Defining the 21st Century Democratic Party

[hepcat]

The decrease in the power of the Unions over blue collar rural Americans is one of the more surprising things to me. I grew up in a bastion of Union members/supporters, and they would have died to protect those institutions. Now? Not so much.

[Kurth]

I keep being told here that I am wrong but meanwhile, knowledgeable Democrats are agreeing with me:

This confirms my perception, so it must true.

When knowledgeable people speak, I tend to listen to them, don’t you?

These aren’t just randos off the street.

It’s not just you, Grif. And it’s not just an urban/suburbs/rural thing, either. Why are liberal candidates losing in liberal cities?

Elections to the San Francisco Board of Education are not normally national bellwethers. The city is a proud symbol of liberalism, not a swing district, and school-board elections — as Thomas Fuller, The Times’s San Francisco bureau chief, notes — “have for decades been obscure sideshows to the more high-profile political contests.”

But the recall election this week that ousted three board members wasn’t about only local politics. It also reflected a trend: Many Americans, even in liberal places, seem frustrated by what they consider a leftward lurch from parts of the Democratic Party and its allies. This frustration spans several issues, including education, crime and Covid-19.

[malchior]

Oy vey. Everything I read about this was that that local school board had massive issues about competence. From what I read about the detail on San Fran is that it is nothing like the Seattle story, Adams, or anger over COVID policies. For example, Adams. Adams won the election effectively in the primary. He won that by 8400 votes - less than a percentage point. Hardly an overwhelming vote for *centrism*.

Seattle. That had 'Defund the Police' mania attached and despite this supposed poison pill it came in at a 4 point difference. Call me crazy but that isn't some crushing loss.

The broad strokes about COVID? Opinions vary wildly. The NY Times recently had one of their panels and the people who were poorer and more at risk were all still very concerned about COVID. Certainly not a viewpoint shared by the elites in their NY Times tower. Oh and by that I mean people who largely work at home remotely in Montclar, New Jersey.

Yet we're supposed to extrapolate that onto the national mood. I mean really? Painting these disparate stories as some nationwide mood or repudiation of liberals is IMO *awful analysis*. We're talking a mayoral election, some school boards, a prosecutor race, etc. And overlaying a *national mood on them*. I mean come on.

Then came out their other favorite tool - bothsidesism - when they go onto point out where the Republicans are out of step in their own way. The big difference? It's everywhere. They are comparing a mostly uniform and radicalized GOP to the huge Democratic tent with a focus on the relatively few whack-a-doodles outliers. It's laughably bad but that's the NY Times now. Your home for the comfort of an "illusory center" we can return to and fix our politics.

[Alefroth]

I wouldn't put too much stock into that. It was a special election in the middle on February. Those highly motivated are going to be the ones to turn out.

[pr0ner]

LOLOLOLOL.

Oh, come on.

[LordMortis]

As a member of her district, as good or bad as she has been (and it's been both), I'm not eager to click on any link that starts off with "squad member" when referring to her. That Trump baggage inserted right at the top as an advertisement.

[Kurth]

LOLOLOLOL.

Oh, come on.

Fucking geniuses.

The fact that the whole of the Democratic party can not get on the same page and all row together in the opposite direction of Trump just blows my mind. How myopic can you be? You have disagreements with moderate Dems. Fine. I get it. But how can they possibly believe that now is the time to deliver a rebuttal to Biden's SOTU highlighting his inability to pass key legislation and focusing on efforts to primary other Dems that don't meet their progressive litmus test? What's wrong with these people?

Everyone with a brain and a sentimental spot for democratic governance needs to be 100% united in one and only one overarching goal: Ensuring Trump is not elected in 2024. Anything not in support of that goal is counterproductive and dangerous.

[Zarathud]

It worked for Republicans. The state of their party is the result of forcing an extreme litmus test and driving out “in name only” moderates.

[Kurth]

It worked for Republicans. The state of their party is the result of forcing an extreme litmus test and driving out “in name only” moderates.

Wait . . . You think that “worked” for Republicans? Please define “worked.”

[stessier]

It worked for Republicans. The state of their party is the result of forcing an extreme litmus test and driving out “in name only” moderates.

Wait . . . You think that “worked” for Republicans? Please define “worked.”

They have a unified message that reliably gets candidates elected.

[Grifman]

LOLOLOLOL.

Oh, come on.

Just saw this and was coming to post but you beat me to it. Just what Democrats need right now.

[Fireball]

LOLOLOLOL.

Oh, come on.

This will not be helpful.

[Zaxxon]

We's fucked.

[Defiant]

What works for Republicans doesn't always work for Democrats, who are a far more big-tent party composed of groups with different interests than the Republican party.

They have a unified message that reliably gets candidates elected.

I seem to remember a bunch of controversial Trump-back candidates losing their primaries, although I'll admit that I haven't looked at it deeply.

Also, see Trump.

[Kurth]

It worked for Republicans. The state of their party is the result of forcing an extreme litmus test and driving out “in name only” moderates.

Wait . . . You think that “worked” for Republicans? Please define “worked.”

They have a unified message that reliably gets candidates elected.

First, I'm not sure that's correct. Maybe, but I'm not entirely sure you're right that the MAGA message reliably gets candidates elected. Some candidates. In some places. But as a strategy for a political party, I'm not sure that's been proven a winner just yet.

Second, that can't be the only test for what "works" in this discussion. The Republican party isn't really a functioning political party at this point. It's a fucking cult of personality. The ideological center of the GOP has been all but hollowed out. Even if they are winning elections by embracing the MAGA cult of Trump, Republicans have basically turned into the political equivalent of zombie ants infected with Ophiocordyceps unilateralis.

I don't think that really qualifies as a working strategy.

[Zarathud]

Works is both sarcastic but also a dark statement on function.

It was not intended as a social positive. Remember, that bullshit caused me to loudly leave the Republican Party in 1998.

[malchior]

I'd also point out that at least 75% of what has been happening was tacit policy of the Republican party for 40 plus years. They were just good at blowing softly on the dog whistle and avoiding saying the quiet part out loud. When someone did they punished them for appearances (e.g., George Allen). Now they are unburdened by those restrictions. They say the dark stuff out loud and proudly because it is what the base requires them to do to get past the first important hurdle. Is it a great strategy nationally? It doesn't look like it. For instance, Youngkin did a good job straddling the line with just enough dog whistling to get his people to massively turn out which is why he won. It was turnout on the GOP side. Now VA has serious buyer's remorse.

To Kurth's point, what the GOP can do in some places and at some times is drive turnout in meaningful ways in local and off-cycle elections. That's almost their secret power and then they turn that grassroots into action. They won by playing small ball. And when they need to now they can whip up their base frothing mad about some bullshit issue. This cycle it was CRT and masks.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are institutionally inept and learn all the wrong lessons. "We need to be more centrist" for instance. No that isn't the problem. The problem is that the Democrats can't communicate with their base or the public and lose every goddamn important fight. In other words, people don't turn out for losers that can't get anything done. This shouldn't be a goddamn mystery anymore. They don't have to actually defund the police or solve racism but they need to put up a decent fight about issues that people actually care about. And they never do. They lose and lose and lose. They've been losing a cold political war for decades. And at this point it looks like they've lost it and still are listening to the same voices who got us into this mess in the first place.

[Kurth]

I'd also point out that at least 75% of what has been happening was tacit policy of the Republican party for 40 plus years.

I'm not sure I agree 100% with your 75% assessment, but even if we take that assessment as fact, this is a little misleading as I read it, because that 25% that wasn't tacit GOP policy for the last 40 plus years is so much more important than all the other stuff combined.

Let's just agree that Republicans have long stood for protecting the rich, stomping on the poor, institutionalizing Judeo-Christian religious and cultural values, pushing buttons and policies that are racist in effect (if not in intent), and basically being the party of "I got mine, so suck it!" I don't think that's a very nuanced view of the GOP over the years, but let's just say it's so. As terrible as all that is, it's nothing compared to the anti-democratic, treasonous cult of personality that now inhabits the core of the Republican party.

And that's not something that has been "tacit policy of the Republican party for 40 plus years."

So, to the extent your post is read to mean that the Trump GOP is basically just MOTS, I disagree.

[malchior]

I'd also point out that at least 75% of what has been happening was tacit policy of the Republican party for 40 plus years.

I'm not sure I agree 100% with your 75% assessment, but even if we take that assessment as fact, this is a little misleading as I read it, because that 25% that wasn't tacit GOP policy for the last 40 plus years is so much more important than all the other stuff combined.

Let's just agree that Republicans have long stood for protecting the rich, stomping on the poor, institutionalizing Judeo-Christian religious and cultural values, pushing buttons and policies that are racist in effect (if not in intent), and basically being the party of "I got mine, so suck it!" I don't think that's a very nuanced view of the GOP over the years, but let's just say it's so.

Right but that isn't how I'd describe the 75%. The bulk of the 75% revolved around the concept that job one for the GOP has been to develop the wealth inequality engine we see now. All the racism, religious stuff, military worship, etc. were the policies they espoused to build coalitions to be able to wield power to do job one. They've been relatively consistent when you get down to it. The change we're seeing is mostly still predicated on those core tenets and electoral strategies.

As terrible as all that is, it's nothing compared to the anti-democratic, treasonous cult of personality that now inhabits the core of the Republican party.

Sure but that is a consequence of the above. They are anti-democratic because this is what they've been forced by their own actions to become. I'd even argue the treason stuff though is a descendent politically of long-held anti-Federal government feelings in the GOP. It's obviously more complicated but the recent strain is heavily tied into Trump grievances about the Russia investigations and the first impeachment effort.

However there still is a significant core belief that the Federal government when run by Democrats is fascist and simultaneously socialist for maximum incoherence. It only has legitimacy when run by Republicans. And I'd argue that most of this treasonous stuff is about being anti-Biden and only loosely pro-Putin. It is more that they'd rather lie about Putin to tear down Biden than care about what Putin actually does. They aren't honest dealers. Also, it doesn't hurt that Putin has built a more advanced oligarchy and they aspire to match it in some sense.

And that's not something that has been "tacit policy of the Republican party for 40 plus years."

Agreed.

So, to the extent your post is read to mean that the Trump GOP is basically just MOTS, I disagree.

Sure but mostly because I never argued that. I'd still say that if you focus just on economic policy you see the "most MOTS". In the midst of everything what meaningful change to economic policy have we seen in the GOP? Almost none. Heck they have almost no real ideas about anything. That is why they manufacture outrage and policy to soothe that outrage. They are distracting their base from the looting.

Still where Trumpism isn't MOTS is that we saw rapid radicalization that first followed patterns that were already underway. Early on it was mostly about preservation of this economic system. Especially after the financial crisis. It has gone so much farther now so much faster than expected as opportunists like Trump realized their were legitimate gaps to take a bite of the pie. All without consequence of any sort.

[Fireball]

To Kurth's point, what the GOP can do in some places and at some times is drive turnout in meaningful ways in local and off-cycle elections. That's almost their secret power and then they turn that grassroots into action. They won by playing small ball. And when they need to now they can whip up their base frothing mad about some bullshit issue. This cycle it was CRT and masks.

So, it's not really a secret why the Republicans do better in off-cycle elections (and most local elections are off-cycle, so it's hard to separate the two into different phenomena). Higher-income voters are more politically aware, in part because they have more free time to dedicate to political matters that aren't so prominent that you can't help but no about them, and they tend to vote Republican. The Democrats' counterweight to that used to be unions, but they were never as good at driving lower-income voters to the polls in non-presidential elections as college educated, higher-income voters are at getting themselves to the polls.

As the Republican brand toxifies itself against things like expertise, education, and rationality, it risks losing some of this edge if the suburban drift towards Democrats continues. Even the bad results in Virginia, in particular, last year (let me tell ya, winning an election in November was like having a birthday party in the middle of someone else's funeral) indicate that this drift is continuing. McAuliffe lost by 2 points after running an epically bad campaign, and likely would have won if he hadn't stupidly said that parents shouldn't have any say what is taught in classrooms — parents have tons of say in that by electing people who make those decisions.

Democrats are also really misreading the room on some COVID policies. Voters broadly dislike COVID minimization by the GOP, and and less broadly think that Democrats go too far in COVID maximalism. The valence of those concerns changed fundamentally in 2021 though in two important ways: parents are done with school shut downs and there is widespread anger in a lot of suburban communities about how slow schools were to put kids back in classrooms (which isn't without merit, Europe never did the level of school shutdowns we did), and vaccinated people feel that they have done their part, and they elected Biden to get us back to "normalcy", and so just enough of them find maximalism more annoying than they now find minimization scary.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are institutionally inept and learn all the wrong lessons. "We need to be more centrist" for instance.

Democrats shouldn't necessarily be "more centrist." But they also shouldn't necessarily be "more progressive." Democrats need to run on the popular parts of their agenda, and downplay and, when possible, change the unpopular parts. The moderates are wrong when they prioritize deficit reduction over broader, more impactful programs, but right when they point out that "defund the police" is both bad policy and even worse politics. The progressives are right when they push for big swings on problems faced by most Americans like the need for paid parental leave, but wrong when they demand sweeping, unpopular things like massive student loan forgiveness that would effectively subsidize incredibly expensive degrees held by some of the highest-paid Americans at the expense of regular workers.

The problem is that the Democrats can't communicate with their base or the public and lose every goddamn important fight. In other words, people don't turn out for losers that can't get anything done.

Not a single one of Biden's problems at getting his legislative agenda through Congress could be fixed by being personally more persuasive or better at "communicating." The blockade to popular elements of Biden's agenda is entirely structural, and you can't Green Lantern your way past a blanket refusal by Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema to create filibuster carve-outs.

They don't have to actually defund the police or solve racism but they need to put up a decent fight about issues that people actually care about.

To the degree that the average American cares about "defund the police" they really, really, really oppose it. It's complete political poison.

And at this point it looks like they've lost it and still are listening to the same voices who got us into this mess in the first place.

Please tell me which voices those are, in particular.

[Kurth]

Please tell me which voices those are, in particular.

The very serious people, of course! Duh.

[Sorry, malchior, I couldn't resist. ]

[malchior]

As the Republican brand toxifies itself against things like expertise, education, and rationality, it risks losing some of this edge if the suburban drift towards Democrats continues.

Sure if we have fair and free elections. Hopefully we will and long-term they'll get beaten back. Still the GOP is acting this way for a reason. They know they can't maintain their coalition acting this way.

Democrats are also really misreading the room on some COVID policies. Voters broadly dislike COVID minimization by the GOP, and and less broadly think that Democrats go too far in COVID maximalism. The valence of those concerns changed fundamentally in 2021 though in two important ways: parents are done with school shut downs and there is widespread anger in a lot of suburban communities about how slow schools were to put kids back in classrooms (which isn't without merit, Europe never did the level of school shutdowns we did), and vaccinated people feel that they have done their part, and they elected Biden to get us back to "normalcy", and so just enough of them find maximalism more annoying than they now find minimization scary.

Mhm.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are institutionally inept and learn all the wrong lessons. "We need to be more centrist" for instance.

Democrats shouldn't necessarily be "more centrist." But they also shouldn't necessarily be "more progressive." Democrats need to run on the popular parts of their agenda, and downplay and, when possible, change the unpopular parts. The moderates are wrong when they prioritize deficit reduction over broader, more impactful programs, but right when they point out that "defund the police" is both bad policy and even worse politics.

The progressives are right when they push for big swings on problems faced by most Americans like the need for paid parental leave, but wrong when they demand sweeping, unpopular things like massive student loan forgiveness that would effectively subsidize incredibly expensive degrees held by some of the highest-paid Americans at the expense of regular workers.

Yup. I see some of this is just big tent stuff. The Democrat tent has been enlarged with refugees from GOP radicalization. I recognize that is a hard, way too wide path to walk policy wise as much as policy matters in this country.

The problem is that the Democrats can't communicate with their base or the public and lose every goddamn important fight. In other words, people don't turn out for losers that can't get anything done.

Not a single one of Biden's problems at getting his legislative agenda through Congress could be fixed by being personally more persuasive or better at "communicating." The blockade to popular elements of Biden's agenda is entirely structural, and you can't Green Lantern your way past a blanket refusal by Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema to create filibuster carve-outs.

Totally on board with this. I've argued this same point. But this isn't a comment that reflects just Biden. This is the bigger problem that the Democrats haven't effectively communicated a strategy that gets things done. Instead, they've essentially been stymied by the structural elements and haven't messaged that or adjusted to those realities. They've largely failed to react to a overarching strategy that saw the Republicans build a movement that recognized the system as it exists. They set off to win local and state elections, build legislative pipelines and judicial reverse packing strategies, etc. The Republicans have long been fighting a war while the Democrats were selling policy they should have known they couldn't deliver. The Democrats lost the fight for us because they never were even on the real battlefield.

They don't have to actually defund the police or solve racism but they need to put up a decent fight about issues that people actually care about.

To the degree that the average American cares about "defund the police" they really, really, really oppose it. It's complete political poison.

Sure because it is idiotic messaging. I don't know if it would have been feasible but it would have been so much better if that was co-opted with a more palatable message about reforming the police. I feel that Biden flat repudiated it, moved on, and thought that'd settle it. It didn't work. There seems to be no message discipline at all and the media loves to play up the crazy outliers.

Moving forward, I assume we will see shortly if they can get something together message wise to counter the education stuff in particular. It really seems the Republicans have been fighting for the mid-terms for some time now. Let's hope the SOTU lays out some sort of strategy to try to limit the damage.

And at this point it looks like they've lost it and still are listening to the same voices who got us into this mess in the first place.

Please tell me which voices those are, in particular.

It's a long list in my head but a lot of Clinton people worked for the Obama administration and now are in the Biden administration. That was more of the basis there but it also factors in that the leadership of the Democratic party is pretty much all 70 and 80 year men and women. Obviously Obama was younger and a bit of the exception.

Still in areas like economics they've largely featured voices who have helped maintain supply side economic policy that has exacerbated wealth inequality issues. For example, do we even have a Trump in power if Larry Summers didn't lay out the foundations for a too small stimulus package after the Great Recession. It almost certainly led to widespread economic hardship. It is something I think about sometimes. Though to be fair he was soundly ignored when he kvetched about the size of the ARP.

Around Biden and Harris you have a lot of Clinton folks like Reed and Richetti. And they seem to have their hooks set in deep. The statement is more a reflection that the Democrats haven't seemed to adapt to the radical change they face and yet we see the same people administration after administration.

[Kurth]

Reading the piece Grif linked to now, but I stumbled on this word in the intro before the interview even got started: “samizdat” (as in, “His newsletter has become a kind of samizdat for like-minded liberals who aren’t as willing to speak their minds.”)

I have never heard that word before in my life, but I learned it means:

Spoiler:

the clandestine copying and distribution of literature banned by the state, especially formerly in the communist countries of eastern Europe.
"a samizdat newsletter"

I’m all for expanding my vocabulary, but it does make me wonder who the NYT staff thinks they’re writing for. Actually, no it doesn’t.

FWIW (late reply), this term was very well-known during the late Cold War. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and other survivors of the GULAG were the best-known examples, but it was understood that works of other anti-Stalinist writers from the West (e.g. Arthur Koestler) circulated clandestinely in the USSR. What this mainly indicates is that the NYT understands its core audience to be older than 45 or so.

Still, "samizdat" has also had a second life as a term for underground zines and other radical small-press publications. I just asked my 15-year-old (who fancies himself an online Anarchist), and he knows it.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but driving around in Cyberpunk 2077 today, I was flipping through radio stations and looked down to see that the station I landed on was “95.2 Samizdat Radio.” How about that?

[Fireball]

As the Republican brand toxifies itself against things like expertise, education, and rationality, it risks losing some of this edge if the suburban drift towards Democrats continues.

Sure if we have fair and free elections. Hopefully we will and long-term they'll get beaten back. Still the GOP is acting this way for a reason. They know they can't maintain their coalition acting this way.

Yes, ensuring free elections is essential. That's why I'm furious and Manchin and Sinema, but not Biden or Pelosi or Schumer, over the failure to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Our democracy is in a very fragile place, which terrifies me.

Democrats are also really misreading the room on some COVID policies. Voters broadly dislike COVID minimization by the GOP, and and less broadly think that Democrats go too far in COVID maximalism. The valence of those concerns changed fundamentally in 2021 though in two important ways: parents are done with school shut downs and there is widespread anger in a lot of suburban communities about how slow schools were to put kids back in classrooms (which isn't without merit, Europe never did the level of school shutdowns we did), and vaccinated people feel that they have done their part, and they elected Biden to get us back to "normalcy", and so just enough of them find maximalism more annoying than they now find minimization scary.

Mhm.

I knocked on more than 5,000 doors and talked to countless voters in Alexandria, Virginia, last year. I'm reporting what I heard, and what I've seen in polling from statewide Virginia campaigns. A huge swath of parents, in particular, were PISSED about virtual learning and school closures that went on for too long. It was a bind for Democratic candidates because the Democratic base was very concerned about reopening schools too soon, while the voters you needed to win in November wanted schools opened as soon as remotely possible.

Yup. I see some of this is just big tent stuff. The Democrat tent has been enlarged with refugees from GOP radicalization. I recognize that is a hard, way too wide path to walk policy wise as much as policy matters in this country.

That's really not it. I was mostly describing the fissures in Congress, which doesn't have anything to do with people who used to be Republicans now identifying as Democrats or Independents-Who-Vote-For-Democrats. Joe Manchin is a huge problem for us, structurally, on the centrist side. Certain far-left House members (not AOC) are a huge problem for us, politically, on the progressive side. Mainstream Democrats have problems on both wings of their coalition that either make it harder to win elections, or make it harder to pass legislation once you've won which makes it harder to win subsequent elections.

The problem is that the Democrats can't communicate with their base or the public and lose every goddamn important fight. In other words, people don't turn out for losers that can't get anything done.

Not a single one of Biden's problems at getting his legislative agenda through Congress could be fixed by being personally more persuasive or better at "communicating." The blockade to popular elements of Biden's agenda is entirely structural, and you can't Green Lantern your way past a blanket refusal by Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema to create filibuster carve-outs.

Totally on board with this. I've argued this same point. But this isn't a comment that reflects just Biden. This is the bigger problem that the Democrats haven't effectively communicated a strategy that gets things done.

If Manchin and Sinema won't budge on creating carve outs on the filibuster, the only strategy there is to get progressive things done at the Federal level is the one reconciliation bill you get to pass each year. Manchin blew that up in December, but there's some hope of piecing parts of it back together.

They've largely failed to react to a overarching strategy that saw the Republicans build a movement that recognized the system as it exists.

The Republicans can only do two things when in office: appoint judges and change tax rates, because you don't need a supermajority in the Senate to do either. Biden has appointed more judges to the Federal bench than any president at this point in an Administration, so that goes both ways. But Democrats are much more oriented towards doing things, so the system that blocks doing things is harder for them to navigate. There's no "overarching strategy" that could be pursued right now to address that.

There are huge fissures inside the Republican coalition because of grassroots anger that the Republicans can't do some of the things on abortion, immigration, etc, that their base wants. It's less visible because the media pays far less attention to Republican in-fighting, but in many ways it is worse than what happens on the Democratic side. Anger at inability to get things they wanted done drove such heat that John Boehner left the Speakership. Fissures inside the GOP have forced Liz Cheney out of House leadership. The Republican caucus is far more splintered and divided than the Democratic caucus in Congress.

They set off to win local and state elections, build legislative pipelines and judicial reverse packing strategies, etc.

Republicans won a sweeping set of victories in 2010 that gave them significant advantages at the state and local level, enhanced by the fact that state elections draw lower turnout and less down ballot voting by core Democratic electorates. This was the culmination of a 40 year effort to turn lower-level elections to their favor. Democrats failed to respond to this in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and 00s, but there has been a vast restructuring of Democratic efforts to win local and state elections and build those same pipelines over the last 10 years. The 2020 election results were not helpful in that regard, and wiped out a lot of gains that had been made in 2016 and 2018, due to the pandemic and nationalized voting trends. This is a hard problem, made harder by the depletion of local media (and thus the nationalization of all news), and the fact that grassroots donors are, frankly, very bad tacticians and will pour millions of dollars into unwinable Congressional races against hated Republican incumbents instead of donating to down-ballot Democrats who could win if they had the resources. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms, and the ways they gutted the ability of parties to channel money, has a compounding factor on this problem.

However, the work to do this is being done, and its making real progress. It's two-steps-forward-one-step-back, and will take time to bear fruit. If you care about this sort of thing, please donate to the DLCC and tell your friends to give to state legislature Democratic candidates, not whoever is running against McConnell, Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert or Madison Cawthorn.

To the degree that the average American cares about "defund the police" they really, really, really oppose it. It's complete political poison.

Sure because it is idiotic messaging.

It's also bad policy. If you actually talk to everyday people, you'd find that there is real anger, particularly in African-American communities, about how few cases get solved by the police — fewer than in comparable democratic nations. We need to reinvest in actual police work, which means hiring more officers in many places, providing them better training (including all of the deescalation and anti-racism training sought by productive police reform advocates) and tools. We also need to take things off the back of police by funding more mental health and social workers who can address situations where you need to help, not arrest, someone.

There seems to be no message discipline at all and the media loves to play up the crazy outliers.

Neither party has great message discipline.

It's a long list in my head but a lot of Clinton people worked for the Obama administration and now are in the Biden administration.

High level Executive Branch jobs are complicated. It doesn't matter who the president is, their senior staff will be well-populated by the mid-level staff of the previous president of their party, and their mid-level staff will be comprised mostly of the entry-level staff of the previous president of their party, and their entry-level staff will likely have a lot of people from the Hill or their campaign. This is true for both parties. If Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren had won the presidency, their polices and messaging tone would be fairly different from Biden's, but their key personnel would likely have the same backgrounds and previous Administration experience, even if they wouldn't be the exact same people.

Biden's Administration is full of stepped-up Obama Administration staffers because Biden's Administration is the direct successor to Obama's Administration. This is what Democratic primary voters wanted.

That was more of the basis there but it also factors in that the leadership of the Democratic party is pretty much all 70 and 80 year men and women.

Prediction: one year from today, the leader of the Democratic Caucus in the United States House of Representatives will be either 62 or 52 years old. The other members of the House leadership will almost certainly be two to three people who will be from a group of people who will be 61, 43, or 59.

For example, do we even have a Trump in power if Larry Summers didn't lay out the foundations for a too small stimulus package after the Great Recession.

You cannot lay Donald Trump at Larry Summers' feet. That's absurd. I agree that the Obama stimulus was too small, but it's also important to consider that the people who warned that going too large could spur a spike in inflation that would be a huge political problem and lead to the Federal Reserve taking steps that could provoke a double-dip recession that was deeper and even longer than what we ended up going through from 2008-12 might well have been right. We are presently facing a spike in inflation that is proving to be incredibly politically toxic to the president, and the risk that the Federal Reserve's corrective steps later this year could trigger a recession are very high.

It almost certainly led to widespread economic hardship.

It did. But my confidence that a go-much-much-bigger response wouldn't have led to similar, or more, levels of widespread economic hardship has been shaken by the events of the past year. Having been in elementary school the last time inflation was a real economic problem for our country, I think I was a bit blasé about its dangers. It could very well be that once an economic downturn has begun that the only way out is through, and neither measured-to-avoid-inflation nor damn-the-torpedos-and-risk-inflation approaches will have much impact on how voters perceive the harrowing path through the downturn.

[noxiousdog]

Lots of great stuff

You give me hope.

[Carpet_pissr]

Democrats are also really misreading the room on some COVID policies. Voters broadly dislike COVID minimization by the GOP, and and less broadly think that Democrats go too far in COVID maximalism. The valence of those concerns changed fundamentally in 2021 though in two important ways: parents are done with school shut downs and there is widespread anger in a lot of suburban communities about how slow schools were to put kids back in classrooms (which isn't without merit, Europe never did the level of school shutdowns we did), and vaccinated people feel that they have done their part, and they elected Biden to get us back to "normalcy", and so just enough of them find maximalism more annoying than they now find minimization scary.

Can confirm.

Anecdotally, for an American, I would probably be considered VERY left politically and socially, and this above describes my view on COVID (and not just wrt to schools, even though I have three kids in school) very well.

I think "the left" went WAY too far, overreached, etc. in response to IMO a very backwards view from the right to a deadly pandemic, from the start. I get it, but politically I have a feeling that overreach will sting at the polls. Righties can (rightly) point at some of the absurd measures STILL in place and will isolate that as "the left's position".

[malchior]

That's really not it. I was mostly describing the fissures in Congress, which doesn't have anything to do with people who used to be Republicans now identifying as Democrats or Independents-Who-Vote-For-Democrats. Joe Manchin is a huge problem for us, structurally, on the centrist side. Certain far-left House members (not AOC) are a huge problem for us, politically, on the progressive side. Mainstream Democrats have problems on both wings of their coalition that either make it harder to win elections, or make it harder to pass legislation once you've won which makes it harder to win subsequent elections.

FWIW this is more what I meant too and this is the dynamic that worries me. It'd be far more manageable for our nation is we had a non-crazy conservative party. A point I believe Pelosi makes often.

They've largely failed to react to a overarching strategy that saw the Republicans build a movement that recognized the system as it exists.

The Republicans can only do two things when in office: appoint judges and change tax rates, because you don't need a supermajority in the Senate to do either. Biden has appointed more judges to the Federal bench than any president at this point in an Administration, so that goes both ways. But Democrats are much more oriented towards doing things, so the system that blocks doing things is harder for them to navigate. There's no "overarching strategy" that could be pursued right now to address that.

There are huge fissures inside the Republican coalition because of grassroots anger that the Republicans can't do some of the things on abortion, immigration, etc, that their base wants. It's less visible because the media pays far less attention to Republican in-fighting, but in many ways it is worse than what happens on the Democratic side. Anger at inability to get things they wanted done drove such heat that John Boehner left the Speakership. Fissures inside the GOP have forced Liz Cheney out of House leadership. The Republican caucus is far more splintered and divided than the Democratic caucus in Congress.

Yeah they are definitely dealing with many problem children but in the end does it matter if they vote in line? And they don't pay a political price for those votes?

They set off to win local and state elections, build legislative pipelines and judicial reverse packing strategies, etc.

Republicans won a sweeping set of victories in 2010 that gave them significant advantages at the state and local level, enhanced by the fact that state elections draw lower turnout and less down ballot voting by core Democratic electorates. This was the culmination of a 40 year effort to turn lower-level elections to their favor. Democrats failed to respond to this in the 1970s, 80s, 90s and 00s, but there has been a vast restructuring of Democratic efforts to win local and state elections and build those same pipelines over the last 10 years. The 2020 election results were not helpful in that regard, and wiped out a lot of gains that had been made in 2016 and 2018, due to the pandemic and nationalized voting trends. This is a hard problem, made harder by the depletion of local media (and thus the nationalization of all news), and the fact that grassroots donors are, frankly, very bad tacticians and will pour millions of dollars into unwinable Congressional races against hated Republican incumbents instead of donating to down-ballot Democrats who could win if they had the resources. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms, and the ways they gutted the ability of parties to channel money, has a compounding factor on this problem.

However, the work to do this is being done, and its making real progress. It's two-steps-forward-one-step-back, and will take time to bear fruit. If you care about this sort of thing, please donate to the DLCC and tell your friends to give to state legislature Democratic candidates, not whoever is running against McConnell, Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert or Madison Cawthorn.

This is exactly what I was talking to and unfortunately I think it's too late. I don't mean that we throw down our arms, curl up, and wait for the darkness. Still I reckon that we are out of time for this approach to work now. Hopefully I'm wrong but it isn't looking good.

There seems to be no message discipline at all and the media loves to play up the crazy outliers.

Neither party has great message discipline.

This is a fair callout. The Republicans used to be good at it but they've embraced their inner demons and let them loose on the land.

For example, do we even have a Trump in power if Larry Summers didn't lay out the foundations for a too small stimulus package after the Great Recession.

You cannot lay Donald Trump at Larry Summers' feet. That's absurd. I agree that the Obama stimulus was too small, but it's also important to consider that the people who warned that going too large could spur a spike in inflation that would be a huge political problem and lead to the Federal Reserve taking steps that could provoke a double-dip recession that was deeper and even longer than what we ended up going through from 2008-12 might well have been right. We are presently facing a spike in inflation that is proving to be incredibly politically toxic to the president, and the risk that the Federal Reserve's corrective steps later this year could trigger a recession are very high.

I don't think it's entirely absurd. Contemporary economists such as Krugman calculated that the stimulus was going to be far too small and predicted a weak recovery. That ended up being pretty close to on the mark. Two years later we saw a lot of anger at least in part driven by the economic pain they faced. Plus the start of recognition that elites were above the law. Summers was instrumental in sizing it.

I don't see and haven't seen a strong comparison between the great recession and COVID recovery sizing in regards to inflation. The economic situations were very different. The problem in the great recession was protracted lack of liquidity. The too slow recovery was mostly due to a protracted period of low liquidity.

I know one of the popular theories blames too much stimulus for current inflation but that is belied that inflation is a problem across nearly every major economy. Even ones which only provided modest support. It's certainly a component as there is definitely more money in the economy and supply/demand curves are in turmoil. Naturally more money chasing fewer goods would have an impact. However, this view ignores a lot of what is going on under the hood. I'll dig into that a little below.

It almost certainly led to widespread economic hardship.

It did. But my confidence that a go-much-much-bigger response wouldn't have led to similar, or more, levels of widespread economic hardship has been shaken by the events of the past year. Having been in elementary school the last time inflation was a real economic problem for our country, I think I was a bit blasé about its dangers. It could very well be that once an economic downturn has begun that the only way out is through, and neither measured-to-avoid-inflation nor damn-the-torpedos-and-risk-inflation approaches will have much impact on how voters perceive the harrowing path through the downturn.

I get this but we risked the opposite and more dangerous alternative, to wit deflation. This is a far better path even if they blew a little too hard on the fire. But again I don't think that's the whole story. I'd still argue that supply disruption is far more impactful. We learned that our economies were optimized to the point of incredible fragility and we're paying for that in pain right now. My wife's company still doesn't have a reliable supply of plastic due a refinery fire that happened last year. That's not even COVID related but more so just one of the indicators of the thin supply lines. It isn't hard to imagine all the supply disruptions that COVID caused multiplied across the entire economy. And folks like Summers are out there pushing bad medicine again in the form of too much focus on impacts of monetary policy on the demand side. It's a blind spot IMO because it is so aligned with the Wall Street view of the universe.

[Grifman]

The clown show continues:

[malchior]

I truly don't get this plan. It is a gift to the GOP.

[Grifman]

[El Guapo]

I truly don't get this plan. It is a gift to the GOP.

Are they going to be critical? Or just add some additional focused rhetoric?

Either way traditionally giving a response to the SOTU is a sucker's job, because people really don't care and it makes you look weak compared to the guy giving a long speech before Congress. So... a clown show, but the effects will almost certainly be very minor and mainly to the detriment of any responders.

[Jaymann]

I truly don't get this plan. It is a gift to the GOP.

Are they going to be critical? Or just add some additional focused rhetoric?

Either way traditionally giving a response to the SOTU is a sucker's job, because people really don't care and it makes you look weak compared to the guy giving a long speech before Congress. So... a clown show, but the effects will almost certainly be very minor and mainly to the detriment of any responders.

In this age of stupidity and social media excrement, how long can it be until every politician feel they must also issue a SOTU.

[malchior]

I truly don't get this plan. It is a gift to the GOP.

Are they going to be critical? Or just add some additional focused rhetoric?

I think it is a matter of decorum. Why is one of the 'Squad' whose been in office as a US Representative for 3 years responding to the leader of her party? No one seems to know even why she is doing it so a lot of Democrats are calling her out. It's pretty absurd.

Either way traditionally giving a response to the SOTU is a sucker's job, because people really don't care and it makes you look weak compared to the guy giving a long speech before Congress. So... a clown show, but the effects will almost certainly be very minor and mainly to the detriment of any responders.

Depends on what she says but agree it hurts her more potentially. My favorite comment was it was like she was keying her own car. Still if she drops some of the progressive nuggets they'll certainly make it into tv spots for the coming campaign. Someone creative might even point at the gap between what Biden says and what she says and make hay out of it. It's just dumb.

I did hear the Black Caucus response is going to be amplification of Biden's message but still it seems dicey at best. I still don't get where there is any upside to it.

[El Guapo]

Isn't there an argument that it's better for Biden if Tlaib is critical of him? Insofar as the GOP makes the squad into boogeywomen, doesn't it help him if low information voters see "Squad member Tlaib gives critical response to his SOTU"?

I can see how this might generate "democrats in disarray" headlines that aren't helpful, but I would think that the impact of this would be trivial given the sheer volume of those headlines.

I guess overall I think it's pretty stupid and shitty of her to do this, but I'm not particularly concerned about it.

[LordMortis]

Depends on what she says but agree it hurts her more potentially.

That will depend on what you mean by hurts her more. Doing her job? Probably, but her electability won't be tied to this unless she makes some huge ass blunders (which she has done in the past, so it's not totally off the table). She's very active in her district and not as a campaigner. She is constantly doing community work and putting out town halls and reaching out to her district to tell us what she's doing in Congress and how her district can do x,y, an z to see the benefits of what is happening in Washington/how to protect themselves. Now, we're a divided district, but those that have been ignoring her outreach were never going to vote for her anyway.

[malchior]

Isn't there an argument that it's better for Biden if Tlaib is critical of him? Insofar as the GOP makes the squad into boogeywomen, doesn't it help him if low information voters see "Squad member Tlaib gives critical response to his SOTU"?

I don't see how. It isn't like GOP is going to give Biden an inch. Worse if it is populist stuff they might nod along to it since many of them are inherently populist.

I can see how this might generate "democrats in disarray" headlines that aren't helpful, but I would think that the impact of this would be trivial given the sheer volume of those headlines."

It might be - again I think we'll have to see what she says. If she unfurls a DSA flag and sings their anthem then it is going to become a major story. Obviously that isn't going to happen but it's the sort of narcissistic higher risk low reward tomfoolery no one needs.

I guess overall I think it's pretty stupid and shitty of her to do this, but I'm not particularly concerned about it.

Yeah I'm not clutching pearls in any way. I just shake my head at it because...why? Why do we have so many fools like this running around.

Depends on what she says but agree it hurts her more potentially.

That will depend on what you mean by hurts her more. Doing her job? Probably, but her electability won't be tied to this unless she makes some huge ass blunders (which she has done in the past, so it's not totally off the table).

You have to figure she thinks this will elevate her profile. It'll probably do the exact opposite.

[Kurth]

Isn't there an argument that it's better for Biden if Tlaib is critical of him? Insofar as the GOP makes the squad into boogeywomen, doesn't it help him if low information voters see "Squad member Tlaib gives critical response to his SOTU"?

It’s not better for Biden. Not at all. Not a soul in the GOP who watches Tlaib is going to think, “Wow, she’s critical of Biden. Maybe he isn’t so bad, and I should consider voting for him instead of Trump.” I don’t give a shit about what the GOP is going to make of Tlaib’s speech, although they will certainly cherry-pick nuggets from it to use against other Dems.

The real problem with this (and to a lesser extent, the Black Caucus response) is that it may give Democratic voters pause on Biden. At the very least, it makes him look weak and vulnerable at a time when we need him to convey strength and that he has a unified party at his back. This is yet another selfish and short-sighted attempt by the progressives to push their agenda while fracturing the Democratic Party.

And it’s myopic bullshit of the worst kind.

There should be one D(d)emocratic goal and one goal only right now: Do not permit Trump to be reelected. It is all that matters.

[malchior]

There should be one D(d)emocratic goal and one goal only right now: Do not permit Trump to be reelected. It is all that matters.

And to do that they need to get BBB passed and this stunt will totally put pressure on Manchin/Sinema.[/sarcasm]

[$iljanus]

So I just read that there was going to be a Democratic Party response and of course it’s not just stopping at one. Should have stopped in this thread earlier It’s only my personal belief but with the largest land war in Europe since WW2 I think it’s not asking too much if at least the President’s own party can out of respect give him the podium for tonight instead of coming off as a bunch of children grasping for the microphone. Their legitimate concerns can still be voiced on their own time tomorrow.

[El Guapo]

It is crazy. But my comfort here is that we should count ourselves lucky if 5% of Americans even watch the main address, let alone the litany of responses.