Democratic (Party) Direction

Sanders was fucking old too. Warren was my pick and also old but women face less cognitive decline

There would be some unpleasant sacrifices involved to scourge elected politicians over the age 70 but c'est la vie.

can't relate to this at all

Dan, are there reasons that you think Harris’ tweet is both good policy and good messaging?

sic, are you seriously talking about a tweet from 2019? Didn't we just do this last weekend??

You might like Newsom - he is trolling DeSantis in Florida with a video inviting people to come to California.

sic

I don't really know, it doesn't seem egregious but I think you probably know more than me

Sanders was fucking old too. Warren was my pick and also old but women face less cognitive decline

right, with Biden the thing that really struck me was how different he seemed from the last time I had paid any attention to him, which was the 2012 debate with Paul Ryan, which genuinely impressed me. Not for any skill in presenting a political message, but in the sort of classic political performance that I figured was dead - laughing at Ryan, presenting this persona of a seen-it-all veteran who knows that the man he's opposing is full of shit and doesn't deserve a moment of his or the audience's respect, and then using the last 10 minutes to pivot to this personal, emotional appeal to the average voter. It was really incredible to watch, and seeing him in the last few years, whether or not he has dementia, that sort of performance just isn't in him any more.

Maybe, but I don't think he's incapacitated and there just isn't any other democrat who could win the 2024 election as far as I can see. Why would we NOT run the incumbent? I think all this talk of him stepping down is a mistake

Assuming a Democratic primary will ever matter again, I wonder if they learned a lesson about not running out eight people splitting up the centrist/old people vote. Without COVID and against anyone other than Trump the mass dropout to prop up Biden may not have worked out so well in the end.

If he gets elected to the Senate, I’m riding the Fetterman train in 24

Joe Stork otm re 2012 debate. A true masterclass by a guy who’s otherwise been pretty unremarkable to downright shitty his entire political life.

I don't think anyone is talking about him stepping down? Giving up the incumbency advantage would probably be dumb or if things are so hopeless a GOP win is likely it's better to sacrifice him than give someone else the stink of being a loser.

People were talking about potential 2024 stuff because Democrats are quietly what happens if he doesn't run (for whatever reason - simple choice, cognitive decline, tired of getting impeached the GOP House). Harris would be the presumptive followup but it's hard to imagine an heir apparent in a weaker position.

quietly discussing what happens

mostly I just enjoyed watching a fratty dipshit who’d been feted by credulous liberal pundits (I’m looking at you Ezra) as some Serious Conservative Intellect more or less crumple

This seems like deeply strange reasoning to me considering that Bernie has always come across as sharp and has never shown any signs of cognitive decline.

― Osama bin Chinese (gyac)

it's not deeply strange when you look at how quickly men decline

xxxp

Biden will run again is my take, especially if Trump is running

giving up the incumbency advantage would be dumb

pretty sure the Democrats' best bet to ever have a President after Biden (whenever that might be) is to convince Michelle Obama to run tbh. I assume she still has like 70% positive ratings.

this thread's been an MSNBC bloc today

Obama/McConaughey '28 - 'they're not old enough to be your grandparents and you know both their names without turning to wikipedia'

This seems like deeply strange reasoning to me considering that Bernie has always come across as sharp and has never shown any signs of cognitive decline.

― Osama bin Chinese (gyac)

it's not deeply strange when you look at how quickly men decline

Heart problems can lead to impairment/quicker cognitive decline, can't they? Doesn't appear to be the case with Sanders but he did have that heart attack before the primaries.

three leakiest brains in the party, in order:
1)Feinstein
2)Biden
3) Pelosi (distant third but boy the next few years are going to wild)

It's probably fine that the average age of the House leadership is 81.

And that in 10 years it will be 91

Kevin McCarthy will only be 67 in 10 years.

but see if they just hand the keys over to the whippersnapper socialist horde in the 60-75 age range they might do something crazy like establish a student loan debt forgiveness program for Pell Grant recipients who start a business that operates for three years in disadvantaged communities.

I honestly don't know why that was so bad. It seemed neither overly complicated nor that different from student loan forgiveness incentives for public service, subsidized mortgages in redevelopment zones, etc. Maybe you can explain why this was so remarkable?

Because the social safety net should be universal and not tied to 'starting a business' and maintaining it for three years when almost half of all businesses (most of which are likely to be better capitalized than one started by someone who was Pell Grant eligible) fail in that window and the failure of that business fucks them not just on the resulting personal bankruptcy but then with the student loans that weren't discharged AND can't be covered by the bankruptcy.

It's a program that would end up benefitting almost no one but it lets the politician claim they had a radical student debt forgiveness plan.

I guess it’s not remarkable at all, which is my whole issue with the Dem party of the last 30 years

they should just do one big ticket, across the board good thing and then dare the republicans to take it away imo.

Public service forgiveness is also needlessly complicated and difficult (something Biden has improved!) but making it about private profits instead of public service adds a nice little neoliberal hell flair. Start a business after attending your local Entrepreneurial Charter School and spending your college years doing unpaid internships (assuming you can take the time off working to survive) and you can take advantage of this program that won't benefit the people working for $9 an hour in your convenience store.

Pell Grants are need-based and underdeveloped communities are not "no one." So the fact that these are targeted at the neediest recipients instead of all would be a move towards parity.

Also, to say that businesses started by non-Pell Grant recipients are better capitalized than those started by Pell Grant recipients seems like the reason to do this program, not a reason against. This critique is tautological.

I don't think anyone claimed it was radical. It seemed like a proposal for a totally voluntary program that would have given a non-zero amount of help to certain people and certain neighborhoods. These programs have worked very successfully in the neighborhoods where I have seen them.

As for the past 30 years, then why put so much energy against this particular person?

I think I said 'almost no one' - the overly complicated (and unnecessary) requirements of the program ensure a minimal number of people qualifying for it - and as a side point, those are people who are less in need of forgiveness by virtue of being successful business owners.

Given that this was a proposal countering Sanders and Warren's idea of 'we're going to forgive $50k of student debt on day one' it's a patently ridiculous plan.

oh my god it's so obviously terrible lol

yeah wouldn't want to help just anyone, let's talk about it forever.

happy Saturday, y'all

Talking about something and then helping as few people as possible is the goal of means testing. As a bonus it makes programs less popular so they can be gutted when Republicans get a say in the budget.

I honestly don't understand what your fixation is on this when there are like 1,000,0000 other more pressing issues, but we can agree that you don't need to worry about Harris becoming the Democratic nominee anytime soon. Happy Saturday.

To whoever was in any way skeptical that women are inordinately criticized and scrutinized constantly for no good reason whatsoever, I present . . . the Vice President of the United States' tweet from 2019.

Lol sorry

Someone else posted her forgiveness tweet and you asked what was so bad about it. The answer wasn't 'nothing.' It's a bad plan, particularly in the context of the genuinely good ideas others were proposing, though better than what we've gotten from Biden. Given that Warren lasted longer in the primaries I don't think her universal day one forgiveness plan was less likely to be accomplished.

At what point are you supposed to refrain from criticism and scrutiny of a politician's political goals?

When you're doing it to such an extent, and in such a clear pattern, only to and about women, about things that are moot and in the past and can no longer be changed, that it's starting to feel kind of harass-y?

I mean who cares about Gavin Newsom's ex-wife from 2006 honestly? Do you not think we have more important problems?

"someone else did it" - do you not understand how amplification works? You choose what you want to pay attention to.

Really, the throwaway line about Newsom? I think people who’ve defined their political reality around opposition to Trump and MAGA would be bothered in the primaries by Newsom’s proximity to the MAGA world. Is that critical of women somehow? I didn’t say I was concerned, I wouldn’t vote for Newsom in the primaries regardless.

Harris is still a politician and presumably planning to run for President in the future. Her beliefs, record and stated goals are hardly moot.

Got it, people who need student loans to get an education should not try to start businesses in undeveloped areas, because those businesses might fail due to richer people being better capitalized, and it is better just to forgive everyone's student loans at exactly the same rate.

Also, Newsom should have had a crystal ball to predict that his future ex-wife would date a Trump.

I mean maybe you're giving the same treatment to all political people, but I just have not seen it.

I think the most valid critical point about Harris' tweet about her proposed program is not about whether it was a good idea. It's easy enough to make a case that it is a perfectly good idea and would have made a good piece of legislation within its limited scope.

The criticism bears more on the nature of the office she was seeking, which is the only office (other than VP) anywhere in the USA that every voter is allowed to vote upon. It is national in scope and singularly powerful in setting the national agenda. Proposing a minor piece of legislation affecting a very minimal slice of the public is better suited to a person running for US Senator than the President of the United States.

Touting such a minimalist idea while running for the office of president indicates a less than adequate grasp of the enormous audience she needed to address and inspire as the real task she was required to perform. Presidents need to articulate a vision that touches the whole nation, or at least the candidate must convincingly fake having one. When you need to attract more than 75 million vote(r)s that proposal was incomprehensible to at least 74 million of them.

Running for president is a massively difficult enterprise. Just about everyone who attempts it fails. Her being a woman of color made it far more difficult, but her eventual failure was little different from the failure of a dozen other contestants, men and women both. So far, only 46 people have ever succeeded in over 230 years.

it is better just to forgive everyone's student loans at exactly the same rate.

Yes. (Particularly since Warren’s $50k proposal is more than Harris’s $20k max.)

Newsom should have had a crystal ball to predict that his future ex-wife would date a Trump

As I said, I don’t care. I wouldn’t vote for Newsom in the primary if he married the ghost of Emma Goldman.

Stating a fact about him - he has a stronger tie to the single uniting force in Democratdom (Trump) than any other potential candidate - doesn’t seem out of bounds? If it doesn’t bother you, cool - me either. I think if he runs against Harris in 2024 or 2028 the KHive isn’t going to be so sanguine.

"I think people who’ve defined their political reality around opposition to Trump and MAGA would be bothered in the primaries by Newsom’s proximity to the MAGA world."

― papal hotwife (milo z), Saturday, July 9, 2022

that's not true at all unless you're looking at it from the point of view of a troll. there is no proximity

"When you're doing it to such an extent, and in such a clear pattern, only to and about women, about things that are moot and in the past and can no longer be changed, that it's starting to feel kind of harass-y?"

― felicity, Saturday, July 9, 2022

yes exactly

So far, only 46 people have ever succeeded in over 230 years.

And yes it's no coincidence that 45 of them have been white men.

Yeah, we will see. Guilfoyle doesn't bother me.

There was also a time when Presidential candidates felt like they had to lie about smoking pot, and then Obama was just like, "read my book, I did cocaine at Occidental College when I could get it, lol whatevs."

Values and mores change so rapidly these days. Going by what happened in the past just seems less relevant as a predictor of future outcomes. If this is the worst thing about Newsom, well that doesn't seem so bad.

it is quite sad that Gavin Newsom doesn't seem so bad tbh. That he evokes feelings of hope. It was like when we cheered on Biden because he was "not Trump" ...

the signifier can easily be cleaved from the signified— so that female prosecutor who is Black can certainly represent the interests of Black women, but I've so rarely seen this in practice, and have often seen *the opposite* occur. In a sense, this is related to certain anarchist critiques of identity politics— that of course certain groups are more oppressed in a patriarchal, white supremacist society, and those oppressive forces must be counteracted and those who suffer should be lifted up, but that does not mean that members of oppressed groups can't act badly, *or against the interests of their oppressed brothers and sisters*.

totally agree with this ... especially in light of the fact that Clarence Thomas, not only voted to overturn Roe v Wade but also wanted to get rid of Affirmative Action as well ...