Right. Back when LBJ was POTUS. When Democrats elected a president who led from the front and wasn’t afraid of working on civil rights, poverty, medical care, and the environment all at the same time, all while also managing a major war, rather than leading from behind and taking a slow approach like Clinton, Obama, and Biden did.
IMHO most of the backlash was to what they didn’t do. Bill Clinton spent 2 whole years basically working on one bill, Hillarycare, that didn’t even pass. Obama at least got Obamacare passed, but (at least it certainly seemed so to me) that was the only thing that he and the Democrats in congress worked on. It’s like Democrats have a “let’s do one thing at a time, and slowly at that, and then we might slowly move on to the next thing” way of doing things when they’re in charge. And of course by then the midterms have come around, people get frustrated that so little progress was made, and we get red wave elections like in 1994 and 2010 due to people that were hoping for more progress staying home. I’m not sure that Democratic leadership has learned the lesson that this is a big part of their problem.
And I think we’d get a lot of consumer protections and environmental protections back. And some civil rights protections; and possibly even significant legal improvements in immigration policy. And I’d expect some attempt to repair our international standing; though I expect it would take a lot more than two years to get anybody to trust anything we say.
Remember that a 100 seat majority is not 2/3 (that is a 145 seat majority) and thus not veto-proof. So unless they impeached and convicted Trump, there is not much they can do. If they do remove Trump (hope, hope) and warn Vance that he could follow if he vetoes their legislation, then they have a chance to implement their agenda.
Blackmail seems like the mildest reaction to Trumpism. Regular order certainly isn’t going rid us of this cancer.
I understand that good people yearn for the good old days of democracy. But democracy is run on the honor system. When half the country has no honor, no respect for constitutional order, and no commitment to equal justice under the law, pretending that we can find our way past this without resorting to tactics of our adversaries is naive and wishful.
Fascism breeds fascism. We have not yet seen the bad stuff yet. You will not recognize the person you will become two or three years from now.
You think the current administration is bad but then want your side to get in the gutter as well?
Regular order would be your side running someone who can win. Instead you’ll run the likes of AOC, Harris, or Newsom and then wonder why the Republican candidate won.
But I do recall a candidate who shouldn’t have won but did by running as a different kind of Democrate instead of openly embracing the nuttiness of his party. Perhaps that tactic could work again for someone.
Impeachment and removal must be done in the right order. Start with Vance- you might get a conviction in the Senate just because nobody likes him and nobody is afraid of him. Then refuse to confirm any VP that the shithead in chief should nominate. Next, impeach the orange felon. If enough GOP Senators cross the line, then voila- President Jeffries.
I’m sick of only one party playing by the rules and trying to responsibly govern the country. The Democratic response to mid-decade gerrymandering is an unpleasant but necessary thing. You can’t continually bring a spork to a gunfight.
The Democrats have already voted twice to impeach Trump. With supermajorities in both the House and the Senate, they’ll impeach and convict him. He’s still guilty of the stuff they impeached him for the last two times, and is now guilty of so so much more.
If they can’t even do this much, they’ll do nothing at all.
That’s the biggest problem they’d face in that situation. I mean, they could likely pull together well enough to impeach Trump, but I doubt they’d be able to pull off something like UHC and overriding a Presidential veto, because as best as I can tell, perfection is the enemy of “good enough” in the eyes of many in the party.
I don’t doubt that in this scenario Congress would contain many of the legislator equivalents of the fuckwads who didn’t vote in 2024 because the Democratic candidates weren’t progressive enough for them. So my extrapolation for how that mindset would work in Congress would be that they’d stymie any meaningful legislation for similar reasons, rather than just pass it and improve things.
I’d disagree. You cut the head off the snake first. If they have the numbers to actually impeach and remove Trump, that’s the very first thing you do. Like you swear them in, and once the last congressperson’s “d” on ‘So help me God’ gets out of their mouth, the impeachment proceedings begin.
That way, he’s not around to influence/screw up the next steps. Otherwise, if you impeach someone else first, you’re both giving him time and opportunity to rally/coerce/influence people on his own behalf and to some degree, tipping your hand as to what you’re going to do.
The answer to the OP’s question is “what did they run on?”
If the party runs on the milquetoast “affordability” messaging that the DNC seems to be focusing on at the moment, and consistently “pivot” to that message whenever faced with other (IMHO more serious) questions, they’ll have a mandate for that - and nothing else.
If they run on that as part of their message, but focus on Republican corruption and graft, then they’ll have a mandate for some serious investigations and removals. Turn up the heat on political appointees, start collecting data for the next Democratic-staffed Public Integrity Section of the DoJ, and introduce (and pass) an amendment proposal limiting the presidential pardon power so that if the states do ratify, Trump’s signature can’t get all his lackeys out of trouble.
And if every Democratic member of Congress answers questions about impeachment and removal with the words “All options are on the table” rather than “I sure hope it doesn’t have to come to that”, then the groundwork for impeachment and removal is laid.
I don’t know that there are enough Democrats brave enough to run that way and good enough as candidates to win a landslide that way, but I sure hope so. But if candidates don’t run on a platform that at least leaves the possibility of radicalism open, then any political momentum generated by a landslide will be wasted on small stuff like “affordabiilty” that the party will probably have a hard time delivering on anyway, given the difficulties of trying to affect prices positively in a market economy. And the structural issues will still be with us.
Hell yes. The fact that Republicans are so opposed to the idea is one good sign that it’s a good idea. I’m so tired of Democrats bringing a daisy to a gun fight.
Andy Kim, now a senator, won his 2020 House race in a district Trump took, that year, by eight points.
Would Kim win in November 2028 if nominated for president? Thr most directly relevant data we have says yes.
Jared Golden won his 2024 House race in a district Trump took by ten points. Golden almost surely would win in November 2028.
Golden is too far right even for me. I hope the Democrats nominate someone more liberal. But I’m pretty darn sure Golden would win — because of his history of peeling off lots of Trump voters.
Not quite true. The president cant veto the repeal of a bill. And of course, not more pet bills get passes, no more “Big Beautiful Bills”.
Yeah, we dont really have any good idea of what Vance would do. And the President should veto some bills.
UHC, depending on how you sell/write it, is not that popular among voters-
Even among Democrats only 52% favor a radical UHC plan, like Sanders came up with. Like i said- expanding and fixing Obamacare and lowering the age of Medicare, plus something like medicare for the poor would float. Bernie’s plan would not.
Since when do politicians think they can only do what was most prominent in their ads? Did Trump run on a platform of “more foreign wars”?
First, you get elected. Then you say you’ve got a mandate. Then you do, if you can, the stuff that was on page 5 of your website; and sometimes the things you were loudly denouncing on page 1. I’m not really recommending the last of those, but it certainly happens; and putting what stands the best chance of getting you elected on page 1 is just legitimate and sensible politics. Trying to do that too is a really good idea; but it certainly isn’t the only thing you can do.
