Democratic (Party) Direction

(nomination rather than appointment, although it may seem like an appointment, to the extent that candidates do not decline nominations and their election as part of a ticket is forgotten or not a primary factor in deciding votes)

Bring back making the loser in the Presidential race VP. It's a fun punishment for losing - you have to be the designated dweeb with no real power for four years, you can't rake in money from speaking tours or book deals, you're unlikely to ever become President afterward.

President Obama/VP McCain
Obama/Romney
Trump/Clinton
Biden/Trump

all highly entertaining possibilities and it would have kept McCain and Romney out of the actual Senate.

VP Harris was a serious contender for Presidential nominee. She's not just a second-string person pulled out of obscurity to perform a ceremonial role. She ought to be better at appearing to be able to do her job. This is separate from any issues attached to the post of VP as such.

Poster Table is the only one really to have ventured a specific explanation for how bad she (often?) is: her political ideas are incoherent, and this renders her incoherent.

All true. Add: toeing the administration line renders her more incoherent yet.

The long, long shadow of the Watergate Babies. And this is just the trend at the median of all representatives. The Democratic leadership consists of people in their 80s who have been around for going on 50 years now, and who have been in charge since the turn of the millennium. pic.twitter.com/RBlI3sR9Ba

— Kieran Healy (@kjhealy) June 30, 2022

(xpost) Isn't it somewhat odd to have a conversation that starts with the premise that x is y, where the truth of x is y is uncertain or not known to be accepted, and that asks what are the reasons that x is y? What if your interlocutors do not agree that x is y? Why not start with what do you think of x?

And Kamala’s presidential campaign was notoriously chaotic with a lot of turnover on staff.

VP Harris was a serious contender for Presidential nominee.

ehhhhhhh - given that she dropped out before the first primary, that makes her about as much of a serious contender for President as Jim Webb or Martin O'Malley in the past.

I am still curious about how Harris would have fared as AG or in the Department of Justice. I think it might have been better suited to her. I respect and admire Garland and am glad that he holds the position, but to me, he seems more like a judge than a prosecutor. This might be better anyway.

This is a thread about Democratic (Party) Direction in which a lot of energy seems to be expended on finding fault with Democrats.

*Looks at the last 30 years* yeah why would someone do that

Nancy and Chuck took a knee that one time, what more can you ask really?

This is a thread about Democratic (Party) Direction in which a lot of energy seems to be expended on finding fault with Democrats.

wonder if that has anything to do with the direction

Expending energy on finding faults with a party is being politically responsible.

VHS, how many times are you gonna beat the same drum

I'm saying it's a good thing to criticize political parties.

Maybe if y’all were nicer to Democrats they’d do something nice for you.

anyway, as for direction—maybe the squad could expand their numbers and join forces with big boys Fetterman and Pritzker. Like, that maybe the only shot the party has.

bc people who may be hoping the likes of Kamala, Pete, a revenant Hillary, or the consultant class to counter anything the GOP has in store I think are going to be massively disappointed

"...who have been in charge since the turn of the millennium..."

Define "in charge."

My grandparents lived in Highland Park for all of my childhood, and apparently the shooter was perched on the building that my grandmother had her office in (she was a child psychologist). I was at that building many times, mostly to sit in my grandma's spinning chair and get candy from her office drawer. I guess it always feels unimaginable that this happens anywhere, but it feels insanely unimaginable to me that this happened there.

wrong thread sorry, meant for mass shooting thread

Planning a cookout this year? Ketchup on the news. According to the Farm Bureau, the cost of a 4th of July BBQ is down from last year. It’s a fact you must-hear(d). Hot dog, the Biden economic plan is working. And that’s something we can all relish. pic.twitter.com/7h9qLauIbC

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) July 1, 2021

“great stuff!” — youn

Mustard not heard the news in Chicago.

sic, I have watched you be a complete dick to several posters on ILX over the last few days. The poster you are currently harassing in this thread is a woman of color who is actually subject to US law, unlike you. Your microaggressions are not funny and your edgelord shtick is the type of thing that directly translates to violence against women and minorities in America. Anyone who likes it is just saying that you are just the "right" amount of misogynist and racist for ILX.

No wonder women and people of color don't post here anymore.

why are you posting a tweet from last year? and then being a dick about another poster after this old ass tweet.

lol, jinx.

What the hell is going on pic.twitter.com/absMjWSxvP

— Frosst🇺🇦 (@realFrosst) July 4, 2022

Large Adult Sons for Pritzker coming up next

Apologies for the last post, I hadn’t noticed the year on that tweet, which makes my reply exceptionally dickish.

I had/have no idea about any aspect of youn’s irl identity, though, and was previously sincerely suggesting that perceived criticisms of the democratic party direction itt might be related to said direction, in a similar flat observational tone to (my reading of) youn’s own post.

Always appreciate a call-out, though.

Appreciate that, sic. Now you know.

She ought to be better at appearing to be able to do her job.

I strongly disagree about the truth of appearances in general and as a surrogate for ability or capacity as related to the role of VP or any other leadership position. My experience has been that there are many people qualified for leadership roles with an interest in organizations as systems or as related to human pyschology and with an interest in the people in organizations as individuals who are never considered for such positions because of their fear of and lack of ability related to public speaking.

Appearing on a stage does not come naturally to everyone. Audiences are not neutral.

(I am glad to hear from felicity.)

(I didn't follow any of sic's links and was not in any way offended and did not even feel offended but appreciate the defense.)

(by sic or anyone else ... sorry my previous post was hasty and not well edited)

Biden could have assigned her to work on voting rights; he assigned her to work on immigration from Central and South America during the worst of COVID.

I think it would be difficult for anyone to speak extemporaneously on camera on a topic outside their area of expertise and to receive favorable media coverage in a hostile (primed) environment.

I'd say VP Harris, like Rep. Cheney, is a better lawyer than she is a politician. Their skills would both be better utilized in the courtroom, perhaps even on the defense side.

I have no opinion as to whether she is "good at her job" nor do I know what she does day to day, I just think she is extremely bad on camera and that that doesn't bode well for a presidential run

(sic - I figure you thought I was Scandinavian and one of the BROS and knew what swole means if still used.)

Thanks for striking that note, youn. I was having a slight reaction to the whole "she's not leadership material" theme--an analysis of her stated or presumed ideology might be called for but it's also the office, and there's also no neutral way to say things like that about the first Black/bi-racial woman to hold the office.

Regarding her "stated or presumed ideology," she has a decently sized record, and it's not good.

It takes a decent amount of political acumen to work one's way up the system of state politics in a U.S. state the size of California, survive for a decent number of years as the Attorney General, and then make the transition to U.S. Senator. All while being female, Asian and Black in America. Harris did fine in both the Kavanaugh hearing and the impeachment. The criticisms of her public speaking in this thread seem pretty shallow. As Attorney General of California, she showed a decent grasp of how the internet works and took initiatives about making it harder for online scum to harass women and children, for example.

Could you be more specific about her record being "not good." What's your basis of comparison?

Also, hi youn!

FWIW, she was consistently rated as the most liberal Senator (based on her voting record) while she was there.

The dissonance, I think, is squaring the not-liberalism inherent in being attorney general, which made conservative attacks on her laughable. My family considers her a radical b/c she's a Black Democrat, period.

(xpost - I don't know if she has worked on voting rights in the past, but it seems Biden squandered an opportunity and (discoounted) a constituency that would have been receptive to a message from her.)

(He wanted to make the party more like himself? Most people probably want that.)

Here's just a bit of her contradictory and mangled ideology:

A close examination of Harris’s record shows it’s filled with contradictions. She pushed for programs that helped people find jobs instead of putting them in prison, but also fought to keep people in prison even after they were proved innocent. She refused to pursue the death penalty against a man who killed a police officer, but also defended California’s death penalty system in court. She implemented training programs to address police officers’ racial biases, but also resisted calls to get her office to investigate certain police shootings.

More here on her criminal justice record: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/23/18184192/kamala-harris-president-campaign-criminal-justice-record

She's also said that she's for LGBTQ rights, but refuses to put trans people in the prisons of their actual gender, keeping them in literal prisons of dysphoria.

Have you ever been a sex worker? Yeah, well she was one of the primary sponsors of FOSTA/SESTA, and also went hard after Backpage and essentially got it taken down, ruining many of my friends' livelihoods (and would have ruined mine if it had been a few years earlier).

Just because it's "intersectional carcerality" doesn't mean that it isn't "carcerality." In fact, that's part of the main contradictions at the heart of her whole being— the fact that she's a Black/bi-racial woman who seems to believe heavily in the enslavement of human beings, because that's what prisons are. Slavery. If you think that's too radical or unrealistic, fine, but it is contradictory, and caping for a cop by using arguments of identity-formed epistemic virtue are completely bankrupt imo, sorry!

I see. Who, in your opinion, is pure enough to lead the Democratic party direction?

(xpost; the question is not addressed to me - I wish Elizabeth Warren would run.)

She was a prosecutor. I suppose you can fault her for taking that job, but on the other hand a lack of diversity in that position is not exactly desirable. Gallons of ink have been spilled on whether or not she successfully navigated that razor's edge.