All Things "AOC" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & the Squad.

[bearrock]

14 minutes ago, China said:

Squad politics backfire

 

The hard-left politics of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and the so-called "Squad," once a dominant theme for vast numbers of elected Democrats, is backfiring big-time on the party in power, top Democrats tell us.

 

Why it matters: The push to defund the police, rename schools and tear down statues has created a significant obstacle to Democrats keeping control of the House, the Senate and the party’s overall image.

 

"It's what we've been screaming about for a year," said Matt Bennett, c0-founder of center-left Third Way, which launched Shield PAC to defend moderate Democrats.

"It's a huge problem."

The latest sign of the backlash was the landslide (70%+) recall this week of three San Francisco school board members, who were criticized for prioritizing issues like the renaming of 44 public schools — including ones honoring George Washington and Abraham Lincoln — over a return to in-person classes.

 

Other factors like an abrupt admissions change to a prestigious high school were at play (all politics is local).

But the most liberal city in the most liberal state decided that liberal activists had gone too far.

It's part of a barrage of evidence that the progressive activism of the Squad pushed the party's image way left of where most voters are — even most Democratic voters.

 

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, told Axios: "What I'm hearing at home — and what I'm focused on — are commonsense, bipartisan solutions — from tackling grocery and gas prices, to cutting taxes and fixing our infrastructure, to investing in law enforcement and fighting crime."

Aides to several Squad members declined immediate comment.

This is a seismic shift from just a year ago. The signs have built steadily throughout President Biden's 13 months in office that Squad politics are problematic when you control everything:

 

30 House Democrats — the most in decades — have announced they'll retire instead of running in November's midterms. They see little hope of keeping the majority in this environment.

Democrats lose poll after poll of generic House matchups, which ask voters if they'd prefer an R or a D if the election were held today.

Republicans' decisive sweep of statewide offices in Virginia was powered in part by Democrats' failure to appreciate parents' skepticism about public schools' mask mandates, policies on transgender rights and approach to teaching about race.

 

Also in November, voters in liberal Minneapolis rejected a proposal designed to radically constrain police.

Zoom out: House Democrats' own polling and focus groups show many swing voters think the party is too "preachy," "judgmental" and "focused on culture wars," according to documents obtained by Politico.

 

Click on the link for more

 

I say this as someone who shares no small amount of disdain for lot of the antics of the progressive wing of the party (Will say it again.  Defund the police.  Worst slogan ever).  It's cute that the moderate dems, who have no chance of energizing the progressives and would have nearly no shot of winning the White House without progressives decided to use the traditional mid-term swoon to pull out the knives for AOC and co.  And if you ask the party base who's more responsible for the party's malaise, Manchin/Sinema or the Squad, I wonder who they'll pick.  Give me a break.

[Captain Wiggles]

Quote

Zoom out: House Democrats' own polling and focus groups show many swing voters think the party is too "preachy," "judgmental" and "focused on culture wars," according to documents obtained by Politico.

 

Swing voters are idiots. 🤷‍♂️

[Hersh]

Quote

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, told Axios: "What I'm hearing at home — and what I'm focused on — are commonsense, bipartisan solutions — from tackling grocery and gas prices, to cutting taxes and fixing our infrastructure, to investing in law enforcement and fighting crime."

 

hhhmmm, if only there was some kind of legislation that AOC and the squad wanted to see passed that might've addressed a few of these concerns. 

[GhostofSparta]

3 hours ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Swing voters are idiots. 🤷‍♂️

How dare you accuse the type of people who would vote for someone like Youngkin because they were fooled into being terrified of something that doesn't exist of being idiot? Next you'll tell me that the kind of people who would rather see the entire country's education system, infrastructure, and economic base completely crumble rather than raise taxes on Corps and billionaires because they're convinced they're just 1 lucky break away from being the next Bezos are stupid for voting for a party and policy that actively ****s them every step of the way.

 

The nerve of someone like you. Now I have to vote against my own self interests just to own you with my suffering. I hope you're happy.

[TheGreatBuzz]

5 hours ago, Captain Wiggles said:

 

Swing voters are idiots. 🤷‍♂️

 

1 hour ago, GhostofSparta said:

How dare you accuse the type of people who would vote for someone like Youngkin because they were fooled into being terrified of something that doesn't exist of being idiot? Next you'll tell me that the kind of people who would rather see the entire country's education system, infrastructure, and economic base completely crumble rather than raise taxes on Corps and billionaires because they're convinced they're just 1 lucky break away from being the next Bezos are stupid for voting for a party and policy that actively ****s them every step of the way.

 

The nerve of someone like you. Now I have to vote against my own self interests just to own you with my suffering. I hope you're happy.

You both seem to have a incorrect interpretation of what a swing voter is.  Would you prefer people that vote what they believe in instead of straight party line?  This has to be some of the dumbest, short-sighted takes I’ve seen in a while.

[tshile]

12 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

You both seem to have a incorrect interpretation of what a swing voter is.  Would you prefer people that vote what they believe in instead of straight party line?  This has to be some of the dumbest, short-sighted takes I’ve seen in a while.

Generally I agree with this

 

i think right now the idea is there’s nothing of merit to “swing” to the right on at the moment. 
 

I think I fit into the space you’re talking about. But even I can’t… I mean how am I supposed to justify voting for a Republican right now? It’s a party that seems to be actively supporting what was an attempt to overthrow my government.

[Hersh]

30 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

You both seem to have a incorrect interpretation of what a swing voter is.  Would you prefer people that vote what they believe in instead of straight party line?  This has to be some of the dumbest, short-sighted takes I’ve seen in a while.

 

What do swing voters believe? There is only one party actively trying to get anything done right now and that party actually has plans for a lot of the issues the swing voters claim to care about. 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

You both seem to have a incorrect interpretation of what a swing voter is.  Would you prefer people that vote what they believe in instead of straight party line?  This has to be some of the dumbest, short-sighted takes I’ve seen in a while.

Outside of being tired of mask mandates and an erroneous fear that teachers were indoctrinating kids with crt, what was the swing issue that caused Virginia to switch from blue to red?

 

If people swung on those two issues, yea, they are idiots. 

[PeterMP]

15 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

I say this as someone who shares no small amount of disdain for lot of the antics of the progressive wing of the party (Will say it again.  Defund the police.  Worst slogan ever).  It's cute that the moderate dems, who have no chance of energizing the progressives and would have nearly no shot of winning the White House without progressives decided to use the traditional mid-term swoon to pull out the knives for AOC and co.  And if you ask the party base who's more responsible for the party's malaise, Manchin/Sinema or the Squad, I wonder who they'll pick.  Give me a break.

 

It is a two way street.  Progressives have no shot at winning the White House without moderate Dems.

 

And it could at least be argued without the language and actions of the far left, the right (and especially the moderate right) would be less energized which means it would be easier for moderate Dems to win elections, including the Presidency.

 

Even in states where the Dem candidate isn't far left and even for state offices, the GOP runs against the progressive Dems.  In Governor races where a moderate Dem is running, the GOP will still run against the far left.

 

And the opposite isn't true.  The GOP doesn't use moderate Dems to drive GOP turnout and engagement.

[bearrock]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

It is a two way street.  Progressives have no shot at winning the White House without moderate Dems.

 

 

Do you see the progressive wing blaming the moderates at large for the entirely predictable and typical midterm swoon?  When's the last time the president's party won the midterm?

 

Quote

And it could at least be argued without the language and actions of the far left, the right (and especially the moderate right) would be less energized which means it would be easier for moderate Dems to win elections, including the Presidency.

 

 

These are the people who demonized Hillary Clinton for the better part of 3 decades, about as centrist pro-big business Dem as you'll find.  They blew a collective gasket over an academic theory that isn't actually taught in grade school.  If the progressive wing disappeared, the current moderates would be the child trafficking spawn of Satan.

 

Quote

Even in states where the Dem candidate isn't far left and even for state offices, the GOP runs against the progressive Dems.  In Governor races where a moderate Dem is running, the GOP will still run against the far left.

 

And the opposite isn't true.  The GOP doesn't use moderate Dems to drive GOP turnout and engagement.

 

And Dems use Trump and co to run against the middle right.  It's a typical playbook.  As I said before, without the extreme left, the current middle becomes the left. 

 

The central problem is encapsulated below:

 

15 hours ago, bearrock said:

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, told Axios: "What I'm hearing at home — and what I'm focused on — are commonsense, bipartisan solutions — from tackling grocery and gas prices, to cutting taxes and fixing our infrastructure, to investing in law enforcement and fighting crime."

 

They want the government to control what it cannot in a mostly capitalistic economy (gas and grocery price).  Gas tax is something like 20 cents federal.  Even CA state gas tax is like 50 cents.  What exactly is the federal government supposed to do about gas costing a dollar more than last year due to inflationary forces?  Same with grocery.  Do people want the government to fix prices?

 

Cutting taxes and fixing infrastructure.  That's like saying I want to cut back my work and buy a bigger house.  That's not a common sense bipartisan solution, that's a freeloading pipe dream.

 

Investing in law enforcement and fighting crime.  As vague a platitude as there is.  What does that mean exactly?  More riot gear for the police?  Military quality weapons?  Will better pay and benefits lead to better policing?  (US already pays its officers as well as any nation.  Top 5 by median.  Biggest jurisdiction matches top paying countries).

 

I guess it's no surprise with the massive success of over-incarceration and mandatory minimums, the "moderates" have a meltdown when prosecutors want to increase the use of diversionary programs which have higher rates of successful rehabilitation than incarceration.

 

The problem is not policies of the progressive dems or the moderate dems.  The problem is that the average American voter is ****ing stupid.

 

 

 

[PeterMP]

16 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

Do you see the progressive wing blaming the moderates at large for the entirely predictable and typical midterm swoon?  When's the last time the president's party won the midterm?

 

 

These are the people who demonized Hillary Clinton for the better part of 3 decades, about as centrist pro-big business Dem as you'll find.  They blew a collective gasket over an academic theory that isn't actually taught in grade school.  If the progressive wing disappeared, the current moderates would be the child trafficking spawn of Satan.

 

 

And Dems use Trump and co to run against the middle right.  It's a typical playbook.  As I said before, without the extreme left, the current middle becomes the left. 

 

The central problem is encapsulated below:

 

 

They want the government to control what it cannot in a mostly capitalistic economy (gas and grocery price).  Gas tax is something like 20 cents federal.  Even CA state gas tax is like 50 cents.  What exactly is the federal government supposed to do about gas costing a dollar more than last year due to inflationary forces?  Same with grocery.  Do people want the government to fix prices?

 

Cutting taxes and fixing infrastructure.  That's like saying I want to cut back my work and buy a bigger house.  That's not a common sense bipartisan solution, that's a freeloading pipe dream.

 

Investing in law enforcement and fighting crime.  As vague a platitude as there is.  What does that mean exactly?  More riot gear for the police?  Military quality weapons?  Will better pay and benefits lead to better policing?  (US already pays its officers as well as any nation.  Top 5 by median.  Biggest jurisdiction matches top paying countries).

 

I guess it's no surprise with the massive success of over-incarceration and mandatory minimums, the "moderates" have a meltdown when prosecutors want to increase the use of diversionary programs which have higher rates of successful rehabilitation than incarceration.

 

The problem is not policies of the progressive dems or the moderate dems.  The problem is that the average American voter is ****ing stupid.

 

1.  In the past AOC (and other progressives) have blamed moderates for losing elections.  I'm sure if the Dems lose big this fall, I'll be able to find you some links where some progressive blames it on the party not being progressive enough.

 

2.  You're giving too much value to a throw away quote as actual policy.

 

3.  Sometimes though what you talk about is as important as what you do.  Crime is up.  That's a reality.  Talking about doing things to prevent crime is going to make people happy which can lead to votes.  The best ways to do that and what you are actually going to support don't have to be included in a quote to Axios.  People want to hear that politicians know that inflation is an issue and are concerned about it, even if there isn't much that they can do (quickly) about it.

 

4.  I do think there is now an effort to de-emphasize CRT and where it stands in terms of being taught in schools. 

 

e.g. 

 

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/how-do-educators-feel-about-critical-race-theory-being-taught-in-the-classroom-we-asked/2022/01

 

 

I don't disagree with your view of the average American voter, but that's also reality.  But that's also the reality we live in.  Given that reality, you have to figure out how to win elections and get stuff done.

Edited February 19, 2022 by PeterMP

[GhostofSparta]

11 hours ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

You both seem to have a incorrect interpretation of what a swing voter is.  Would you prefer people that vote what they believe in instead of straight party line?  This has to be some of the dumbest, short-sighted takes I’ve seen in a while.

That depends entirely on the reason for the "swing," and whether or not said reason is based at all in reality.

 

If you vote for Woodrow Wilson in 1916 because "He kept us out of war!" and then a year later the US is in WWI, then yeah, I get you swinging to the other party in the next election because that's kind of a big deal breaker. It's like voting for Hoover in 1928 because the 20's are still roaring but then voting for FDR because the Great Depression hit, it's a perfectly logical decision.

 

If you vote for Hogan for governor simply because he's a Republican and you want a check on a state government that's Democrat leaning...I get it. I may think it's kind of a dumb reason if that's the only one, but at least I understand your logic. Especially if moderation or gridlock are you driving political principles because you MAYBE want some minor changes but really don't want things to change to much in your own life.

 

If you vote for Youngkin in 2021 because you're dumb enough to believe that your 6 year old is actually being taught CRT and that every teacher is telling your precious white baby that they're the root of all evil (and for some reason refuses to teach about Jesus all day every day and won't admit that the Confederacy had NOTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY, DAMMIT!) and you read some made-up, obviously bull**** story about kids in a another state putting litterboxes in the middle schools bathrooms because furries? Then yeah, I think that you're dumb as **** and your reason for being a swing voter is as well.

 

In my own family, I have too many "TWA Independents" who call themselves Independents and swing voters, yet only vote R. It's one thing to be a swing voter based on principles and changing party positions ("Southern Strategy" anyone?), it's another dumbass thing entirely to be a "Swing voter" who simply changes which party they vote for every election because...?

 

So I guess whether or not I'm correct with my opinion on "swing voters" is gonna be at least partly based on where along the "No True Scotsman" spectrum one resides, as well as opinions about how serious any given topic should be in swinging an election.

Edited February 19, 2022 by GhostofSparta

[TheGreatBuzz]

11 hours ago, tshile said:

Generally I agree with this

 

i think right now the idea is there’s nothing of merit to “swing” to the right on at the moment. 
 

I think I fit into the space you’re talking about. But even I can’t… I mean how am I supposed to justify voting for a Republican right now? It’s a party that seems to be actively supporting what was an attempt to overthrow my government.

I disagree, especially at the state and local level.  There are anti-Trump Republicans out there.  And they may be ones that you disagree with policy wise but that doesn’t mean the “swing voters” that support them are “idiots”.

 

11 hours ago, Hersh said:

 

What do swing voters believe? There is only one party actively trying to get anything done right now and that party actually has plans for a lot of the issues the swing voters claim to care about. 

Each voter believes in different things.

 

im on my phone so this will be shorter than it probably deserves.  In 2020, I did vote for one Republican.  It was for Sheriff I believe. My first criteria was not supporting Trump and he met that requirement.  Then I compared other positions and he seemed better than the democrat.  And people can be swing voters by voting for Biden but then also a Hogan or Kitzinger.  Or others that may not have won.  Just calling swing voters idiots is stupid and lazy.  You can support more conservative positions within supporting insurrectionists.  At least swing voters put thought into their vote instead of just voting for a letter.

 

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

2.  You're giving too much value to a throw away quote as actual policy.

 

3.  Sometimes though what you talk about is as important as what you do.  Crime is up.  That's a reality.  Talking about doing things to prevent crime is going to make people happy which can lead to votes.  The best ways to do that and what you are actually going to support don't have to be included in a quote to Axios.  People want to hear that politicians know that inflation is an issue and are concerned about it, even if there isn't much that they can do (quickly) about it.

 

The quote was put forth as representative of the perspective of moderates blaming the Squad for the upcoming thrashing.  I guess if it's not, I'll cast the blame at Axios for inaccurate portrayal.

 

And you can talk about all those issues without blaming the progressives for mid term losses.  Point to BBB as example of a bill that Progressive influence was incorporated, still enjoyed more public support than opposition, and isn't some Marxian dystopia come true.

 

I would have a better opinion of what the moderates are saying if I didn't think it's a disingenuous pointing of fingers for intraparty squabble rather than being really concerned with progressive policy initiatives.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

4.  I do think there is now an effort to de-emphasize CRT and where it stands in terms of being taught in schools. 

 

e.g. 

 

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/how-do-educators-feel-about-critical-race-theory-being-taught-in-the-classroom-we-asked/2022/01

 

How much more can you de-emphasize CRT than never having taught it in schools in the first place?

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

I don't disagree with your view of the average American voter, but that's also reality.  But that's also the reality we live in.  Given that reality, you have to figure out how to win elections and get stuff done.

 

And blaming the progressives for natural election cycle or telling them to go sit in a corner and shut up won't do anything to win in the reality.  I'm happy to see legitimate policy debates between moderates and progressives.  Blame game just highlights how the small number of progressives members have a better messaging game than the remaining nearly 200.  If they want to wrest control of the party's future, come up with a message that resonates with the moderates on both side to actually get them to swing (instead of "I'm a moderate but I always vote GOP cause of outrage du jour").

Edited February 19, 2022 by bearrock

[Larry]

49 minutes ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

There are anti-Trump Republicans out there.  

There are. But how many of them simply want "somebody but Trump", to oversee exactly the same agenda?  
 

I really haven't seen a lot (well, any) of Republicans who have a problem with the GOP's current agenda. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

The quote was put forth as representative of the perspective of moderates blaming the Squad for the upcoming thrashing.  I guess if it's not, I'll cast the blame at Axios for inaccurate portrayal.

 

And you can talk about all those issues without blaming the progressives for mid term losses.  Point to BBB as example of a bill that Progressive influence was incorporated, still enjoyed more public support than opposition, and isn't some Marxian dystopia come true.

 

I would have a better opinion of what the moderates are saying if I didn't think it's a disingenuous pointing of fingers for intraparty squabble rather than being really concerned with progressive policy initiatives.

 

 

How much more can you de-emphasize CRT than never having taught it in schools in the first place?

 

 

And blaming the progressives for natural election cycle or telling them to go sit in a corner and shut up won't do anything to win in the reality.  I'm happy to see legitimate policy debates between moderates and progressives.  Blame game just highlights how the small number of progressives members have a better messaging game than the remaining nearly 200.  If they want to wrest control of the party's future, come up with a message that resonates with the moderates on both side to actually get them to swing (instead of "I'm a moderate but I always vote GOP cause of outrage du jour").

 

Okay.  You seemed to using the quote as a way to discuss actual policy.  How is he going to lower gas prices?  Etc. That wasn't the point of the quote.

 

By acting like it hasn't influenced the education system, teachers, in some places and in some forms potentially made it into the classroom, and isn't something that many people in education would like to see taught in class rooms.  By acting like that voting on whether you want to have it taught or influencing K-12 curriculum is completely stupid.

 

Didn't you start with how dumb "defund the police" is?  And now you're saying the people that used the "Worst slogan ever" have better messaging?  Are you serious?

Edited February 19, 2022 by PeterMP

[bearrock]

42 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Okay.  You seemed to using the quote as a way to discuss actual policy.  How is he going to lower gas prices?  Etc. That wasn't the point of the quote.

 

No, I'm saying how stupid these so called moderate voter's positions are.  They want the government to control prices (but grow the economy I assume), lower taxes but invest in infrastructure, do something about the police and crime (what, I have no idea).

 

45 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

By acting like it hasn't influenced the education system, teachers, in some places and in some forms potentially made it into the classroom, and isn't something that many people in education would like to see taught in class rooms.  By acting like that voting on whether you want to have it taught or influencing K-12 curriculum is completely stupid.

 

Is there a progressive politician  who isn't doing exactly this?  Calling it what it is, a entirely fictional manufactured issue?  

 

50 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Didn't you start with how dumb "defund the police" is?  And now you're saying the people that used the "Worst slogan ever" have better messaging?  Are you serious?

 

Defund the police is a dumb slogan.  That doesn't mean that as a whole, the moderate messaging isn't a dumpster fire compared to the progressives.  (A QB can throw the most mind numbing idiotic interception ever and still have a better game as a whole than another QB).  What issue or position do the moderates even stand for?  If there's one thing that broad base of Dems agree on, it's that there needs to be massive overhaul to many of the decrepit outdated policies in America.  What moderate messaging has won over the democratic base?  Maybe I am wrong.   Maybe it's not that moderate democrats suck at messaging, maybe they just have nothing left to sell.

[PeterMP]

32 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

No, I'm saying how stupid these so called moderate voter's positions are.  They want the government to control prices (but grow the economy I assume), lower taxes but invest in infrastructure, do something about the police and crime (what, I have no idea).

 

 

Is there a progressive politician  who isn't doing exactly this?  Calling it what it is, a entirely fictional manufactured issue?  

 

 

Defund the police is a dumb slogan.  That doesn't mean that as a whole, the moderate messaging isn't a dumpster fire compared to the progressives.  (A QB can throw the most mind numbing idiotic interception ever and still have a better game as a whole than another QB).  What issue or position do the moderates even stand for?  If there's one thing that broad base of Dems agree on, it's that there needs to be massive overhaul to many of the decrepit outdated policies in America.  What moderate messaging has won over the democratic base?  Maybe I am wrong.   Maybe it's not that moderate democrats suck at messaging, maybe they just have nothing left to sell.

 

1.  Again, you are treating the quote as a policy position.  That wasn't the point of the quote.  Essentially nobody is asking the government to put in price controls.

 

2.  I think you misunderstood my point, and you didn't read the link I posted before.  Nearly 50% of educators polled want (at least components of) CRT taught in K-12 schools.  Other people are advocating for CRT to be taught in schools.

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/2021/09/30/critical-race-theory-should-taught-wisconsin-schools/5900311001/

 

People that don't want CRT taught in schools voting that way aren't being stupid.  They are accurately voting for what they want when there are other people that are want the opposite (and I strongly suspect in some cases have like done the opposite and have taught some components of it).  Acting like there aren't progressives and educators that want to teach CRT in K-12 schools and hasn't influenced teachers and curriculum is de-emphasizing the issue.

 

3.  Biden won the primary.  He's a moderate.  You've described Hillary as a moderate.  She won the last primary. 

Their messaging must be doing something. (Beyond that, you've missed the point.  The point isn't just winning Democrats.  The point is winning elections not just primaries, and that's hard to do in the face of an energized GOP base with independents shifting their way.  Which far left messaging contributes to.  Messaging that your side agrees with is pretty useless.  Messaging that gets new people to agree with you is useful.  Messaging that drives people away (e.g. defund the police) is bad messaging.)  If progressives win every primary but can't win national elections, that isn't good evidence that their messaging is good.  It is good evidence that their messaging drives away other people.

Edited February 19, 2022 by PeterMP

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

2 hours ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

I disagree, especially at the state and local level.  There are anti-Trump Republicans out there.  And they may be ones that you disagree with policy wise but that doesn’t mean the “swing voters” that support them are “idiots”.

 

Each voter believes in different things.

 

im on my phone so this will be shorter than it probably deserves.  In 2020, I did vote for one Republican.  It was for Sheriff I believe. My first criteria was not supporting Trump and he met that requirement.  Then I compared other positions and he seemed better than the democrat.  And people can be swing voters by voting for Biden but then also a Hogan or Kitzinger.  Or others that may not have won.  Just calling swing voters idiots is stupid and lazy.  You can support more conservative positions within supporting insurrectionists.  At least swing voters put thought into their vote instead of just voting for a letter.

 

Do they?

 

I've never understood how people lurch between voting for such radically different visions of the future.....

Edited February 19, 2022 by BRAVEONAWARPATH

[TheGreatBuzz]

8 minutes ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

Do they?

 

I've never understood how people lurch between voting for such radically different visions of the future.....

I do.  I know my wife does.  Beyond that, I can’t say for sure.  But I would guess someone who is splitting their vote across parties is putting at least as much effort in as the people who just walk in and vote straight D or R.  Seems logical, no?

[China]

8 minutes ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

Do they?

 

I've never understood how people lurch between voting for such radically different visions of the future.....

 

What vision?  Near as I can tell the GOP doesn't have a plan for the future other than to be obstructionist to whatever the Dems are doing.

[bearrock]

36 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

1.  Again, you are treating the quote as a policy position.  That wasn't the point of the quote.  Essentially nobody is asking the government to put in price controls.

 

What is the point of the quote? To me, the quote is talking about what moderate dems are saying that the voters want legislators to focus on.  I'm saying that the voters are asking for a legislative solution to something that doesn't have a realistic short term legislative solution.  So progressives stop talking about pie in the sky liberal pipe dreams and messaging turns to gas and grocery.  What do you expect will happen when people realize politicians giving more air time to inflation does nothing to bring down inflation?  

 

52 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

2.  I think you misunderstood my point, and you didn't read the link I posted before.  Nearly 50% of educators polled want (at least components of) CRT taught in K-12 schools.  Other people are advocating for CRT to be taught in schools.

 

https://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/2021/09/30/critical-race-theory-should-taught-wisconsin-schools/5900311001/

 

People that don't want CRT taught in schools voting that way aren't being stupid.  They are accurately voting for what they want when there are other people that are want the opposite (and I strongly suspect in some cases have like done the opposite and have taught some components of it).  Acting like there aren't progressives and educators that want to teach CRT in K-12 schools and hasn't influenced teachers and curriculum is de-emphasizing the issue.

 

I read the article.  If your point was that it indicates that sizeable educators want to teach CRT, I disagree.  What the poll and the Wisconsin article refers to are not CRT in it's full complex and controversial detail.  The component of CRT the poll language refers to is essentially institutional racism.  I don't know what the Wisconsin article author is referring to by "age appropriate CRT", but I doubt it would have any resemblance to CRT in academic setting.  It would probably end up something like calling algebra age appropriate multivariable calculus.  Whatever it is, it's not CRT.  

 

When legislators pass bills prohibiting instructions on racism that makes students uncomfortable, we've left CRT far behind at the station and are now talking about something different altogether.  If you want to label that CRT and debate whether that should be part of grade school curriculum, that's a different debate.  But no one is proposing bringing a law school course into high schools.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

3.  Biden won the primary.  He's a moderate.  You've described Hillary as a moderate.  She won the last primary. 

Their messaging must be doing something. (Beyond that, you've missed the point.  The point isn't just winning Democrats.  The point is winning elections not just primaries, and that's hard to do in the face of an energized GOP base with independents shifting their way.  Which far left messaging contributes to.  Messaging that your side agrees with is pretty useless.  Messaging that gets new people to agree with you is useful.  Messaging that drives people away (e.g. defund the police) is bad messaging.)  If progressives win every primary but can't win national elections, that isn't good evidence that their messaging is good.  It is good evidence that their messaging drives away other people.

 

Hillary squeaked out a victory over a relatively unknown independent senator from Vermont.  For Biden, look at his 2020 platform and see how far the "moderate" Dem position has swung since 2016.  If Biden went forward with the Clinton 2016 platform, he would've been crushed by the progressive candidates.

 

You talk about how far left messaging makes elections harder and drives away moderates (again psycho GOPs will be energized by anyone with a D next to their name.  Clinton ran a child sex slavery ring.  Obama was a communist.  Biden was senile.  They don't need the progressives to get outraged).  Moderates blaming the progressives mutes turn out from the left.  Dems need both.  If they want to reach out to the moderates, then point to things like BBB where progressives and moderates joined forces to come up with a legislative proposal that received support from the public.

 

 

As for messaging that gets both side to agree, support for Medicare for all is now 55%.  Public option is nearly 70%.  $15 minimum wage is not 60%+.  What exciting policy ideas have the moderates come up with to lure those moderate voters?  

 

[tshile]

2 hours ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

Do they?

 

I've never understood how people lurch between voting for such radically different visions of the future.....

because one party pretends problems don’t exist (or manufactures problems), and the other comes up with solutions I don’t like. 
 

liberals have a tendency to treat all politics as a binary situation; you’re either for democracy or against it; you’re racist or you’re not; you’re sexist or you’re not. And they turn that into you either support our idea or you’re racists/sexist/anti-democracy/etc.

 

For example - I didn’t vote for the democratic agenda or Biden in 2020, I voted to get trump the **** out. 
 

that said my current #1 requirement of a Republican, before I could further consider voting for them, is that they are publicly outspoken against trump, his presidency, and what’s going on with a segment of republicans, and the 1/6 thing. 
 

So seems like it’s gonna be a while before I could really swing back. But that’s not because im a big supporter of the democratic agenda 

Edited February 19, 2022 by tshile

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

What is the point of the quote? To me, the quote is talking about what moderate dems are saying that the voters want legislators to focus on.  I'm saying that the voters are asking for a legislative solution to something that doesn't have a realistic short term legislative solution.  So progressives stop talking about pie in the sky liberal pipe dreams and messaging turns to gas and grocery.  What do you expect will happen when people realize politicians giving more air time to inflation does nothing to bring down inflation?  

 

 

I read the article.  If your point was that it indicates that sizeable educators want to teach CRT, I disagree.  What the poll and the Wisconsin article refers to are not CRT in it's full complex and controversial detail.  The component of CRT the poll language refers to is essentially institutional racism.  I don't know what the Wisconsin article author is referring to by "age appropriate CRT", but I doubt it would have any resemblance to CRT in academic setting.  It would probably end up something like calling algebra age appropriate multivariable calculus.  Whatever it is, it's not CRT.  

 

When legislators pass bills prohibiting instructions on racism that makes students uncomfortable, we've left CRT far behind at the station and are now talking about something different altogether.  If you want to label that CRT and debate whether that should be part of grade school curriculum, that's a different debate.  But no one is proposing bringing a law school course into high schools.

 

 

Hillary squeaked out a victory over a relatively unknown independent senator from Vermont.  For Biden, look at his 2020 platform and see how far the "moderate" Dem position has swung since 2016.  If Biden went forward with the Clinton 2016 platform, he would've been crushed by the progressive candidates.

 

You talk about how far left messaging makes elections harder and drives away moderates (again psycho GOPs will be energized by anyone with a D next to their name.  Clinton ran a child sex slavery ring.  Obama was a communist.  Biden was senile.  They don't need the progressives to get outraged).  Moderates blaming the progressives mutes turn out from the left.  Dems need both.  If they want to reach out to the moderates, then point to things like BBB where progressives and moderates joined forces to come up with a legislative proposal that received support from the public.

 

 

As for messaging that gets both side to agree, support for Medicare for all is now 55%.  Public option is nearly 70%.  $15 minimum wage is not 60%+.  What exciting policy ideas have the moderates come up with to lure those moderate voters?  

 

 

The point of the quote is to make the point to voters and the more general public that he's listening and shares their concerns (and not other more far left concerns).  It is a 3 sentence piece put out to the press.  Not a detailed policy memo.

 

CRT isn't just a law school class.  To claim something isn't being taught in K-12 because it isn't being taught in the same manner as the highest levels of education is ludicrous.  Evolution is taught at the middle school level, the high school level, the college level, and the graduate school level.  Saying I support teaching evolution at K-12 doesn't mean I support teaching a graduate school class in K-12.  But saying that evolution isn't taught and people don't want evolution taught at the K-12 because nobody teaches or wants a graduate school level class on evolution taught in K-12 isn't true either.  Many people want evolution taught in K-12 schools.  That doesn't mean they want a grad class taught in K-12 schools.  Some people want CRT taught in K-12 schools.  That doesn't mean they want a law school class taught in K-12 schools.  People are telling you they want to CRT taught in schools (in the poll and in the opinion piece I posted).  You don't get to say well that's not really CRT because it isn't a law school level class that teaches all of the complexity associated with CRT.  Especially after screaming that people that are worried about CRT being taught in K-12 schools are stupid (not you personally but people generally).

 

Hillary didn't squeak out a victory.  She dominated the primaries and didn't lose a single state that actually had a primary.  It wasn't close.  And the problem isn't psycho GOPs in many big elections.  Younkin isn't governor of VA because he appealed only to the psycho GOP base.

 

Your last two sentences are the problem with progressive Dems.  Poll popularity doesn't turn into winning elections on a large scale.  It doesn't matter if people say they support it in a poll.  It matters if they are going to show up and vote for it.  And you can't discount the impacts of negative messaging.  Defund the police hurts in an election and can easily offset popular measures that poll well.  More people are showing up to vote AGAINST defund the police then all of the things you listed combined.

 

https://time.com/6113234/glenn-youngkin-virginia-analysis/

 

"The gains Democrats made in the Virginia ‘burbs in 2018 and 2020 appear ready to disappear, perhaps a warning for a party that had hoped to turn those voters into reliable allies in the post-Trump years. The exit polls showed independents leaning more toward Republicans in Virginia, with about one-third saying the GOP was generally about right, compared to about one-fifth of them saying the same about Democrats. That’s undeniably bad news for Democrats, whose party was seen by a majority of all voters as too liberal."

Edited February 19, 2022 by PeterMP

[bearrock]

25 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

The point of the quote is to make the point to voters and the more general public that he's listening and shares their concerns (and not other more far left concerns).  It is a 3 sentence piece put out to the press.  Not a detailed policy memo.

 

And moderate dems are perfectly capable of expressing common concern with voters without throwing the progressive wing under the bus.  Did AOC and co say that they are not concerned with the average American's pocketbooks?  Not concerned with infrastructure?  Raise tax for the wealthy and corporations and keep or cut tax for middle class and below?  Reform criminal justice system more for treatment and rehabilitation, which is more effective than incarceration?  Which of these proposals are the moderate dems disagreeing with and proposing an alternative?  

 

29 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

CRT isn't just a law school class.  To claim something isn't being taught in K-12 because it isn't being taught in the same manner as the highest levels of education is ludicrous.  Evolution is taught at the middle school level, the high school level, the college level, and the graduate school level.  Saying I support teaching evolution at K-12 doesn't mean I support teaching a graduate school class in K-12.  But saying that evolution isn't taught and people don't want evolution taught at the K-12 because nobody teaches or wants a graduate school level class on evolution taught in K-12 isn't true either.  Many people want evolution taught in K-12 schools.  That doesn't mean they want a grad class taught in K-12 schools.  Some people want CRT taught in K-12 schools.  That doesn't mean they want a law school class taught in schools.  People are telling you they want to CRT taught in schools (in the poll and in the opinion piece I posted).  You don't get to say well that's not really CRT because it isn't a law school level class that teaches all of the complexity associated with CRT.

 

At some point, the lesson gets so watered down that it has none of the controversial aspects left.  Is anyone proposing to teach that racial equality is impossible and that racial discrimination is permanent in American society? Within the context of a history curriculum that applauds the Civil rights movement, are schools proposing to teach that racial equality or racial justice cannot be achieved by legislative means?  At most, lessons will scratch the surface and end with "this is what people refer to by CRT" and give a general broad definition and end at that.  CRT was a theory to discuss the effect and effectiveness of legal structure and law on addressing racism and racial injustice.  The amount of deep diving required to get at why CRT advocates posit the positions they do is not likely in a grade school setting.  Like I said, just because you use algebraic concepts in higher math doesn't mean teaching algebra is teaching higher math.

 

46 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Hillary didn't squeak out a victory.  She dominated the primaries and didn't lose a single state that actually had a primary.  It wasn't close. 

 

What on earth are you talking about?  Sanders won over 20 contests, with like a third from primary states.  Before the super delegates, he was only behind by like 400 delegates.  This is a no name independent senator against a Dem party juggernaut.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

And the problem isn't psycho GOPs in many big elections.  Younkin isn't governor of VA because he appealed only to the psycho GOP base.

 

Your last two sentences are the problem with progressive Dems.  Poll popularity doesn't turn into winning elections on a large scale.  It doesn't matter if people say they support it in a poll.  It matters if they are going to show up and vote for it.  And you can't discount the impacts of negative messaging.  Defund the police hurts in an election and can easily offset popular measures that poll well.  More people are showing up to vote AGAINST defund the police then all of the things you listed combined.

 

https://time.com/6113234/glenn-youngkin-virginia-analysis/

 

"The gains Democrats made in the Virginia ‘burbs in 2018 and 2020 appear ready to disappear, perhaps a warning for a party that had hoped to turn those voters into reliable allies in the post-Trump years. The exit polls showed independents leaning more toward Republicans in Virginia, with about one-third saying the GOP was generally about right, compared to about one-fifth of them saying the same about Democrats. That’s undeniably bad news for Democrats, whose party was seen by a majority of all voters as too liberal."

 

How much shifted between Dem 2020 and Dem 2021?  You're really going to argue that a party that wasn't too liberal to win by 10% in 2020 was too liberal and therefore lost in 2021?  Youngkin victory wasn't about liberalism run amuck.  It was about Virginia being Virginia and electing a governor of the opposite party from the sitting president.  It was about people being disappointed that vaccine didn't mean an immediate end of the pandemic and the delta surge (McAullife was well ahead until the month before the election).  It was about people wanting to elect a governor who was ready to declare the pandemic over.  It was about a historically terrible answer by McAulife on parents' role in school curriculum and subsequent mind boggling campaign gaffe to not walk it back a million times.  

 

And 2021 mid terms isn't going to be about AOC and her friends torpedoeing the democratic party.  It's going to be about a mid term lashing given to almost every sitting president, especially one who has his biggest legislative agenda sunk by the "moderate" members of his own party.

 

Moderate Democrats live in a fantasy land where they can tell the progressives to go sit in a corner for 4 years until come election time.  If you try to court the middle by throwing the left and their positions under the bus, it's not status quo + the middle.  It's status quo + the middle - the left.  You may hope for more from the middle than the left, but that is by no means a given.