why should progressives even get involved if they didn't actually want things done? You understand that people don't support political campaigns from the goodness of their hearts. Voters want things. Groups wants things. They support candidates that promise to give them those things. Not getting those things is a reason to withdraw support. Political parties are not unanimous, but to be a working coalition, there has to be some give and take, not just loud demands for unity drowning out dissent.




The progressive policies that mainstream Democrats have already been pushing nationally (in some cases for decades) that progressives are claiming as a win for progressives when they pass in a state? Seems to me that 1) Centrist Dems are already delivering those policies and 2) Getting most of what you want is better than getting none of what you want is still a concept that progressives can't grok.

So you think my posting to this forum was a significant and material harm to the Biden election campaign. I suppose I should take that as a compliment, but I have no illusions to my persuasive range.

Is that what this comes down to? Critics were mean to Biden? Go ahead, list all the rude twitter accounts that didn't kiss his ass to your liking.

Come on now, surely you can see how petty and pathetic this is. What actual harm do you think progressives did to Biden, and how is that at all comparable to the obvious boon they were to his campaign by turning out to vote for him?

You're being vague again. What exactly have progressives gotten from Biden, the person they voted for, that should satisfy their desire to influence politics? Again, I'm not speaking broadly in decades, I'm talking about the parade of neo-lib hacks that are are being telegraphed to ride his coat-tails into office, and the glaring lack of even a bone thrown to the progressives that supported his campaign.

 

[wareyin]

So you think my posting to this forum was a significant and material harm to the Biden election campaign. I suppose I should take that as a compliment, but I have no illusions to my persuasive range.

Is that what this comes down to? Critics were mean to Biden? Go ahead, list all the rude twitter accounts that didn't kiss his ass to your liking.

Come on now, surely you can see how petty and pathetic this is. What actual harm do you think progressives did to Biden, and how is that at all comparable to the obvious boon they were to his campaign by turning out to vote for him?

Wait, you think actively working to prevent his election was no actual harm? But since convincing others not to vote for him failed, and you eventually grudgingly held your nose and voted in your own self interest, you should be praised?

You're being vague again. What exactly have progressives gotten from Biden, the person they voted for, that should satisfy their desire to influence politics? Again, I'm not speaking broadly in decades, I'm talking about the parade of neo-lib hacks that are are being telegraphed to ride his coat-tails into office, and the glaring lack of even a bone thrown to the progressives that supported his campaign.

Vague? I've shown that every single policy that you guys are crying about being a progressive policy that the ebil centrist meanies won't hand over on a silver platter was already being fought for by those centrist Dems. What else are you whining about not being given?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Wait, you think actively working to prevent his election was no actual harm? But since convincing others not to vote for him failed, and you eventually grudgingly held your nose and voted in your own self interest, you should be praised?



Vague? I've shown that every single policy that you guys are crying about being a progressive policy that the ebil centrist meanies won't hand over on a silver platter was already being fought for by those centrist Dems. What else are you whining about not being given?

Perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong, I never presumed to tell anyone how to vote. Well, that's not true, I've probably more or less condemned anyone who is willing to support Trump, but I leave the Biden browbeating to my betters.

I'm a bit confused by your point? Are we talking about the progressives generally, who without a doubt were essential in Biden winning this election, or just about personalizations of my postings on this internet backwater. I understand if demonizing another's opinions on the ISF makes you feel better (it certainly does for me!), but let's not conflate your personal distaste for me personally as anything actually relevant to electoral politics.

I'll ask again. What did the progressive movement do to hinder Biden's win? What progressive leaders were out there trying to stymie his campaign? All available evidence is that they went to bat for him and really helped to drive out the base to vote, including in several key swing states that cinched the election for Biden. Do you dispute this?

Let's keep it simple shall we. Do you think progressives are being unreasonable when complaining about Biden's staff selections? Are they being uncharitable to their characterizations of these people, who have long, documented political histories, and assuming they will continue to advocate these bad policies? Is it inappropriate to complain about these people now, when there's actually a chance to change course and select another person, rather than waiting until after the damage is done?

Must the progressives wait until the Biden administration has completed it's stint in office before complaining that these people obviously don't have their best interests in mind?

 

[wareyin]

I'm a bit confused by your point?

I don't believe you are. It appears convenient to pretend you are, but you don't normally seem to struggle with simple concepts so much.

Are we talking about the progressives generally, who without a doubt were essential in Biden winning this election, or just about personalizations of my postings on this internet backwater.

A bit of a false dichotomy there, huh? Are you so vain as to claim to be the one progressive using those tactics to harm a Biden campaign in the general election? And that you only did so here and nowhere else? I think not. You didn't come up with the claims, you simply ran with the claims everyone else in your circle was making.

Once that tactic failed, you grudgingly voted in your own self interest. And now you want some sort of reward and/or praise for it. "After we stopped trying to convince everyone not to vote for Biden he won, so we were essential to that win" misrepresents your role.

I'll ask again. What did the progressive movement do to hinder Biden's win? What progressive leaders were out there trying to stymie his campaign? All available evidence is that they went to bat for him and really helped to drive out the base to vote, including in several key swing states that cinched the election for Biden. Do you dispute this?

Went to bat for Biden? Who? Where? How? What exactly did they do? I certainly never saw anything.

Let's keep it simple shall we. Do you think progressives are being unreasonable when complaining about Biden's staff selections? Are they being uncharitable to their characterizations of these people, who have long, documented political histories, and assuming they will continue to advocate these bad policies? Is it inappropriate to complain about these people now, when there's actually a chance to change course and select another person, rather than waiting until after the damage is done?

Must the progressives wait until the Biden administration has completed it's stint in office before complaining that these people obviously don't have their best interests in mind?

I think the progressives are going to complain unreasonably no matter who is selected or how many more policies they support get enacted by those ebil centrist meanies. I think this because they already are, and have been doing so a long time.

 

[Donal]

Asking you to flesh out your vague handwaving is not showing what a joke anything is. So your examples are marijuana legalization, Medicaid expansion, and minimum wage increases. Minimum wage increases were passed and praised by Pelosi in the House last year, Medicaid expansion was a huge part of the ACA back in 2009/2010. Marijuana legalization was being pushed at the national level by mainstream Democrats in the House earlier this year.

"praised" and "pushed" speaking of hand waving. show me the action. Show me where they did something to make this a reality.

The fact that you didn't know any of that was mainstream Democratic stuff is the joke, I'm afraid.

they did nothing. Not a goddamned thing about it.

Why was the House passing all of this stuff under mainstream Democratic leadership?

Because of Progressive gains. and even then 6 Dems opposed the Raise the Wage Act vs 3 Republicans that supported it. And the marijuana legalization bills provide ways for hedge funds to buy in but not to expunge the records and free nonviolent drug offenders. Which lines up with well know progressive *checks notes* John Boehner.

Yes, states are not monoliths. Finally you have said something about politics that wasn't misleading or flat out wrong. It's still silly to act like electing a Democrat to the Senate from California is exciting stuff though.

Did you intentionally conflate the Senate with the House of Representatives? or are you that in over your head?

Bloomberg and Giuliani were both Republican and Democratic at different parts of their career. I don't think New York Mayors who swap parties when convenient helps your case.

When one gets welcomed with open arms by the party leadership, it does.

To be clear, you are saying that not winning a seat means your political group is either inept or doesn't care? Are you sure that's a winning message for the progressives right now?

No, I'm asking if you think Porter and Levin flipping those seats was so easy, why didn't the Dems do it already?

I ignored the others because they were all either out of office, or not even Google knew who they were.

Ya, you're in over your head. Maybe just watch and listen for a little while.

Manchin, a Republican in all but name, was the only active politician you listed. As he is such a bad example to use to demonstrate mainstream Democratic politicians, and he was the one you lead with, your point fails.

No, he is just inconvenient for you.

If you are unaware of Democrats speaking out against Republican ads and Republican actions that "would have been at home in 1930s Germany," I humbly suggest you open a newspaper, watch the news, or even any media source that is supported by advertising during the election.

Or you can support your claim, as is what you're supposed to do here.