when they started denying real progressive candidates a shot at running for president. clinton, pelosi, schumer, all old, soft pussies too afraid to shake the status quo.
Yes, surely people capable of denying someone popular are soft pussies. It’s the opposite, they impose their will upon the party. Evil, not pussies.
The only ‘fire’ effective against Nazis is a molotov cocktail or a gun cartridge.
Stop blaming the opposition for not being tough enough against fascism, unkess you’re willing to take up arms.
Obama did it (kind of); he moved the party line to be policy oriented instead of stunts and cutthroat politics.
At the same time, he never gained a sufficient majority to enact his platform (in truth we’re lucky we got the affordable care act). Biden ran into similar issues with what was technically a majority but that had weak votes (e.g. Manchin).
Honestly the problem is the Senate; Democrats just can’t get past the threshold that would let them actually govern. So we get Democratic presidents that appear ineffective … when really we just have a Senate that’s broadly ineffective at doing anything that isn’t center right.
A Promised Land by Obama is an extremely good book if you want to understand the modern democratic party. Obama did a lot to get the spark back but also was in a very difficult position.
Obama had a majority too. The problem is too many members rowing in different directions within the party.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
This is what I believe will always be the root of democrat’s inaction: too many directions for improvement. Both sides want the country to be better, right? So let’s talk about what the democrats, liberals, and progressives want. They want, in no particular order, reproductive freedom, religious freedom, racial equality, gender equality, socialist welfare, cheaper and more effective healthcare, reduced citizen financial burden, cleaner air, healthier ecosystems, more efficient transportation, more efficient energy production, and global societal cooperation, to name a dozen. What do we tackle first? Some would say reproductive freedom is of the utmost importance because that will cause society to collapse the fastest. Some say climate change policy is the most important because the irreversible damage is growing exponentially. Then some would say the financial crisis is the priority because none of the rest matters if the population is pushed to homeless starvation. 13 theoretical representatives push 13 different utopian priorities.
Now say there’s 20 reps in total, 7 being republicans and conservatives. What would make the country better for them? Well, looking at the much less diverse demographic, take half of the above goals but append “white, Christian, patriarchal, wealthy” to the citizens they wish to appease and throw out the other half of the topics. Instead of providing progressive policy that balances benefits for all citizens, they smaller group: the “majority” of the nation that represents only about 1/3 of the population. All these 7 conservatives have to do is fold their arms and say no to whatever policy the liberals are pushing. They don’t have to agree on how to best revert the country back to the good old days when liberal subgroups give them easy targets. Reject wildlife restrictions and their constituents will feel good because it’s not their forest. Reject clean air acts because their constituents will believe the air is the way it is. Reject social welfare because their constituents believe the money saved will make them wealthy. Reject reproductive freedom because their constituents will blame it all on personal choice for others, God’s mysterious ways for themselves. Reject gender equality because their constituents believe in the patriarchy. Reject global cooperative initiatives bevause their constituents believe America is a freestanding nation.
13 democrats line up as individuals while 7 Republicans stand with elbows linked, calling “red rover, red rover, send your policies over” ready to block it as a team of negativity. To break through the wall, democrats have to compromise with each other first on the division of resources, watering down each of their goals. The it gets watered down again with something that might pass the whole group. Multiple policies get tied together as one big bill, not one item at a time. This is what makes it so frustrating when any rep gets called out for voting against some bill that supposedly is clearly for the benefit of the country. It’s most like 15 different topics strung together and whatever their priority is doesn’t align with its representation within that bill. Yet, voting by party lines is the only way to move forward. If they agree with the bill, then they’re flopping on their core values.
Then, sprinkle in some key single-issue voter topics and you’ll probably get the attention of swing voters and non-voters. I’m in a liberal area. The sane people I’ve talked to that turn out to vote republican are always dead set on one topic. Sometimes, they’re quiet Christians that are anti-abortion. Sometimes they’re hunters that shut down as soon as a liberal mentions gun control. Sometimes they’re rural people who believe petroleum vehicles will be outlawed. Sometimes they believe the capitalist machine will reward them for being honest workers as soon as the corporation catches a windfall. Sometimes the techy types want nothing but net neutrality first.
The GOP machine is working exactly as designed with a dozen single issues to snag voters and blockade progress.
sufficient majority
Are you trying to pass an amendment? They actually had a supermajority for 72 days. Not that they didn’t get anything done, mind you, but the point stands.
The filibuster is a thing and that regularly prevents anything from getting done without 60 votes.
Obama in his book (A Promised Land) talks about this and how his biggest regret is not ending the filibuster as his first action because it proceeded to cripple his entire administration and agenda for the majority of his presidency.
What Obama did should be judged by what he really did, not promised, not described, not was close to do.
You can say whatever you want if it depends on majority which won’t ever support you, and then claim that was your real intention.
This is simpler than average intrigue between friends or at workplace, or even of deciding whose turn it is to go for groceries, and politics are not simpler.
They’re complicit. They are bought by the same billionaires as the Republicans. As long as you can purchase a politician, we have no functional democracy
Corpo whores and owners lapdogs that’s who is stuffing the Democrats now
It is fucking disgusting
Citizens United
The simple answer: corrupt capitalism.
Occam’s barbershop.
Like it or not, the president is part of the system. One person doesn’t change the system.
Please look at current administration.
He is not doing it himself… He is being enables by Tue entire regime
one person doesn’t change the system
One person is being enabled…
Sounds a lot like one person changing the system with support.
Not: these people are changing the system…
“Liberals took Hollywood, Conservatives took Washington”
Then explain Ronald Reagan?
He left Hollywood
it’s over bro. come back in 3.5 years
It sucks to say but yeah. For all the talk about saving democracy they forgot about the winning elections part.
Obama was a huge wuss. He came in on promises of change and did nothing but continue to placate corporations.
Dude had the mandate Trump thinks he has now to fuck the big banks and instead came in meekly asked for buy in from his opponents on everything. Huge wuss indeed.
