And the Progressive Blaming Begins Already

[BoyNextDoor]

Bernie and AOC and the Progressives get in line and deliver the POTUS to the Dems and in return, get told "they" are the reason the House lost seats and are told to fuck off with their policies.

The idiots cannot get their brains around how just not being Tricky Trump is not enough. You have to have an alternative for the 70 Million that voted Trump and the rest that held their nose, for the last time, and voted Biden.

 

[adrina]

I think the thing here may be that the US is more centrist on the national level and more to the sides on the state level.

That's a lesson democrats could learn from.

 

[Wrong Element]

Most of the seats the Dems lost in the House were ones that were going to be almost impossible to defend outside of a wave year.

The real problem is that as usual, they didn't do well enough in state legislative races. The old gerrymandered districts are going to become new gerrymandered districts by next year, and that's going to make winning the House at any point in the 2020s an uphill battle (a partisan Supreme Court upholding new restrictions on voting won't help either).

 

[HisArpy]

Approximately 50% of the electorate did not vote for Trump.

1/2 of them voted FOR Biden.
1/2 of them voted AGAINST Trump.

Do the math... only 25% of the electorate actually SUPPORTS Biden.

 

[adrina]

Approximately 50% of the electorate did not vote for Trump.

1/2 of them voted FOR Biden.
1/2 of them voted AGAINST Trump.

Do the math... only 25% of the electorate actually SUPPORTS Biden.

Less than that voted for Trump in 2016. Literally. 62m of over 250m potential voters.

Did you argue or equivocate then?

 

[DeluxAuto]

Approximately 50% of the electorate did not vote for Trump.

1/2 of them voted FOR Biden.
1/2 of them voted AGAINST Trump.

Do the math... only 25% of the electorate actually SUPPORTS Biden.

So like how you clowns voted against a woman and stuck us with a bigger clown than yourselves.

 

[jaF0]

Moral of the story ....

Politicians are assholes. Lying, conniving, self-important assholes. All of them. No matter what letter they associate with.

 

[adrina]

Moral of the story ....

Politicians are assholes. Lying, conniving, self-important assholes. All of them. No matter what letter they associate with.

Lazy both sides BS.

There are surely terrible asshole politicians. But not every single one. It's just easier to say that.

 

[Lazaran]

.
Harpy thinks people only voted against Trump because they hate HIM and not the policies of the grand OLD party.

Newsflash: two thirds of Americans support taxing the rich, climate change initiatives, stricter gun laws, etc, and a majority support many other "progressive" policies.

The trend line of popular vote losses and changing demographics suggests that things are only going to get worse for the grand OLD party moving forward.

Enjoy the time you have left.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Conor Lamb, the 36-year-old Pennsylvania Democrat who beat back a Republican challenge in a district that President Trump won in 2016, is one of those moderates who believes the left is costing Democrats in key areas. In an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Lamb said he expected the incoming administration to govern as it had campaigned: with progressives at arm’s length.


So which is it? Progressives at arms length? or part of the Party?

 

[KeithD]

I think it's true that the smear of "defunding the police" and "socialism" tagged to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party cut votes for a centrist Biden--and, more notably in the more particularized Senate and House races, but I think it's more true that the extent to which progressives stayed with Biden through this election was instrumental in the Democratic win for the White House. I think it's quite legitimate for the progressive to claim a big chunk of the administration's policy positions now, after the election.

The major voice I've heard--and seen in media--attacking the progressive wing has been from the congresswoman in the district next to mine (my own district is so gerrymandered by the Republicans that a born again Falwell associate, who was revealed during the campaign as owning stocks in companies he pushed business to as a county supervisor), Abigail Spanberger. Her district (once Erick Cantor's) is so on-the-margin conservative (Erick Cantor lost it for not being conservative enough) that it's natural she had trouble holding her district in the face of the "defund the police" and "socialism" calls. That's not the same that state and local candidates in New York, for instance, faced in their campaigns.

Running in a district or at the state level is different from running at the national level. The greatest overall success is balancing the messages by specific application. The Democrats managed this nationally. Not as well locally. It's fine to review why that happened.

In my own district, a very strong Democratic congressional candidate despite the heavy gerrymandering, stumbled on the one "defund the police" issue. He might have made it over the top if he'd just not ever said anything about that. "Defund the police" isn't something that would go over well anywhere in the district except where the Democratic stronghold around the University of Virginia (where I and the Democratic candidate are from) is located (and I don't favor "defunding the police"). We've never had enough votes to hold the district from here. The Democratic candidate walked a careful line except for that one "defund the police" recorded incident--and the Republicans beat him to death over that--successfully.

 

[Counselor706]

Dem leaders warn liberal rhetoric could blow Georgia races

Dem Rep. Cuellar: Far-left messaging ‘didn’t play well in my congressional district’

Biden campaign co-chair Cedric Richmond: ‘Defunding the police is a title that hurts Democrats’

 

[jaF0]

I think it's true that the smear of "defunding the police" and ...

That's at least partially what corrupted my neighbor into Cult45. He made the statement 'they want to abolish the police'. The term 'defund' was a bad choice that too many people don't understand.

 

[Wrong Element]

I think it's true that the smear of "defunding the police" and "socialism" tagged to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party cut votes for a centrist Biden--and, more notably in the more particularized Senate and House races, but I think it's more true that the extent to which progressives stayed with Biden through this election was instrumental in the Democratic win for the White House. I think it's quite legitimate for the progressive to claim a big chunk of the administration's policy positions now, after the election.

The major voice I've heard--and seen in media--attacking the progressive wing has been from the congresswoman in the district next to mine (my own district is so gerrymandered by the Republicans that a born again Falwell associate, who was revealed during the campaign as owning stocks in companies he pushed business to as a county supervisor), Abigail Spanberger. Her district (once Erick Cantor's) is so on-the-margin conservative (Erick Cantor lost it for not being conservative enough) that it's natural she had trouble holding her district in the face of the "defund the police" and "socialism" calls. That's not the same that state and local candidates in New York, for instance, faced in their campaigns.

I would draw a distinction between Republicans calling Democrats "socialists," which has been going on for the better part of 100 years (including regarding now uncontroversial stuff like Medicare); and Democrats actually calling for socialism, which isn't happening outside of a very few very blue districts.

If individual Democratic candidates can't put their opponents on the defensive when the GOP ticket is headed up by the likes of Donald Trump, that level of incompetence is their own fault.

 

[Lazaran]

Conor Lamb, the 36-year-old Pennsylvania Democrat who beat back a Republican challenge in a district that President Trump won in 2016, is one of those moderates who believes the left is costing Democrats in key areas. In an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Lamb said he expected the incoming administration to govern as it had campaigned: with progressives at arm’s length.


So which is it? Progressives at arms length? or part of the Party?

"Progressives", meaning those young radicals who think they invented the terms environmentalism, and social/economic justice reform, have received more than their fair share of the spotlight and the world stage after handing Trump the Presidency in 2016. They are welcome in the Democratic Party that has championed those causes for decades, but they still have to put in the work. Fuckers like Ice Cube, and to some extent Bernie and AOC showing up and expecting to co-opt the narrative is a bit arrogant and entitled.

I get the urgency and demands for action, but forcing an elephant into a shoebox isn't as easy as they seem to think it is.

This election should be proof of that.

 

[Sean]

Funny, those "far left" (lol) candidates did pretty well in the election. You know who didn't do well? Fucking retard dinosaurs that had zero digital strategy in a fucking pandemic.

 

[KeithD]

I would draw a distinction between Republicans calling Democrats "socialists," which has been going on for the better part of 100 years (including regarding now uncontroversial stuff like Medicare); and Democrats actually calling for socialism, which isn't happening outside of a very few very blue districts.

I don't see the relevance of that to the election. What was relevant was what the Republicans could make voters believe and whether/whether not the Democratic candidates could neutralize that.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

.
Harpy thinks people only voted against Trump because they hate HIM and not the policies of the grand OLD party.

Newsflash: two thirds of Americans support taxing the rich, climate change initiatives, stricter gun laws, etc, and a majority support many other "progressive" policies.

The trend line of popular vote losses and changing demographics suggests that things are only going to get worse for the grand OLD party moving forward.

Enjoy the time you have left.

Newsflash: not according to the "centrists"
An angry dispute erupted among House Democrats on Thursday, with centrist members blasting their liberal colleagues during a private conference call for pushing far-left views that cost the party seats in Tuesday’s election that they had worked hard to win two years ago.

The bitter exchange, which lasted more than three hours as members sniped back and forth over tactics and ideology, reflected the extent to which the 2020 campaign exposed simmering tensions in the party even as its presidential nominee, Joe Biden, stands on the brink of achieving their biggest goal of the year — ousting President Trump.

Party leaders had expressed certainty that Trump’s divisiveness and mishandling of the pandemic would help them expand their majority with wins in GOP-held districts — and yet they lost at least a half-dozen seats and failed to retake the Senate. The explanation laid out by centrists, according to multiple people who were on the call and spoke on the condition of anonymity, is that Republicans were easily able to paint them all as socialists and radical leftists who endorse far-left positions such as defunding the police.

“We need to not ever use the word ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. . . . We lost good members because of that,” Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), who narrowly leads in her reelection bid, said heatedly. “If we are classifying Tuesday as a success . . . we will get f---ing torn apart in 2022.”

Other centrists, including Rep. Marc Veasey of Texas, made similar points. Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a Florida Democrat who suffered an unexpected loss to a Republican challenger, argued through tears that the party’s infighting on Twitter needs to stop.

In the aftermath of their unexpected losses, Democrats argued that the party needs to come to terms with a bigger problem: Republicans have successfully cast the most vulnerable Democrats as “socialists” and tied them to liberal ideas, including Medicare-for-all, the Green New Deal and cutting police budgets.

 

[Sean]

Newsflash: not according to the "centrists"
An angry dispute erupted among House Democrats on Thursday, with centrist members blasting their liberal colleagues during a private conference call for pushing far-left views that cost the party seats in Tuesday’s election that they had worked hard to win two years ago.

The bitter exchange, which lasted more than three hours as members sniped back and forth over tactics and ideology, reflected the extent to which the 2020 campaign exposed simmering tensions in the party even as its presidential nominee, Joe Biden, stands on the brink of achieving their biggest goal of the year — ousting President Trump.

Party leaders had expressed certainty that Trump’s divisiveness and mishandling of the pandemic would help them expand their majority with wins in GOP-held districts — and yet they lost at least a half-dozen seats and failed to retake the Senate. The explanation laid out by centrists, according to multiple people who were on the call and spoke on the condition of anonymity, is that Republicans were easily able to paint them all as socialists and radical leftists who endorse far-left positions such as defunding the police.

“We need to not ever use the word ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. . . . We lost good members because of that,” Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), who narrowly leads in her reelection bid, said heatedly. “If we are classifying Tuesday as a success . . . we will get f---ing torn apart in 2022.”

Other centrists, including Rep. Marc Veasey of Texas, made similar points. Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, a Florida Democrat who suffered an unexpected loss to a Republican challenger, argued through tears that the party’s infighting on Twitter needs to stop.

In the aftermath of their unexpected losses, Democrats argued that the party needs to come to terms with a bigger problem: Republicans have successfully cast the most vulnerable Democrats as “socialists” and tied them to liberal ideas, including Medicare-for-all, the Green New Deal and cutting police budgets.

They were calling Obama a socialist, for fuck sake, long before AOC and the rest were on the scene. Once again the corporate welfare wing of the Democrat party think they can call the shots.

 

[SevMax2]

They were calling Obama a socialist, for fuck sake, long before AOC and the rest were on the scene. Once again the corporate welfare wing of the Democrat party think they can call the shots.

Obama has turned out to be the furthest thing from even a progressive, let alone a socialist. Citigroup handpicked his entire cabinet for him.

 

[HisArpy]

Less than that voted for Trump in 2016. Literally. 62m of over 250m potential voters.

Did you argue or equivocate then?

Did I say TOTAL electorate, or did you read something into what I said that isn't there?


Honestly, it's like arguing with a dog to talk to you people sometimes.

 

[HisArpy]

.
Harpy thinks people only voted against Trump because they hate HIM and not the policies of the grand OLD party.

Newsflash: two thirds of Americans support taxing the rich, climate change initiatives, stricter gun laws, etc, and a majority support many other "progressive" policies.

The trend line of popular vote losses and changing demographics suggests that things are only going to get worse for the grand OLD party moving forward.

Enjoy the time you have left.

It really isn't my fault you're fucking stupid. And gullible.

 

[phrodeau]

Who would defund police? Take a guess.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-cut-resources-fight-white-supremacy-domestic-terrorism-2019-8

 

[Lazaran]

Who would defund police? Take a guess.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-cut-resources-fight-white-supremacy-domestic-terrorism-2019-8

Because of course he did........

SAD!!!

 

[jomar]

No political expert here, but seems to me that now’s not the the time for a progressive push unless the Dems are ok with a republican potus win in 2024.