Funny thing about treating and being treated with respect: it tends to go both ways. Demanding it without giving it usually goes poorly. The coalition matters, so both sides should tolerate being criticized by the other and “disagree without being disagreeable.” And if one group consistently throws spitballs and blows raspberries, well … whining that they do not get responded to with the respect they demand rings as a bit hollow.
Kinda feel like spelling this out is ridiculous, but there it is. 
I don’t want to dismiss your concerns or act like they’re invalid. But the progressives aren’t wrong just because they aren’t acting like moderates. I need you to put yourselves in their shoes for just a minute, and evaluate your own words through their perspective:
“Emotional” is a loaded term. It’s the go to insult when you want to attack someone not because they are factually wrong, but simply because you are biased against them. But let’s accept that they are emotional in the sense that they are passionate. Why shouldn’t they be passionate? A hundred years from now (if this country still exists), people will be wondering why the heck everyone wasn’t clamoring for the changes they are clamoring for. Passion is just what we should expect when there is demagogue in the WH.
“Strategic”: what is that for the moderates? How many of us really know what Pelosi’s long game is? None of us in this thread are having any backroom conversations with her and she’s not showing us her hand publicly. I’m not arrogant enough to say I know anything about what’s she cooking up. All we really have to go on is faith. Which is an enormously unsettling position to be in for many of us, after the rather anticlimactic release of the Mueller report. If living by faith alone was easy for young, highly analytical types, so many of us wouldn’t be atheists. So you can tell yourself that Pelosis of the party are more strategic, but I can’t blame the more junior members for refusing to blindly accept that.
In contrast to the moderates, the progressives’ strategy is much more transparent and doesn’t obligate anyone to have faith. They aim to raise public awareness of the problems with the status quo, come out strong and unbending on issues they believe matter to the American people, and normalize progressive values rather than continue to treat these ideas like dirty taboos. Every time they are shushed or belittled by the so-called adults in the room (on both sides of the aisle), their supporters only see this as further evidence that they are scrappy underdogs fighting a noble fight.
Again, let us reflect on what the most popular president in our lifetimes was before he entered politics. He was a community organizer. An activist. When he went up against Hillary in the primary, she tried to pull the whole “adult in the room with a realistic strategic vision” thing and he soundly beat her. And the thing is, he didn’t position himself as being left of HRC; by her rhetoric, she ended up positioning herself as a righty tighty.
That’s what you see; other people see differently. At any rate, it makes sense that Pelosi, as Speaker, is the one “owning” Trump and not junior Congressmen. But if her “owning” him doesn’t eventually amount his removal, that’s not really “owning” anything.
In ONE POLL.
Going by 538’s average: depending on how you measure it, and excluding the first two months of his presidency, Trump is either just shy of his max, approval-wise, or is nearly a point below his best.
The former is from just looking at his positive approval alone (currently 42.7%, which Trump has matched or beaten a number of times in the past 14 months, mas of 42.9%).
The latter is from looking at approval minus disapproval. He’s currently minus 9.6%, but in the past 14 months, he’s gotten as good as minus 8.7%.
Being a moderate will not make climate change more bearable. Just sayin’.
I would ask this: is it the 40* Dems who defeated Republicans in swing districts in 2018 who are the obstacle to more progressive stances on the part of the House, or is it some portion of the ~190 Dems who are in safe districts?
I haven’t counted noses or anything, but my impression is that the resistance is largely from Congresspersons who’ve been around awhile.
ETA: *40 minus AOC and any others who won primaries in safe districts. Point still stands.
Let’s play … Name That Logical Fallacy!
How so? If the complaint against AOC is that she’s only able to take the stands she takes because she’s in a safe seat (that is, her primary was her only ‘real’ win, the general was automatic), let’s test the relevance of that complaint! Is it the Dems who won all those swing districts last year who are quailing in fear when AOC says the the things she does, or is it Dems who are also pretty safe?
Argue against the argument not over who you believe is making the argument.
Let us imagine I did some research and found a bunch of those who swung purple districts coming out and saying that being farther Left than their center Left positions would have lost the seat. Would that add to the strength of the argument? No. The argument any argument stands or falls on the evidence and the logic of it, not on who says it. (Okay I’ll grant some space for true expert opinion in some cases.)
Biden’s argument seems to be that AOC’s views are out of line because she only won a primary - that she can say those things because she’s in a safe seat.
Am I stating his position incorrectly?
Yes you are stating that view incorrectly. AOC’s win is held as an example of how further Left positions win elections. He is pointing out why he believes that example does not inform for general elections across the country.
His statement addresses the argument itself and its most widely cited and best known example, often held up as proof of concept, not the person making it.
Her making the argument does not diminish it; her as an example of it does.
Get the difference?
Really? General elections? Held by whom?
Quite seriously, I have not once heard anyone making that argument
I’d need proof that this isn’t a massive strawman on Biden’s part.
I get the difference, but jeez, this makes far less sense than what I thought I was arguing against.
I can see the argument that AOC’s win is proof of concept that the Democratic Party can be moved to the left via primary challenges to moderate Dem incumbents in safe seats where the general election is more or less a sure thing anyway.
But if I’d run into someone arguing that AOC’s win shows that you can win elections in more contestable seats (ETA: or in a national election) by moving left, I’d have said that even if it’s true, AOC’s win is not evidence that supports it. No way, no how.
No, I’ve never seen such a craptacular argument. Who’s making it?
Did you listen to the Cuomo interview? This is not a fair rendering of the conversation leading up to Biden’s statement.
Cuomo basically contrasted Biden with the “rest of the field” and then asked “how do you convince the party” that more “advanced” ideas (like all-in Medicare for all) aren’t needed (Biden actually cut him off before he finished his question but that’s where it was going).
Biden’s response was to say the ideas weren’t really advanced.
Cuomo responded to that by saying “they are popular in the party”.
Biden basically response? “Well, by the way, watch. That’s what this election is about.” Then he start talking about AOC from out of the blue.
So his answer actually doesn’t address Cuomo’s question. Sanders and Warren, as well as others, are not shrinking away from the progressive agenda, and they are boldly bringing these ideas to the national stage. Why would they be doing that if it’s only the AOC’s of the world that are interested in this?
And what does it say about Biden that his response to this rising tide is to single out AOC’s election an aberration? If the ideas themselves are not well-thought out, then make a case for that. But his response was basically “No one really wants that stuff! Lies, all lies!”
RTF, seriously? This is the first you’ve heard of the story line being played out by the media regarding what AOC’s win meant as a sign of where the party needs to go to win elections, and others reactions to that interpretation? I had thought of you as someone who actually sometimes looked at the news feeds, but I must be mistaken.
ywtf, yes I actually listened, at least so far as into Biden’s response. I dislike listening to Cuomo so turned it off after that. Yes, what I heard sounded to me like Cuomo saying that there are all these Big Left Ideas out there, that Cuomo described as very popular and “advanced”, being touted by “the rest of the field” … which is mostly true … Biden pretty much has the center Left space all to himself and the other significant players are all fighting for those farther left of that … and Biden responded defending being at center Left and why he believes that center Left is the place to be to win elections. Yeah Cuomo’s using the word “advanced” to contrast with the … then “reactionary” or “backwards” maybe … ideas of Biden … is the sort of crap that is why I dislike listening to Cuomo. Yes, the place of the AOCs of the world in that narrative are part of the answer.
Biden is NOT about the progressive agenda, even though he’d possibly do more to move in that direction than any of the progressive candidates would. He is authentically and without shame center Left and more a pragmatist. There is no doubt that some of the party hate that about him. They did not like that of Obama either. He disputes how much that tide is really rising within the party (but the primary election will inform about that) and stays on message selling the place of center Left as the place that wins elections.
You don’t agree with him. We get that. I’m not 100% sold on him and his pitch myself but I’m not seeing anyone else that I think has the goods for the general better. Harris I had the most hopes for but they have faded very fast. Warren is up there but I am not convinced she can take on Trump and win, let alone win big. Open to be sold though. And there is no one else yet close in my mind, even though i think Buttigieg is smart and well spoken.
But was an on campaign message response that was on point to the question asked, not disrespectful of anyone at all.
The real question on the table is NOT whether running universal health care will help you win elections. It’s whether you think this is what the country needs and *are willing to do what to takes to get it *.
Biden’s response is basically that he’s only willing to do what it will take to get him elected. Isn’t this what concerns all politicians? Of course, but you’re not to supposed say the quiet part out loud! He’s also failing to account for the fact that during the campaign he has the opportunity to persuade people to new policy positions. That is, if he has the gonads to do so. So what if not everyone is sold on Medicare for all right now? You better believe the other candidates will be driving home the point over and over why we need to catch up with the rest of the industrial world on healthcare, prescription drugs, and college expenses.
If this were Hillary talking, I suspect this answer would’ve gotten her accused inauthenticity. “She’s just saying this to get elected” was an idea that she constantly combated. But Biden can basically admit that winning elections is all he cares about, and not deal with this accusation? Ain’t that something.
Lol. If he makes it to the end, Biden will have to deal with fast balls much more loaded than “advanced”. He should’ve just ignored that descriptor instead of knee-jerked a “reactionary” denial.
Listening to the interview the question being asked, the one on the table for the interview, was in regards to how “popular” those “advanced” ideas were, not their merits. (Although he did address why his preferred approach was, in his mind, better. I thought you listened?)
As to your “real question”, first step of making any progress in moving in that direction is getting elected and no matter what “advanced” Big Left Idea plans any of us think is “what the country needs” very few here are so deluded as to think that anyone running can in office “do what it takes to get it” … unless they can deliver a solid, Manchin-proof Senate majority on their coattails OR have some better than Biden ability to strongarm ideas through.
No that is an unreal question.
Yes Biden will have to deal with fast balls. That wasn’t one of them, and he dealt with it fine.
I’d argue that proposing Big Ideas that you know have zero chance of happening, because they are popular with primary voters, is the “doing whatever it takes” to get the nomination … and then hoping for magic. It is not what any of the people running authentically believe will be what they deliver.
Did you? Seriously, got back and listen again. The question Cuomo asked was how do you convince the party the advanced ideas that matter to them aren’t what is needed.
Yes, Cuomo later said they were popular ideas but only when Biden defensively batted at the word “advanced”. But popularity wasn’t central to the question he posed.
I’m not writing Harris off in the general just yet. All the evidence I’m seeing so far is that she’s one tough, ahem, lady…and that she can campaign like a mother. She has arguably run the most calculated and effective campaign so far (that could change, of course).
One thing that casual observers may not realize is that Harris put down some pretty serious organizational roots in the Southern states, where the black vote is going to be important. She did this BEFORE the debates. Even when she was a very distant fourth and fifth place candidate, she was quietly laying the groundwork for a contest in Super Tuesday states. She’s been doing this for at least since the start of her campaign, if not longer. Going into the debate, she and her campaign laid out a very clear plan of attack, and she executed it with ruthless efficacy.
Yes, she seems like she’s going a bit out into the wilderness with some of her talk about reparations and black housing programs, but I also wonder if her strategy isn’t simply a classical “own the partisans first, run to the center later” type campaign. With Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, I think they are who they are; they fundamentally will not back away from pledges of free college and Medicare-for-All. They’re going to end up like Walter Mondale, being forced to promise in front of live audiences that they’ll absolutely raise everyone’s taxes. Their integrity will get the better of them. With Harris, I see someone who knows how to bob and weave.
It’s entirely possible that she may paint herself into a corner - you’re not wrong to fear that possibility, particularly given her current political statements and positions. But what I’m seeing so far is someone who will say things to stake her claim to ideological territory and then gradually shift away from those positions to be more reasonable and pragmatic. That’s also basically what she was as a DA and AG in California, which is why some Californian progressives consider themselves Harris skeptics. They have wanted to box her in as a progressive and she refuses to be boxed in.
Well, obviously. This is just politician 101 stuff.
To be fair, I give props to how Biden explained the logic behind his healthcare plan. He made sound coherent points. It remains to be seen how well it will hold up in the debates when his opponents make more passionate calls for action, but at least it was rational.
When Cuomo asked him how he was going to convince the party yadda yadda, all he had to do reiterate the rationale for his policy positions. That’s it. He didn’t need to act like the growing support for progressive ideas is just an illusion created by AOC, nothing to see here, nothing to see. Because not only is that wrong, it’s a fallacious appeal to popularity.
I follow a hell of a lot of stuff online, but yeah, I’ve missed this one. And it sounds like you and Joe Biden are both claiming she’s said more than she did.
From your link:
If you click on the “can win elections” link, she says, “There are a lot of districts in this country that are like New York 14.”
IOW, it sure sounds like she’s saying the Dems can and should be a lot more lefty than they’ve been in safe districts like the one she won by winning the primary. And I think she’s right. You wouldn’t want to run that sort of campaign in the typical district that the Dems took from the GOP last year, but I don’t see where she’s saying that:
She also noted that "“With respect to the Senator [Duckworth], strong, clear advocacy for working class Americans isn’t just for the Bronx.” And the reality is that too many “centrist” Democrats aren’t so much advocates for working-class Americans as they are advocates for the corporations whose honchos they talk to when they dial for dollars every afternoon. So again, she’s got a point. Can’t find the link right now, but I was reading just the other day that the Dem leadership is having a hard time getting enough votes to pass the PRO (Protecting the Right to Organize) Act through the House, and you’d think this is something that would pass in a breeze.
As Kevin Drum said after the debate, “a little bit of ruthlessness is something that every winning candidate needs now and again.” I concur.
I don’t get this, at least with respect to Warren. (And Sanders isn’t going to be the nominee.) She’s already explained how she’s going to pay for most of her programs - her 2% wealth tax on wealth above $50M, which everybody loves except the rich and some (but far from all) Republicans, raises a shit-ton of money. (I know free college comes out of just a smidgen of this pot; I can’t remember about M4A.)