What needs to change to prevent a repeat of the past four years?

Speech and money aren’t even synonyms. If I write to a candidate and tell him I’ll vote for him if he stops wearing a tan suit, that’s speech. If I send him $2000, he doesn’t know that I want him to buy a new suit, he just thinks he might owe me a favor later. If that’s speech it’s a really shitty version of it, as he didn’t understand me at all. If he just thinks that it means I want him to win, what am I saying when I give both candidates $2000? Perhaps I just don’t like the pea green soup the other fellow is wearing either.

Money isn’t speech.

It would require an amendment but Congress should not need the president’s signature to invalidate an executive order.

In other words, for Democrats to move into the space that was, until recently, occupied by Republicans, who have since moved to the right.

If this is their strategy, the Democratic Party will continue to concede defeat, to have nothing to offer, and continue to let the nutcase wing of the Republican Party define them and set the agenda. They will be purely reactionary.

That’s pathetic.

I’d really rather the Democratic Party go down fighting than simply become the enemy (except maybe a decade or two behind the enemy).

Not at all. The Democrats should run on the many parts of their agenda that are popular while avoiding unpopular positions on issues like immigration. They were in fact highly successful with this strategy in 2006-8.

What would be dangerous is to keep adding unpopular positions in the name of ideological purity. Abolishing ICE. Reparations. Defund the police. If they continue along this path it is likely that there will be a big right-wing backlash possibly lead by a smarter version of Trump.

But the Dems can’t* and Biden won’t ignore or downplay fighting Covid and climate change, and the people screaming “socialism!” will lock onto those (especially the latter) no matter what else the Dems and Biden say, do, don’t say, or don’t do. Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

*My logic for saying “can’t” for climate change is:

  1. The problem is getting too urgent, especially after Trump reversed many of the things the US was doing to fight or slow climate change. Skeptics focus on the costs of fighting climate change, but wildfires and storm/flood damage are already costing us billions.

  2. We’re going to have more stimulus/relief, it behooves us to spend it on things that will fight climate change, or at least not make it worse. Infrastructure money creates jobs however it’s spent, but it could be spent on more and more roads and more and more airports like its still the 1950s, or it could be spent wisely. Let’s not do the environmental equivalent of paying one man to dig a trench and another to fill it in. :slightly_smiling_face:

  3. Even if we don’t have more stimulus or relief because it bogs down in Congress, the same logic applies to ordinary government spending: we shouldn’t be spending money on things that make climate change worse when spending it on something that won’t is a viable alternative.

These are not actual positions of the Democratic Party.

They’re slogans. Used as often by the likes of Tucker Carlson as they are by the far-left wing of American politics.

They are the positions of the rising left wing of the Democratic party. AOC supports all three of them and she is often touted as the “future of the Democratic party”. If that is true, I suspect the future will also see a lot of Republican victories.

Obama nominated Garland. He did not appoint him because the Senate refused to hold hearings on his nomination.

That was my point. I think it’s a reasonable interpretation of the text to say the Senate has the authority to vote against a Presidential nomination but it doesn’t have the authority to ignore it. And the President doesn’t have the authority to refuse to submit a nomination. These are things the Constitution says shall be done.

As others have said, I think the Democratic party is the big-tent party which holds the moderate centrist position in American politics. Yes, they have a liberal wing (and a conservative one) but that’s what being a big-tent party means.

It’s the Republican party which has adopted a narrow ideological base. When Republicans vie for a nomination, the only issue they fight over is who is the most conservative.

If the Democrats are trying to be a big-tent party they are doing a terrible job of it. In this election against an unpopular incumbent and with a big money advantage they should have made broad gains across the demographic spectrum. Instead they have continued to lose ground among working-class voters while winning enough new suburban whites to eke out a narrow win. The problem is that if the Republicans nominate a saner candidate they may well regain those suburban voters while there is no guarantee that the Democrats will regain working-class voters if they continue to move to the left.

The electorate must never, ever, ever take a candidate for granted again. The assumption that Clinton would prevail kept too many people home; nobody thought Trump had a chance, including pollsters, voters, pundits, et al. Getting out the vote is key.

The Senate must "advise and consent. " That would appears to include something besides one man saying “No”. Did the Senate either give advise or give consent?

Is electing your candidate or getting a bill passed important?

If so, then money is speech.

It was never taken to the courts. I think there was.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court ,

Naw, the Democrats have already moved further right than many of us are comfortable with. What they really need to do is emulate the Stacey Abrams model. Get everyone to actually go vote and overturn the disenfranchisement that is current top priority in the Republican playbook. If everyone votes and people want Cruz, we’re fucked, but so be it. I’m just pretty sure that’s not how it would play out.

As for hot button issues, Jon Ossoff ran against a pretty popular incumbent Republican who wasn’t even primaried. Here’s Ossoff’s stance on immigration:

My mother is an immigrant. She came to this country when she was 23 because she believed in the American Dream, and she’s lived it. She became a successful entrepreneur, a U.S. citizen, and an active participant in our democracy.

Our country, like any country, must know and control who crosses our borders, and strong border security doesn’t require us to sacrifice our moral principles, our commitment to human rights, or our American identity as a haven for people fleeing persecution and striving for opportunity.

Ripping children from their parents and disappearing them into federal custody is an atrocity.

I’ll support an immigration policy that strengthens our borders, puts American workers first, respects human rights, and creates a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants who are already here and otherwise follow the law, especially those brought here as children.

We must reform the horrifically dysfunctional Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement so that these agencies carry out their duties with competence and humanity.

And instead of making life hell for migrants, immigration enforcement should crack down on the employers of undocumented immigrants, like The Trump Organization.

His take on abortion?

I am pro-choice. I believe that women, not the government, should control the private, personal, and complex decision whether to terminate a pregnancy.

I run a business that investigates organized crime and corruption for news organizations worldwide. Our teams have gone undercover to expose how dangerous, unqualified, and unregulated abortion providers kill thousands of women in places where safe abortion services are not available legally.

In the Senate, I will only vote to confirm federal judges who pledge to uphold Roe v. Wade.

He didn’t avoid those topics and yet he still won. In Georgia, of all places. The state where our version of Mt. Rushmore has confederate leaders and was the birthplace of the new klan and celebrated yearly cross-burnings until the 60s. Oh, we also happened to elect a black man to the senate, with similar stances on the hot button topics.

We tried compromise, but that doesn’t work anymore unless we’re the ones in power. Get out the vote, on all sides. Stop the disenfranchisement. End gerrymandering. Do those things and we’ll win plenty of elections.

Here’s the numbers from the last eight Presidential elections:
1992 - The Democrat: 44,909,889 votes - The Republican: 39,104,550 votes
1996 - The Democrat: 47,401,185 votes - The Republican: 39,197,469 votes
2000 - The Democrat: 50,999,897 votes - The Republican: 50,456,002 votes
2004 - The Republican: 62,040,610 votes - The Democrat: 59,028,444 votes (good for you guys)
2008 - The Democrat: 69,498,516 votes - The Republican: 59,948,323 votes
2012 - The Democrat: 65,915,795 votes - The Republican: 60,933,504 votes
2016 - The Democrat: 65,853,514 votes - The Republican: 62,984,828 votes
2020 - The Democrat: 81,268,757 votes - The Republican: 74,216,722 votes

And you’re saying the Democrats need to broaden their base?

The Democrats have popular support. We’ve had it for a generation. Republicans are the ones with a demographic problem. They went all in on being the party for white men and that’s not working out for them in a country where only 30% of the people are white men. 27% if you don’t count gay white men.

The popular vote makes for a nice talking point but it doesn’t ultimately matter for winning power. Biden won the electoral college with a margin of less than 100,000 votes across three states. The Senate is tied 50-50 with margins of 1-2 points in Georgia. The House majority is 4 seats which were won by margins of 1-2%.

The position of the Dems is precarious and this after an election cycle against an unpopular opponent and a big money advantage. It’s much less comfortable than 2006–8 when they were much more pragmatic about, for example, recruiting pro-gun and pro-life candidates in red districts.

I live in the Georgia 6th, which is pretty much the poster child for that suburban voter you are talking about. We’ve been moving left steadily since Newt Gingrich decided to bail. We currently have representation from a African-American, DACA-loving, LGBTQ-friendly, Planned Parenthood fan. The woman she unseated, Karen Handel, is the person who barely defeated Jon Ossoff back when he first got into large-scale politics. Karen (sometimes it fits) tried to get her seat back in the past election and was beaten far worse than previously. Trump didn’t cause this as there wasn’t a cliff where it dropped off. It’s been a steady slide for decades. I’m also curious why you think things like abortion are a problem to discuss. Weren’t you of the opinion that abortion reduced future crime? On the other side, didn’t you also proclaim that the Democrats moderating our stance to allow room for mild racists and sexists was good for the party?

I mean I guess we could listen to your advice instead of someone like Stacey Abrams, but I think I’ll stick with those on my side.

On Wednesday, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez was at the Bronx Terminal Market, joining striking workers on the picket line. These low-paid (but deemed “essential” during the pandemic) workers are striking for a dollar-an-hour raise and to have the employer pick up more of the cost of their health care benefits. She was joined by Rep. Ritchie Torres, also from the Bronx.

I’d like to see a hell of a lot more of this from the Democratic Party. I’d like to see the party be truly pro-labor. Sure, it means that the fat checks from Goldman Sachs (or MBNA) will dry up. Too bad.

So far the strike seems to be holding, I’m glad to say. In fact, apparently a train pulled into the Terminal Market with cars full of produce, but the crew saw the picket line and backed it out, refusing to deliver. They were unionized (Teamsters) and displayed good old-fashioned union solidarity.

Yep. Bring back the Voting Rights act.

Screw Mitch. No compromise, no power sharing.