The Biden-Harris Administration

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
58,470
She's not doing that.

All she said is that the time is now to switch tactics. Which it is. And Biden knows that. Having a few Congress critters saying so in public actually helps him especially if it causes the general public to start expressing those ideas to their own representatives.
Thank you for explaining this.

For a party to be successful it needs room for the push and pull of its different constituencies. AOC has an important role in that on the left side of the party.

The most guaranteed failure for Democrats is timid centrism acted out in fear of Republicans. That's not Biden's strategy in any way and he needs the vocal voices on the left as much as the more moderate ones.
 
Last edited:

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,570
Well, the Biden administration has gone completely Woke , by replacing the word 'Mother' with the term 'Birthing People'. I'd like to know how many Women actually agree with this NewGenderSpeak? https://news.yahoo.com/biden-budget-proposal-replaces-mother-213406794.html
Some births need a different descriptor than mother.

Some of the younger folk are doing the surrogate mother thing for each other. A friend's DIL who has children of her own, and is a veterinarian, became a surrogate mother for a friend of hers who is unable to carry to term. DIL gave birth by Caesarean and knew that was how it would be ahead of time. So DIL is not the mother of this child-the biological mother is, of course. DIL was a birthing person, I guess?
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
58,470
Washington Post is writing this morning about the "establishment" tightening its grip on the Democratic Party and moving away from the police reform ideas etc.

I don't get why people don't understand the need to take into consideration the left-leaning voters in the party. Just like you can't just dismiss the moderates and the people who represent districts that won't support more progressive positions, you also can't just dismiss the need to bring out voters who do support those more progressive positions.

This is politics. People can grind their teeth and cast aspersions on Joe Manchin all they want, but its a near miracle that we have Manchin and a 50-50 Senate rather than a Trumpist Republican in that seat and a 51-49 Republican hold on the Senate.

We have to work with that.

Dems won the House in 2018 and the presidency in 2020 in large part because more left-leaning and often younger voters and voters of color were motivated to vote. People can disagree all they like with left-leaning positions, but trying to shut down those who represent the wing of the party and discredit them will not help Dems keep that winning coalition together.

We have to work with that.

I think Biden and Schumer and Pelosi as well as people like Bernie Sanders on the one hand or Mark Warner on the other understand that. Its a very difficult balancing act, but politics always is.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
58,470
I missed this bit of context for AOC's comments:

Biden climate adviser: Infrastructure plan could omit some climate proposals (Politico)

President Joe Biden's National Climate Adviser Gina McCarthy said on Tuesday some ambitious proposals to fight climate change could fall out of the infrastructure package, but the administration would not give up its pursuit of the measures to push green energy to slash greenhouse gases.

In an interview with POLITICO, McCarthy acknowledged the political difficulties in passing aggressive climate change legislation, but said Biden was still "going for it" on climate in his $2 trillion infrastructure plan.

Here are some other (older, maler) Democratic comments:

Martin Heinrich of New Mexico
An infrastructure package that goes light on climate and clean energy should not count on every Democratic vote.

Michael Bennet of Colorado
Colorado and New Mexico share a watershed. I agree wholeheartedly with my friend
@MartinHeinrich

Jeff Merkley of Oregon:
This is a big deal. It would be an enormous travesty and betrayal for climate infrastructure to be left on the dock when the infrastructure deal sets sail. President Biden – we are counting on you to make sure this doesn’t happen.

I guess we can write them all off too as just speaking to their fan bases.

Or probably not. But hopefully we can understand that AOC is actually participating in the politics of the moment as are other Democrats.

This is a critical moment. Biden could decide to go for a limited package with Republican support or he could go for a package that includes bold climate measures--if he can get Manchin's support--and pass it through reconciliation. To suggest that AOC isn't, or shouldn't be, trying to influence that is pretty demeaning to her.

In any case, I think Biden can get Manchin's support for a larger package and I hope he goes for it but pressure is needed.




 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
41,360
Well, the Biden administration has gone completely Woke , by replacing the word 'Mother' with the term 'Birthing People'. I'd like to know how many Women actually agree with this NewGenderSpeak? https://news.yahoo.com/biden-budget-proposal-replaces-mother-213406794.html
I'd have no problem with it if it were true, but this is a prime example of the Right making a mountain out of a molehill if that article is to be believed. Because words like maternal are used all over the document but in one paragraph in one place it says birthing people and the right is clutching their pearls about woke language.

Um, whatever.

P.S. Some trans men can give birth and some do if their partner can't.
 

caseyedwards

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,413
I'd have no problem with it if it were true, but this is a prime example of the Right making a mountain out of a molehill if that article is to be believed. Because words like maternal are used all over the document but in one paragraph in one place it says birthing people and the right is clutching their pearls about woke language.

Um, whatever.

P.S. Some trans men can give birth and some do if their partner can't.
I don’t understand abolishing the word mother though. Why not just say mothers and fathers? Or mother’s and Transmen?
 

MacMadame

Staying at home
Messages
41,360
I don’t understand abolishing the word mother though. Why not just say mothers and fathers? Or mother’s and Transmen?
The word mother hasn't been abolished. It's used all over the document.

Since it's a government document, I am going to assume that using the word in that one place had to do with a legalistic issue to make sure the funding went to the intended people. It's jargon, basically.
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
12,570
There were 784 more child care centers which is a heck of a lot in a tiny state like CT

While the mothers were laid off, the children did not go to the child care center. Now other kids are in their kids' places and there are long waiting lists.
To put this in perspective, there are only 169 towns/cities in CT. So that comes out to 4.64 child care centers closed per town
 
Last edited:

Spikefan

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,142
There are also dual income households where one person was laid off and they have determined they can get by on one income rather than going back to that crappy, low paying job. I know two people like this, it would take a lot to lure them back. My job has lost three people to retirement (I never thought they would) as they don’t want to go back to the office and now realize life is short. That’s just five people in my limited circle. Employers will need to entice people, it’s an employee market.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,361
Great! Bring that up in an interview. If it's a serious poll, ask Manchin why he's at odds with the majority of his constituents (is it a serious poll?)
I didn't catch who it was from but since Maddow had it on her show and went through it in her opening segment, I'm pretty sure it's a serious poll.

Manchin is saying and doing newsworthy things. Thus, it makes sense to interview him - this allows him to present his views,
If only he'd do that. He was co-sponsor of the For the People Act in the last Congress. Now he's against it and despite the interviews, we still don't know why other than that he wants it to be bipartisan which is ridiculous considering that Republicans are the ones passing the voter suppression laws. Why does he think there'll be 10 to vote for voter protection laws?

The people in a position to do anything are in the Biden administration and the Democratic Party. And I think they know they need to win the 2022 elections.
If you're talking about winning 2022 then we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about fighting the decline of democracy and authoritarianism and winning 2022 is only a small part of that. It needs to happen but if that is all that'll happen, we'll be where we're at right now. Of course, there's never a guarantee for anything but in order to have the best chance from preventing another Trump from happening, other things need to happen as well. One of them is accountability and I can't say that I see that or that I see the urgency for that. Rather, I'm seeing a desire for unity that Republicans don't care about and a desire to re-establish norms that the next Trump will just trample again.
 

MsZem

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,706
I didn't catch who it was from but since Maddow had it on her show and went through it in her opening segment, I'm pretty sure it's a serious poll.
She said it was a poll done for a group called "End Citizens United," which is trying to get HR1 passed. This is a worthy goal, but IMO it raises questions about whether to poll was conducted and data analyzed in such a way as to increase the likelihood of obtaining certain results.

If only he'd do that. He was co-sponsor of the For the People Act in the last Congress. Now he's against it and despite the interviews, we still don't know why other than that he wants it to be bipartisan which is ridiculous considering that Republicans are the ones passing the voter suppression laws. Why does he think there'll be 10 to vote for voter protection laws?
I refer you back to the post you quoted:
Thus, it makes sense to interview him - this allows him to present his views, but it does not mean they should go unchallenged.
That's what the media is meant to do: report on the news and get accurate and complete information to the public. Including the stuff politicians don't want to be pressed on.
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,072

Keystone XL pipeline nixed after Biden stands firm on permit​

 

DFJ

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,553

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,945
Washington Post is writing this morning about the "establishment" tightening its grip on the Democratic Party and moving away from the police reform ideas etc.

I don't get why people don't understand the need to take into consideration the left-leaning voters in the party. Just like you can't just dismiss the moderates and the people who represent districts that won't support more progressive positions, you also can't just dismiss the need to bring out voters who do support those more progressive positions.

This is politics. People can grind their teeth and cast aspersions on Joe Manchin all they want, but its a near miracle that we have Manchin and a 50-50 Senate rather than a Trumpist Republican in that seat and a 51-49 Republican hold on the Senate.

We have to work with that.

Dems won the House in 2018 and the presidency in 2020 in large part because more left-leaning and often younger voters and voters of color were motivated to vote. People can disagree all they like with left-leaning positions, but trying to shut down those who represent the wing of the party and discredit them will not help Dems keep that winning coalition together.

We have to work with that.

I think Biden and Schumer and Pelosi as well as people like Bernie Sanders on the one hand or Mark Warner on the other understand that. Its a very difficult balancing act, but politics always is.
It really comes down to who shows up in primaries. I think the D establishment would be forced to consider / take the left more seriously if they turned out in higher no's in primaries. As it is, HRC and Biden won the D primaries in 2016 and 2020, so the Ds to the Right of Sanders, AOC, etc. - moderates or whatever you want to call them, vote in higher no's and get more attention. I personally think BTW that Biden was the only candidate who could have beaten Trump in the 2020 general election. If Sanders or Warren had been the nominee, we would have been f--ed..

I would not lump liberals and POC in the same category. POC and liberals don't really vote in lock-step, and I would not say POC are 'left' on social issues generally like white liberals are. That was a big part of the autopsy report on the 2020 election, when MORE POC drifted to Trump (!) than in 2016. Especially Latinos
 
Last edited:

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,550
Hillary and Biden didn’t win all the primaries in 2016/2020. Yeah they were the overall winners, but Bernie had a strong showing particularly in 2016 and did, in fact, win some primaries, as did other Dems. Progressives were hardly “absent” from the primaries in either case. Yeah, centrists are overall still bigger in numbers. Let’s see where things are in four or eight years.

Anyhow, just because progressives didn’t overall win the primaries, it still doesn’t mean that our voices can or should be ignored. As I keep trying to point out, Biden’s win, while looking good overall, was very narrow in the key swing states. This points to needing every Democrat vote. We do not have the margin to decide that some groups are important and some not.
 

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,945
Of course, it is rare that someone wins ALL primaries. I never suggested that happened in 2016 or 2020. But, the cold-hard fact of politics is that unless you show power in numbers, you will probably just get lip service from the top.

You make a very valid point that progressives, moderates and centrists really need each other because the margins are narrow. I think of US politics right now like the final season of GOT - united factions of the SANE putting up a life-saving defense against the army of the undead marching relentlessly forward.

As long as progressives don't adapt an all-or-nothing approach to the sausage making process of legislating, we have a shot at getting things done.
 

Dobre

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,072
This points to needing every Democrat vote. We do not have the margin to decide that some groups are important and some not.
This is true.

Having said that, I do want to point out that winning a vote from the center can have a more powerful impact than a vote from the far left. And losing a vote from the center can be more costly. Because a vote from the center can peal away votes for Republican candidates. (Mostly votes from independent voters in the current climate, but nonetheless, votes that might have gone to Republican candidates). And a lost vote from the center will most likely go toward a Republican candidate.

Having said all that, I'm perfectly good with cheering on Democratic leaders that speak up & say, "Immigrant rights are human rights & this country is stronger, more competitive, and ready for the future because of immigration. Any successful infrastructure plan needs to embrace environmentally sound technology. Affordable health care, elder care, and child care need to be available to all Americans. People deserve to make a living wage." If Democrats on the left don't speak up & say these things, then leaders at the center won't have enough support to make them happen.

But it's a balance. The answer is not to lose the center.

This last election had once in a generation voter turnout. The odds of repeating that turnout for either side are minimal. And part of me is totally fine with that because no one needs to be living through a national or worldwide tragedy at the end of this quadrennium, much less on into the future.

(Also, it is terrific that youth turnout was up in this past election. It's also quite likely that turnout was not up solely based on progressive issues. Schools & universities were closed. Places of employment for young people were closed. Sports and bars and gyms and forms of recreation were closed. Grandparents & parents' lives were at-risk, as were those of younger people with serious health issues. Young people were working on the front lines in grocery stores and retail outlets. Last year, there were an extraordinary number of reasons for young people to get out and vote).
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
58,470
That was a big part of the autopsy report on the 2020 election, when MORE POC drifted to Trump (!) than in 2016. Especially Latinos

More people voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016, there was larger turnout. How much higher was the percentage of people of color? I think this is more than a little overblown.

And yes I am tired of hearing about south Florida. The area I live in has large and diverse populations of Latinos. They actually matter too.
 

olympic

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,945
More people voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016, there was larger turnout. How much higher was the percentage of people of color? I think this is more than a little overblown.

And yes I am tired of hearing about south Florida. The area I live in has large and diverse populations of Latinos. They actually matter too.
My state is #3 in population and has 29 electoral votes. Unfortunately as stupid as that is, it makes Miami Dade quite important
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,550
Mitch McConnell just said on the Hugh Hewitt show that he wouldn't fill a Supreme Court seat any time in 2024 if he were majority leader, and maybe not in 2023 either. So much for bipartisanship.

As Sen Chris Murphy tweeted, Republicans are just playing a different game than Democrats.

:mad::mad:
 

sk8pics

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,312

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,550
Sinema is drawing anger from some Democrats in Arizona:

Sinema faces Arizona blowback after becoming the Senate's new unmovable roadblock

Arizona community organizing group director Alejandra Gomez worked for Sinema's election in 2018 but now wants her out:

"We are prepared to support a viable candidate that is ready to actually stand for our communities," Gomez said.

When asked if challenging Sinema was worth the risk of losing the seat to a Republican, Gomez didn't flinch.

"We already have a Republican in that seat," she said.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information