Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-28-2019, 03:07 AM
Reply's Avatar
Reply is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,625

Was the Democratic Party always such a spineless shitshow?


Biden, particularly, is just another Hillary with a dick (one presumes) and no backbone, no vision whatsoever, just a thirst for power and an eagerness to sacrifice all of his values to the highest bidder. Nasty shit, there.

When the Democratic Party become this way? Climate change... evade, evade. Top concerns, evade, evade... only the not-normally-Dems were willing to say "it's all fucked."

Why do you even need Republicans if the Dems are just willing to bend over and take it? When did they lose their vision for, well, absolutely anything at all?
  #2  
Old 06-28-2019, 03:24 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,397
I've been calling them the Scared Rabbit Party since I don't know when. Dubya's first term, probably.
  #3  
Old 06-28-2019, 05:34 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,675
You're not helping your cause.
  #4  
Old 06-28-2019, 08:46 AM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,687
Biden wasn't the only person who spoke the last two nights. There are several non-rabbits in the bunch.
  #5  
Old 06-28-2019, 09:44 AM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,859
What? I don't agree with any of the O.P.

This reads like a pitch-perfect description of the Republican Party:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reply View Post
...no backbone, no vision whatsoever, just a thirst for power and an eagerness to sacrifice all of [their] values to the highest bidder. Nasty shit, there.
  #6  
Old 06-28-2019, 10:45 AM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,043
I thought this thread would be about the border security funding bill.
  #7  
Old 06-28-2019, 11:12 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,233
For as long as I've been watching, yes.

I think a lot of it comes down to the 60s, 70s and 80s. Carter, Dukakis, McGovern, Humphrey, losing the southern white vote and rural white vote. Then the billionaire class made it clear the democratic agenda was not acceptable.

Democrats are terrified if they do anything that anyone finds controversial that they will lose like dukakis did.

I think the last time the democrats had a spine was lbj and fdr.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #8  
Old 06-28-2019, 11:12 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,526
Because the Republicans sucked all the evil out of the room.
  #9  
Old 06-28-2019, 11:40 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,947
Probably Reagan v. Mondale 1984, when it became clear that good policy doesn't necessarily win elections when faced with simple emotional appeals. And the good policy without winning elections is as valuable as a million dollar check with no signature.
  #10  
Old 06-28-2019, 01:12 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,233
Something the far left doesn't realize is there are actually a lot of moderates and centrists in America, in fact more people identify as "moderate" than "liberal." Among Democratic voters (i.e. the people the party is supposed to advocate for in governance) there are more moderates than liberals. I find it bizarre how many leftists and progressives don't realize a lot of these "cowardly" politicians aren't cowards at all. They just aren't leftists. They pretend to nod to your stupid and intractable political movement because they have to do so in order to get out of the primary, then they actually run as themselves when talking to the country--the majority of whom are not zany leftists who want everyone's health insurance taken away and replaced by a government program and who want to pay reparations to the great-great-great grandchildren of slaves.

Are there craven and cowardly politicians, who do vacuously jump from position to position with no spine? Sure. Mitt Romney is a great example. John Kerry is probably another one. Biden and Hillary? I think they're just legitimate centrists, most of their policy positions have decades of history and rational change behind them. Both have done a few flips or flops or singular issues for political expediency, but to my observation neither showed signs of just changing their entire political DNA at a whim (as Romney actually has.) It's kind of like Barack Obama had to come out as being against gay marriage in 2008 even though he almost certainly wasn't. I don't think that made him a "spineless politician", I think Barack mostly stayed true to his political positions in 2008 and as President. He probably regrets the gay marriage flip, and he eventually flipped back. But most politicians actually elected to high office have probably made "bitter compromises", the ones who don't have a name: Bernie Sanders, who has accomplished nothing of substance in 30 years in government.

Last edited by Martin Hyde; 06-28-2019 at 01:13 PM.
  #11  
Old 06-28-2019, 04:41 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
Something the far left doesn't realize is there are actually a lot of moderates and centrists in America, in fact more people identify as "moderate" than "liberal." Among Democratic voters (i.e. the people the party is supposed to advocate for in governance) there are more moderates than liberals. I find it bizarre how many leftists and progressives don't realize a lot of these "cowardly" politicians aren't cowards at all. They just aren't leftists. They pretend to nod to your stupid and intractable political movement because they have to do so in order to get out of the primary, then they actually run as themselves when talking to the country--the majority of whom are not zany leftists who want everyone's health insurance taken away and replaced by a government program and who want to pay reparations to the great-great-great grandchildren of slaves.

Are there craven and cowardly politicians, who do vacuously jump from position to position with no spine? Sure. Mitt Romney is a great example. John Kerry is probably another one. Biden and Hillary? I think they're just legitimate centrists, most of their policy positions have decades of history and rational change behind them. Both have done a few flips or flops or singular issues for political expediency, but to my observation neither showed signs of just changing their entire political DNA at a whim (as Romney actually has.) It's kind of like Barack Obama had to come out as being against gay marriage in 2008 even though he almost certainly wasn't. I don't think that made him a "spineless politician", I think Barack mostly stayed true to his political positions in 2008 and as President. He probably regrets the gay marriage flip, and he eventually flipped back. But most politicians actually elected to high office have probably made "bitter compromises", the ones who don't have a name: Bernie Sanders, who has accomplished nothing of substance in 30 years in government.
On the issues, the majority of the public are liberal. And over 50% of the democratic party now identify as liberal, up from maybe 30% around 20 years ago.

Also as a leftist I've watched the GOP become more and more conservative, insane and authoritarian and it hasn't hurt them in the polls in the slightest. So I don't understand why conservatives telling democrats we can't follow our values should be heeded. Conservatives have followed their values and it doesn't hurt them.

The reality is most voters are either locked into one of the two parties, or they are low information voters who barely understand what is happening. Neither group is going to be negatively affected by a partisan swing.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #12  
Old 06-28-2019, 06:35 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
So I don't understand why conservatives telling democrats we can't follow our values should be heeded. Conservatives have followed their values and it doesn't hurt them.
There's an important difference in the normal voters both parties have. Let's take a look at the most recent Gallup poll. They've been tracking self identified political ideology since 1992.

Overall the US is 35% conservative, 35% moderate, and 26% liberal.

By party affiliation:
- Democrats: 51% liberal, 34% moderate, and 13% conservative. You are nominally correct. Given the margin of error for the poll the party is basically equally split between liberal and not liberals. Any claims of a liberal majority are effectively meaningless.
- Republicans: 73% conservative, 22% moderate, 4% liberal.
- Independents: 28% conservative, 45% moderate, 22% liberal.

The GOP has an almost 3 to 1 ratios between conservatives and non-conservatives. They rely more on independent votes that pulls in more moderates. Still the party skews solidly conservative and generally campaigns like it. The Democratic party is effectively equally split between liberals and non-liberals. The party looks like a coalition between a solidly left party and a center left party-party systems. That compromise with the center matters quite a bit more for Democrats than it does for Republicans. Presidential candidates ignore that reality at their general election peril.

Last edited by DinoR; 06-28-2019 at 06:36 PM.
  #13  
Old 06-28-2019, 07:42 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,540
Thing is there is a wide spread of what is "liberal"... that slim majority would self-identify as liberal but not as hard Left. So for example, an overwhelming majority of Ds prefer their candidate to be willing to work together with the opposition to get shit done, including making compromises. The OP would think of that as "spineless" but it is by far the majority opinion within the party.

Your values are not always "our" values. WE can agree that they are close to each other's and far from the far Rights values but just because we both identify as liberal does not mean we agree on all things.
  #14  
Old 06-28-2019, 08:05 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 20,518
*sigh* The Democratic Party is a political party. If you really and truly believe that a political party would arise that would be first and foremost devoted to making everything fair and providing a helping hand to all of the disenfranchised, while at the same time managing to receive corporate contributions on the scale that the Democratic Party receives them, you are insufficiently cynical.

The Democratic Party is the tightrope-walking party that likes to get those votes, the votes of people who do like the notion of making everything equal and fair, but it wants to do only as much of that as it must in order to make a sufficent number of those voters come to the polls; it does not want to jeopardize the investments it receives from the status quo, and it is a status quo party.

That's a little bit unfair, i suppose; the individual Democratic politicians often do want to make as much progress (in the sense of "a progressive party") as they possibly can. But they have a "realpolitik" attitude towards the corporate financial interests in America. I have the sense that what they wish for is for enough pragmatic concrete unavoidable reasons to emerge to push corporate America into a reluctant embrace of yet another progressive police. And when there's a critical mass thereof, they, the politicians, will push for it.

With regards to the Republicans, they don't want to retaliate in kind because their stock in trade is that reputation for fairness and for democratic participation. They seem to feel (with some justification) that if they don't look any different to voters than the Republicans, just another political party that cares about absolutely nothing but increasing their own power, that they'll lose more than they gain.
  #15  
Old 06-28-2019, 08:17 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
<snip>
You're a conservative, right? If I tried to tell you what the GOP needed to do, would you listen?
  #16  
Old 06-29-2019, 12:01 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
On the issues, the majority of the public are liberal. And over 50% of the democratic party now identify as liberal, up from maybe 30% around 20 years ago.

Also as a leftist I've watched the GOP become more and more conservative, insane and authoritarian and it hasn't hurt them in the polls in the slightest. So I don't understand why conservatives telling democrats we can't follow our values should be heeded. Conservatives have followed their values and it doesn't hurt them.

The reality is most voters are either locked into one of the two parties, or they are low information voters who barely understand what is happening. Neither group is going to be negatively affected by a partisan swing.
It looks like you're correct about the present-tense, but it doesn't actually change the argument. When people blast the Dem's political leadership for being spineless it's often directed at long term figures of the party, like the Clintons, Biden, etc. For the vast, vast majority of those politicians careers the Democrats were not >50% liberal (a number that on researching it further, appears to have not happened until 2018.) There's also little evidence to me that most of these politicians were "closet leftists who pretended to be centrists."

To me, it's spineless to pretend to be someone you're not because you'd rather have a cushy government job than stand up for your actual political beliefs. I see very little evidence guys like Biden, either of the Clintons, Pelosi, Senator Chuck, Steny Hoyer etc are secretly ultra-liberals and have just been pretending different for decades. These people largely reflect a very mainstream set of positions within the Democratic party, even if those positions may not be mainstream on the (infamously leftist) SDMB, or other far left internet communities like Daily Kos etc.

I point to someone like Mitt Romney as my example of spineless because he appears to have no meaningful political positions. When he tried to beat Ted Kennedy for Senate in the early 90s in Massachusetts he was quick to defend himself as pro-choice, and had a number of other frankly liberal positions. Was that the real Mitt? I don't know, it'd be weird for someone raised in a traditional Mormon household to be pro-choice, but maybe it was. But that Mitt later ran for Governor of Massachusetts and ran Massachusetts for four years. Then later had two runs for President, during which he magically shifted on healthcare, abortion, and almost every other meaningful political position he has ever held. I don't believe that was a "genuine evolution", I think that is spineless political opportunism.

Can you find that in the Democratic party? Sure. But I struggle to identify any of the major, national-figure Democrats who really fit that definition. I'd suggest maybe Bill Clinton does, because he actually had a history before he was President of being at least outwardly fairly liberal (although this wasn't dramatically reflected by his actual actions as Arkansas Governor, and after the 1994 Midterms all of his rhetoric permanently shifted rightward.) Hillary on the other hand had a pretty consistent set of policy positions, some of which she maintained as First Lady in spite of them probably costing her politically, and she only gradually changed them over many years, generally following a process through which many Americans changed their opinions over time. That's a real process--America didn't go from thinking of gay marriage as an aberrant monstrosity in the 90s to mostly accepting it in the 2010s because literally all the old people died, a huge portion of the country had a genuine change of heart on the topic. The various crime bills represent a similar issue, a lot of younger people probably don't remember it but crime was genuinely very high in the 70s and 80s and into the early 90s, before it started its famous, long decline. Crime was promoted as a catastrophic thing in our country, on the nightly news, all the "news magazine" shows like 20/20, 60 Minutes, it felt like half the TV shows of the 80s/early 90s were crime shows set in the major cities, which were frequently depicted as dystopian hellscapes. A huge portion of the country was outraged about crime and severely angered by what they saw as an overly lax criminal justice system. It's not at all surprising that politicians of the time would have shared similar views and acted accordingly.

It's also not surprising as higher quality sociological/terminological research has been done, as the consequences of these actions have been examined over the following decades, that people have a natural shift in positions. I don't think Biden was spineless for supporting the heavy handed criminal justice reforms of the 90s because most of the country genuinely thought they were necessary and proper. I don't think he's spineless for going back on his views 30 years later, because most of the country has had a chance to learn better.

I would also warn when you say most of the country wants "liberal policies", you need to actually dig a little deeper into the reality on that. Medicare for All is remarkable in how well it polls when people know the least about it, before even addressing that it would entail people losing their private insurance, if you just mention it will raise taxes, support for it falls to the mid-30s/low-40s in various polls, making it not even a majority position anymore. Slavery reparations I think are opposed by something like 80% of White America, which is the kind of number that means you're angering more people than you can afford to anger and still win a national campaign in the electoral college--food for thought, the GOP doesn't plan to let you guys keep the details vague on these things.
  #17  
Old 06-29-2019, 12:14 PM
Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,765
In very general terms, Democratic party voters want to have thoughtful solutions to the many problems in the country. They want these solutions to work, and to help as many people as possible. They often disagree on how to implement these solutions or which problem is most important. They require that politicians follow certain norms, and if they do not, they are tossed (Al Franken). A major source of discord is how the party should treat corporations - some in the party are happy to take corporate money and work on behalf of corporations. Others distrust corporations, and want to see them completely disengaged from the political process. Others want corporations eliminated entirely. The Democratic Party has to walk a fine line, and not piss off any of these disparate factions.

In fighting an election, most Democratic voters want to hear truthful, positive statements from their candidates. There is little tolerance among most for lying, or attacks (to a degree, some are "allowed", but egregious lying or attacks are not). There is a sense of "fair play" and honour. Again, this is generally true. There are certainly exceptions, but there is a tendency to return to the mean - generally fair play. For some, this is called "spineless."

Republican voters, on the other hand, value winning and strength first and foremost. Winning the game (and it is a game) is everything. They like simplistic solutions to complex problems - sometimes because they really don't understand the complexity, and solutions that look at multiple points of view confuse them and make them feel stupid. Give them a simple soundbite every time. It really does not matter how you win, because the whole point is to win. Lies and attacks are OK with these voters. In fact, as we have seen recently, baseless attacks, name calling and juvenile language coming from the White House is celebrated. These voters like bullies. This is called "strength".
  #18  
Old 06-29-2019, 12:20 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,397
I don't think the spinelessness is inherently about moderate v. liberal. The ACA was a fundamentally moderate program, and most Dems ran away from it in 2010 through 2016 like it was a fire at a toxic chemical plant.
  #19  
Old 06-29-2019, 02:37 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reply View Post
Biden, particularly, is just another Hillary with a dick (one presumes) and no backbone, no vision whatsoever, just a thirst for power and an eagerness to sacrifice all of his values to the highest bidder. Nasty shit, there.

When the Democratic Party become this way? Climate change... evade, evade. Top concerns, evade, evade... only the not-normally-Dems were willing to say "it's all fucked."

Why do you even need Republicans if the Dems are just willing to bend over and take it? When did they lose their vision for, well, absolutely anything at all?
Nice propaganda there, did it come from the kremlin or directly from trump?

Climate change? No evasions. Every Dem candidate I have seen believes in it and wants to work towards helping end it. Most GOP candidates wont accept the science and are just burying their heads in the sand. Or the politicos KNOW Global warming is here, but are afraid to say anything. Spineless.

And the GOP? who there is willing to stand up to trump or McConnel?? Who is willing to call out the pussy grabber? Who will admit that trump got aid from the kremlin?

Was the Republican Party always such a spineless shitshow?
  #20  
Old 06-29-2019, 02:57 PM
enipla is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Colorado Rockies.
Posts: 14,499
If being honest, decent and kind makes you spineless, I'm on board.
__________________
I don't live in the middle of nowhere, but I can see it from here.
  #21  
Old 06-29-2019, 03:14 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by enipla View Post
If being honest, decent and kind makes you spineless, I'm on board.
Having the courage of one's convictions doesn't make a person any less honest, decent, and kind. These qualities are orthogonal to each other.

When Alison Lundergan Grimes ran for Senate against Mitch McConnell in 2014, for instance, her reluctance to even admit to having voted for Obama didn't make her any more decent or kind, and probably made her less honest to boot.
  #22  
Old 06-29-2019, 05:19 PM
Aescwynn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 56
Reparations are not going to fly, though higher earned income credits or guaranteed basic income might. Medicare-for-all has next to no chance, while "Medicare for all who want it," as Mayor Pete proposes, is much more possible. Buttigieg also points out that it's not fair for lower-income people to have to subsidize college expenses for people who will end up earning a lot more than they do. A path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented people in America will be a hard sell, if it has any chance at all.

What choice do Democrats have but to lean toward the middle? Are they spineless or just realistic? There's a real Catch 22 situation at work.

David Brooks on the perils of pulling too far to the left:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/o...bate-2020.html

Last edited by Aescwynn; 06-29-2019 at 05:22 PM.
  #23  
Old 06-29-2019, 09:49 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
Something the far left doesn't realize is there are actually a lot of moderates and centrists in America, in fact more people identify as "moderate" than "liberal."
Among my conservative friends I'm a politically correct, tax-and-spend liberal who tells a good joke. Among my progressive friends, I'm a friendly old, suburban, white guy who means well, but wants to hang on to what he is because he's too old to start over.

And all I can say in response to all of them is, "if you piss me off enough, I won't vote for either of you."
  #24  
Old 06-30-2019, 08:52 AM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
It looks like you're correct about the present-tense, but it doesn't actually change the argument. When people blast the Dem's political leadership for being spineless it's often directed at long term figures of the party, like the Clintons, Biden, etc. For the vast, vast majority of those politicians careers the Democrats were not >50% liberal (a number that on researching it further, appears to have not happened until 2018.) There's also little evidence to me that most of these politicians were "closet leftists who pretended to be centrists."

To me, it's spineless to pretend to be someone you're not because you'd rather have a cushy government job than stand up for your actual political beliefs. I see very little evidence guys like Biden, either of the Clintons, Pelosi, Senator Chuck, Steny Hoyer etc are secretly ultra-liberals and have just been pretending different for decades. These people largely reflect a very mainstream set of positions within the Democratic party, even if those positions may not be mainstream on the (infamously leftist) SDMB, or other far left internet communities like Daily Kos etc.

I point to someone like Mitt Romney as my example of spineless because he appears to have no meaningful political positions. When he tried to beat Ted Kennedy for Senate in the early 90s in Massachusetts he was quick to defend himself as pro-choice, and had a number of other frankly liberal positions. Was that the real Mitt? I don't know, it'd be weird for someone raised in a traditional Mormon household to be pro-choice, but maybe it was. But that Mitt later ran for Governor of Massachusetts and ran Massachusetts for four years. Then later had two runs for President, during which he magically shifted on healthcare, abortion, and almost every other meaningful political position he has ever held. I don't believe that was a "genuine evolution", I think that is spineless political opportunism.

Can you find that in the Democratic party? Sure. But I struggle to identify any of the major, national-figure Democrats who really fit that definition. I'd suggest maybe Bill Clinton does, because he actually had a history before he was President of being at least outwardly fairly liberal (although this wasn't dramatically reflected by his actual actions as Arkansas Governor, and after the 1994 Midterms all of his rhetoric permanently shifted rightward.) Hillary on the other hand had a pretty consistent set of policy positions, some of which she maintained as First Lady in spite of them probably costing her politically, and she only gradually changed them over many years, generally following a process through which many Americans changed their opinions over time. That's a real process--America didn't go from thinking of gay marriage as an aberrant monstrosity in the 90s to mostly accepting it in the 2010s because literally all the old people died, a huge portion of the country had a genuine change of heart on the topic. The various crime bills represent a similar issue, a lot of younger people probably don't remember it but crime was genuinely very high in the 70s and 80s and into the early 90s, before it started its famous, long decline. Crime was promoted as a catastrophic thing in our country, on the nightly news, all the "news magazine" shows like 20/20, 60 Minutes, it felt like half the TV shows of the 80s/early 90s were crime shows set in the major cities, which were frequently depicted as dystopian hellscapes. A huge portion of the country was outraged about crime and severely angered by what they saw as an overly lax criminal justice system. It's not at all surprising that politicians of the time would have shared similar views and acted accordingly.

It's also not surprising as higher quality sociological/terminological research has been done, as the consequences of these actions have been examined over the following decades, that people have a natural shift in positions. I don't think Biden was spineless for supporting the heavy handed criminal justice reforms of the 90s because most of the country genuinely thought they were necessary and proper. I don't think he's spineless for going back on his views 30 years later, because most of the country has had a chance to learn better.

I would also warn when you say most of the country wants "liberal policies", you need to actually dig a little deeper into the reality on that. Medicare for All is remarkable in how well it polls when people know the least about it, before even addressing that it would entail people losing their private insurance, if you just mention it will raise taxes, support for it falls to the mid-30s/low-40s in various polls, making it not even a majority position anymore. Slavery reparations I think are opposed by something like 80% of White America, which is the kind of number that means you're angering more people than you can afford to anger and still win a national campaign in the electoral college--food for thought, the GOP doesn't plan to let you guys keep the details vague on these things.
Our definition of spineless is different then. You seem to feel spineless means taking up whatever political position gets a 51% approval rate. So if being pro-choice is 51%+ approval Mitt Romney is pro choice. If being pro-life is 51% approval, Romney is pro-life. Personally I think Obama acted the same way. He appeared to be much more leftward in the 90s on issues like health care and LGBT rights when he was a state senator, then moderated his positions when running for president a decade later.

However the definition of spineless I"m using is being unwilling to use legal tools to achieve your goals, or being unwilling to stand up for your beliefs. The democrats don't gerrymander like the GOP does. They don't engage in voter suppression. When a GOP politician loses an election they fight back, when a democrat loses they cave and give up. They don't obstruct everything they possibly can in the senate. They don't engage in massive dishonesty, projection and gaslighting of the public like the GOP does. It feels like hte GOP will use every tool in the toolbox to achieve their goals, the democrats will only use 30% of the tools. That makes them spineless. Granted democracy is more important than winning, but right now the GOP has descended into an anti-democracy, neo-fascist, white nationalist party that encourages treason, so they have to be stopped.

Liberal policies like universal health care, gun control, addressing climate change, progressive taxes, importation of Rx meds from overseas, overturning citizens united, expanding voter rights, stronger regulations on the financial industry, higher minimum wage, upholding Roe v Wade, etc poll very well with the public. Yes some of them have less support when you get into the details (will UHC or climate change raise taxes for example) but many of these policies do not require tax increases.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #25  
Old 06-30-2019, 07:24 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
However the definition of spineless I"m using is being unwilling to use legal tools to achieve your goals, or being unwilling to stand up for your beliefs. The democrats don't gerrymander like the GOP does. They don't engage in voter suppression. When a GOP politician loses an election they fight back, when a democrat loses they cave and give up. They don't obstruct everything they possibly can in the senate. They don't engage in massive dishonesty, projection and gaslighting of the public like the GOP does.
I'm totally good with using every available tool that works directly against the power of the other party. Kill the filibuster, DC and PR statehood to get more Dem Senators, then pack the courts - I'm down with all of that.

But I'm 100% against the Dems using tools that would be used directly against the voters, and only hurt the GOP through acting against the citizenry. Whose side are we on? We're supposedly on the side of the people, and against what Roosevelt called the "malefactors of great wealth." If we have to gerrymander, engage in voter suppression, and engage in massive dishonesty (isn't the truth about the GOP devastating enough?) to win, I want nothing to do with it.
  #26  
Old 06-30-2019, 10:41 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,233
I don't know where I stand anymore, because I see the GOP as the biggest threat to democracy we face. ISIS just blows up buildings, they aren't dismantling democracy piece by piece like the GOP are. So the GOP have to be stopped.

Gerrymandering will probably be necessary, like it or not now that the 5 conservative SC judges said gerrymandering is legal. If every red state is heavily gerrymandered and every blue and purple state is fair, that means the democrats have to win elections by 5-10% just to break even.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #27  
Old 07-01-2019, 10:05 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,753
The main problem with today's Democrats was best articulated by William Butler Yeats. "The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity."

What we really need are a few middle-of-the-road extremists.
  #28  
Old 07-01-2019, 07:45 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
Something the far left doesn't realize is there are actually a lot of moderates and centrists in America, in fact more people identify as "moderate" than "liberal." Among Democratic voters (i.e. the people the party is supposed to advocate for in governance) there are more moderates than liberals. I find it bizarre how many leftists and progressives don't realize a lot of these "cowardly" politicians aren't cowards at all. They just aren't leftists.
Here is a better example of spinelessness.

In 2016 Obama wanted McConnell to be bipartisan and say that the Russians were hacking our election. McConnell obviously said no, but on top of that he told Obama 'if you talk about this, we will make fun of you and call you names'.

Obama bowed his head and did whatever McConnell told him to do, because he was scared of being called names and being made fun of by republicans.

Fast forward to three years later and the Mueller report is out. What is one of the major talking points of the GOP? "Why didn't Obama stop this". Obama did what McConnell told him to do because he was afraid of being made fun of, and now the GOP is making fun of him anyway for the thing he caved in over. Even Democrats blame McConnell, but Obama deserves a lot of the blame. Obama doesn't answer to McConnell. Would Trump bow his head and do whatever Chuck Schumer told him to do if Schumer said 'we will make fun of you unless you do what we say'? No he wouldn't.

Things like that are why the democrats are spineless.

Here is another example.

CT democrats are looking at health reform. One part of health reform is a public option which would drive down prices and drive up choices. It is supported by the majority of the public.

Cigna told the governor if they passed a public option, they would be mad. The very next day the democrats gave up. It took the democrats one day to give up on their public option plan because rich people said they'd be mad.

Republicans threaten to leave Oregon. Democrats promise to pull bills on vaccinations and gun control. Republicans leave anyway. Democrats then find they don't have the votes for a climate change bill despite a majority in congress.

Things like that are why the democrats are spineless. All it takes is someone threatening to be mad at them and they'll fold like a cheap suit. And the person threatening them will be mean to them anyway.

Obama did what McConnell told him to do because he was scared of being made fun of. And he got made fun of anyway. Its pathetic.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 07-01-2019 at 07:46 PM.
  #29  
Old 07-01-2019, 08:16 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,195
I endorse the general tone and central ideas of Wesley's post.
  #30  
Old 07-01-2019, 08:35 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,505
Democrats have principles but no spine. Republicans have spine but no principles. That's just how it is.

What caused the GOP takeover in 2010 was Democrats' total unwillingness to push back against the lies that Republicans told about the ACA. "Death panels" put several state legislatures in the hands of Republicans just in time to reap the benefits of gerrymandering following the 2010 census. Obama himself was particularly inept at defending his own law, giving inane babble about red pills and blue pills. Add that to the nincompoops who had totally worthless cheapo health insurance and when they had to upgrade and pay more due to the ACA, whined "Waaaaah! Obama said if I like my insurance I could keep it!"

Ask yourself, what would Trey Gowdy have done if Obama had been accused of rape? I'll tell you what, Congress would have done NOTHING but hold endless hearings about it. Now our fourth estate completely ignores the story, with the excuse "well, people knew he was a philandering sexual predator in 2016 so who cares?"

Last edited by BobLibDem; 07-01-2019 at 08:35 PM.
  #31  
Old 07-01-2019, 09:04 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,616
It has been almost two months since the treasury department refused a legal demand for Trump’s tax returns. The Democrats have taken no action. Why would anyone comply with any of their demands?
  #32  
Old 07-01-2019, 09:56 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Democrats have principles but no spine. Republicans have spine but no principles. That's just how it is.

What caused the GOP takeover in 2010 was Democrats' total unwillingness to push back against the lies that Republicans told about the ACA. "Death panels" put several state legislatures in the hands of Republicans just in time to reap the benefits of gerrymandering following the 2010 census. Obama himself was particularly inept at defending his own law, giving inane babble about red pills and blue pills. Add that to the nincompoops who had totally worthless cheapo health insurance and when they had to upgrade and pay more due to the ACA, whined "Waaaaah! Obama said if I like my insurance I could keep it!"

Ask yourself, what would Trey Gowdy have done if Obama had been accused of rape? I'll tell you what, Congress would have done NOTHING but hold endless hearings about it. Now our fourth estate completely ignores the story, with the excuse "well, people knew he was a philandering sexual predator in 2016 so who cares?"
Yup. Impeachment would've happened a long long time ago if Obama did 1/10 of what Trump has done.

Democrats are terrified people will not like them or be mean to them if they impeach. The GOP doesn't give a fuck if people like them or if they are mean to them.

Democrats never figure things out. A big part of why they lost in 2010 was that they were so spineless, disorganized and incompetent that their voters didn't feel motivated to vote for them in 2010.

In 2008, 65 million democrats and 52 million republicans voted for federal house candidates.

In 2010, it was 39 million democrats and 45 million republicans.

26 million people who voted for democrats in the house in 2008 stayed home in 2010, but only 7 million republicans stayed home. People didn't switch parties, but nearly 30 million democrats figured 'why bother' and didn't show up to vote after seeing how the democrats used the power they were given.

Democrats didn't give their voters a reason to show up and vote for them. They act like spineless pussies terrified of being called names. They don't use the power they are given. The laws they pass are tepid half measures at best. Obama did some good things in his first two years (stimulus ended the great recession and started job growth. The ACA was a step in the right direction). But both were half measures designed not to offend right wing extremists or the rich.

Then when their voters get demoralized and stay home the democrats stay 'lets become even more passive and terrified of our own shadows'

Its a fucking shit show. There is no other way to put it.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 07-01-2019 at 09:57 PM.
  #33  
Old 07-01-2019, 10:53 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Democrats have principles but no spine. Republicans have spine but no principles. That's just how it is.
..."
The GOP has no spine. ...or principles.
  #34  
Old 07-01-2019, 11:35 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Here is a better example of spinelessness.

In 2016 Obama wanted McConnell to be bipartisan and say that the Russians were hacking our election. McConnell obviously said no, but on top of that he told Obama 'if you talk about this, we will make fun of you and call you names'.
What? Why would Obama care that much about being called names? He wasn't running for office again.
  #35  
Old 07-01-2019, 11:38 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,207

Was the Democratic Party always such a spineless shitshow?


Yes. Well, there was that one time a bunch of them seceded after a Republican was elected president, but since then it's been "spineless shitshow" pretty much 24/7.
  #36  
Old 07-02-2019, 07:31 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,505
A lot of people don't realize that Democrats and Republicans have switched positions on race since the Civil Rights Act. The generations of Democrats in the south who opposed Republican-led Reconstruction and embraced racism and resisted integration all became Republicans within 15 years of the passage of CRA.

Democrats had plenty of spine when it came to establishing Social Security and Medicare, when it came to fighting the Nazis and Japanese, when it came to challenging the nation to get to the moon. Time to find the spine again and impeach the traitorous crooked sexual predating racist rapist in chief.
  #37  
Old 07-02-2019, 07:02 PM
Translucent Daydream is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
I endorse the general tone and central ideas of Wesley's post.
Thats how I feel as well. I'm a true independent voter. Democrats seem spineless to me, but I like their policy positions a lot of the time. They will never get it done because they seem like a bunch of pansies.

I don't like a lot of the Republican positions but I have a lot more faith in them getting it done. They stay the hell on message and aren't afraid of a fight.

Its a shame that the Republicans are so gerrymandered because if they actually had to do the will of their constituents (not the pitch fork stuff, like fix healthcare, fix immigration) they might not be so scary.

My 2 cents anyway.
__________________
I promise it’s not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #38  
Old 07-02-2019, 07:05 PM
Translucent Daydream is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Grand Valley
Posts: 1,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
What? Why would Obama care that much about being called names? He wasn't running for office again.
It was my impression that he didn't want to look to be swinging the vote one way or the other. I mean he was fucked either way looking back at 2016 from the clarity of 2019, but if he said anything about "russians are trying to help trump" that would have been a whole other shit show. I mean we have a shit show now so who cares, am I right?
__________________
I promise it’s not as bad or as good as you think it is.
  #39  
Old 07-02-2019, 07:07 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
A lot of people don't realize that Democrats and Republicans have switched positions on race since the Civil Rights Act. The generations of Democrats in the south who opposed Republican-led Reconstruction and embraced racism and resisted integration all became Republicans within 15 years of the passage of CRA.

Democrats had plenty of spine when it came to establishing Social Security and Medicare, when it came to fighting the Nazis and Japanese, when it came to challenging the nation to get to the moon. Time to find the spine again and impeach the traitorous crooked sexual predating racist rapist in chief.
Yeah but back then southern whites were all democrats. Now the south is very heavily republican. The democrats had supermajorities back then.

But then again, in several blue states the democrats have supermajorities. Some northeast states or west coast states and in those states the democrats are still pussies.

As I mentioned upthread, the democrats in Connecticut were considering health reform. Cigna threatened to be mean to them so they gave up in one day. Even when the democrats aren't in danger of losing their majority, they're still terrified of people being mean to them.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 07-02-2019 at 07:08 PM.
  #40  
Old 07-02-2019, 07:23 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 4,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes. Well, there was that one time a bunch of them seceded after a Republican was elected president, but since then it's been "spineless shitshow" pretty much 24/7.
Back then, the Democrats were Republicans, and the Republicans were Democrats. Republican presidents who are thought of in high regard, such as Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt were progressives and would have been Democrats in today's world. Possibly Eisenhower would too. All the great U.S. Presidents have been on the progressive rather than conservative side of politics. The best Republican/conservative president is therefore probably Ronald Reagan.
  #41  
Old 07-02-2019, 08:15 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,233
Here is a simple trick to cut through all of the confusing political realignments.

Quote:
Whatever political party southern whites identify with, that party will be hostile to minorities and hostile to democracy.

Thats it. When southern whites are democrats, democrats are hostile to minorities and democracy (Jim Crow was very anti-democracy).

Now that southern whites are republicans, republicans are hostile to minorities and hostile to democracy (anti-free press, gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc).
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #42  
Old 07-09-2019, 06:27 AM
Two Many Cats is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,892
When did Obama flip back on marriage equality?
  #43  
Old 07-09-2019, 06:56 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
It has been almost two months since the treasury department refused a legal demand for Trump’s tax returns. The Democrats have taken no action. Why would anyone comply with any of their demands?
I think they did hold the AG in contempt. That had to hurt.
  #44  
Old 07-09-2019, 07:18 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Here is a simple trick to cut through all of the confusing political realignments.




Thats it. When southern whites are democrats, democrats are hostile to minorities and democracy (Jim Crow was very anti-democracy).

Now that southern whites are republicans, republicans are hostile to minorities and hostile to democracy (anti-free press, gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc).
This is a common belief (the idea that southerners are “hostile” to minorities). Maybe people outside of the South do not understand the racial dynamics at play. Outside of the South and certain urban neighborhoods, there are very few Black Americans. It is easy to judge other cultures, but nowadays we call that xenophobia.

During the Jim Crow era, we saw the Great Migration, understandably so. Today when migration is cheaper, easier, and more economically rewarding, we see no equivalent migration of blacks away from the South. Perhaps the issue is more complex than liberals in Lilly white america believe.
  #45  
Old 07-09-2019, 07:24 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 8,734
"Lilly white" areas tend to go Republican. Where people are mixed together in a multicultural environment, those areas tend to go Democratic.
  #46  
Old 07-09-2019, 07:27 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
"Lilly white" areas tend to go Republican. Where people are mixed together in a multicultural environment, those areas tend to go Democratic.
The South is by far the most “diverse” multicultural environment.
  #47  
Old 07-09-2019, 07:33 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
The South is by far the most “diverse” multicultural environment.
The South is still highly segregated, and southern black Americans are overwhelmingly Democratic, while southern white Americans are overwhelmingly Republican. Further, polling shows that southern white Americans have some of the highest responses for racist views like opposition to interracial marriage.

The most diverse multicultural environments in the US are large cities and metropolitan areas.
  #48  
Old 07-09-2019, 08:06 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The South is still highly segregated, and southern black Americans are overwhelmingly Democratic, while southern white Americans are overwhelmingly Republican. Further, polling shows that southern white Americans have some of the highest responses for racist views like opposition to interracial marriage.

The most diverse multicultural environments in the US are large cities and metropolitan areas.

From what I can tell, this is only half true - the South is absolutely more openly racist and "culturally segregated" (i.e. opposition to interracial marriage, blacks routinely being called "boy" without it causing a giant stink and so on) but it's also less geographically segregated than large cities like New York where things like school districting & housing discrimination are still skewed towards strict segregation. Cite.
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #49  
Old 07-09-2019, 08:27 AM
you with the face is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 12,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Then when their voters get demoralized and stay home the democrats stay 'lets become even more passive and terrified of our own shadows'
And then to add insult to injury, we have to listen to sympathetic narratives about the rural white working class and how ignored and unpandered to they are.

These people will never vote for a Dem, even if you promise them a million dollars worth of Golden Corral gift cards and a yacht. Yet here we are contorting our platforms for them and distancing ourselves from groups who are almost certain to vote Dem if you just make it easy for them.
  #50  
Old 07-09-2019, 12:21 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
This is a common belief (the idea that southerners are “hostile” to minorities). Maybe people outside of the South do not understand the racial dynamics at play. Outside of the South and certain urban neighborhoods, there are very few Black Americans. It is easy to judge other cultures, but nowadays we call that xenophobia.

During the Jim Crow era, we saw the Great Migration, understandably so. Today when migration is cheaper, easier, and more economically rewarding, we see no equivalent migration of blacks away from the South. Perhaps the issue is more complex than liberals in Lilly white america believe.
Whatever political party southern whites identify with will be the party that treats minorities like garbage and attempts to undermine democracy. This rule of thumb has held true for nearly 200 years and isn't going to change anytime soon.

You may not like it, but its still true. Also one reason that blacks many not be migrating out of the south as much is because in the 1960s a variety of laws were passed that the south objected to forcing the south to treat blacks like human beings. LBJ passed several laws doing this, and this is why southern whites stopped being democrats and became republicans, to protest LBJs laws on civil rights. The only time the south has treated minorities with respect is when the federal government forced them to against their will (the civil war, brown vs board of education, the 1960s civil rights reforms, etc)

Also are you really arguing the south wasn't hostile to minorities? I'm not saying the north was perfect, but you really have to whitewash history to pretend the south isn't hostile to minorities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
"Lilly white" areas tend to go Republican. Where people are mixed together in a multicultural environment, those areas tend to go Democratic.
Thats kind of true, but a lot depends on geography. The northeast is fairly lily white but they lean left. Vermont is almost all white but they are one of the most left leaning states out there. At the same time a nearly all white state like Idaho is very right leaning.

Also multicultural areas can be mixed. Large cities are multicultural and they lean left. But Mississippi and Texas have a lot of minorities and they lean right while a state like California that has a lot of minorities leans left.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 07-09-2019 at 12:22 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017