Democratic (Party) Direction

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
A thread for discussing the Democrats' "message"/framing/etc.

This is the most important-seeming article I've read yet.

g@bbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:33 (fifteen years ago) link

Golden Globes follies 2006 (239 new answers)
Show Me the Love for SNL's "Live Duluth" sketch (105 new answers)
Democratic (Party) Direction (Unanswered)
Celebrity Big Brother 2006 - Thread Two - We all stand together? (165 new answers)
the mongrels don't want to play like that, they just want to talk to the sheepfuxors (254 new answers)
UK Watercooler Conversation 5: TOmorrow Sometimes Knows (322 new answers)

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:58 (fifteen years ago) link

That party is fucking dead and it's never coming back in a way that will change anything much.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:59 (fifteen years ago) link

maybe your beloved whig party will change something

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:02 (fifteen years ago) link

maybe your beloved dick will change something

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:07 (fifteen years ago) link

it's a long article. i got three phone calls while i was reading it!

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:23 (fifteen years ago) link

Pretty interesting stuff in that article -- I feel like I need to read it again to really digest all of it. The value shift it describes sort of reminds me of South Park -- the whole nihilistic individualistic thing -- is that what "South Park Conservatives" is about?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:27 (fifteen years ago) link

and yeah, a lot of it is pretty otm, but i fear for what america will be like if BOTH parties are simultaneously doing the "moral yardstick" shtick. yes it's apparent that americans want to hear about christianity and family values, but if the dems start playing that card in earnest, hoo boy.

i'm also not convinced about some of those salary numbers -- how is he defining "household"? and is he giving salaries in cities like new york and san francisco equal weight to ones in poor rural regions? how does income tax figure in? it's kinda vague.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:32 (fifteen years ago) link

For a while I've had the idea that the Democratic Party could improve its future by putting more money and resources into local party organizations, campus recruiting, things that give people real human connections to the party. People are much more likely to listen to their neighbor than some internet ad.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:36 (fifteen years ago) link

xpost

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year. The article gets it right that those people don't receive any government assistance, but that's just where the problem lies -- they end up too well off to get assistance but still unable to afford their debt and medical bills.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (fifteen years ago) link

2ndxpost

or hollywood actor

josh w (jbweb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (fifteen years ago) link

thanks for the link, reading now. glad to see there's a direction not chosen by Lakoff, I think he has no clue.

dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (fifteen years ago) link

The real problems with the Dems over-focus on economic policy are that 1) Policy is not very exciting to talk about and hard to understand, and 2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (fifteen years ago) link

2x post back to Josh: OTM

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:39 (fifteen years ago) link

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year.

the article suggested that the dividing line between affluent and poor was $50K per household, but for a married couple where both spouses work that only comes out to $25K per person, which isn't much once you figure in the high cost of living in america. plus, the article doesn't say who in these salary ranges pay for their own insurance and retirement funds.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:43 (fifteen years ago) link

2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

read: "we won't send your existing jobs to india."

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:45 (fifteen years ago) link

Right, but won't they?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:47 (fifteen years ago) link

it remains to be seen. let's get some dems in office and we'll find out.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:48 (fifteen years ago) link

Well, by not "send your existing jobs to India," I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that." I'd be very surprised if that actually happened under Democrats.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:50 (fifteen years ago) link

I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that."

it could happen, provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests. and monkeys might fly etc.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:52 (fifteen years ago) link

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

Polysix Bad Battery (cprek), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:53 (fifteen years ago) link

provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests

hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hohohohoHOHOHOHOHOHOOH
heheheheheHEHEHEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHASNORTSNORTSNORT!

sorry

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (fifteen years ago) link

OK, this is really depressing! not re: Democrats, but the direction of the country as a whole.

dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (fifteen years ago) link

Yeah, it is. I already had this vague fear that Americans were becoming these kind of paranoid, fat, lonely, nihilistic internet addicts who didn't talk to their neighbors.

Er wait, am I talking about Americans, or ILXors?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:57 (fifteen years ago) link

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

it is funny how many "affluent" "property owners" are up to their necks in mortgages and high-interest loans. it's like that commercial where the rich white suburban lawnmower dude says "i'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:58 (fifteen years ago) link

The most important part of the article is where they reveal that by telling people that you're espousing Christian values because you're actually a Christian, they decide they agree with you, even if they they claim Christian faith as well but are only down with the first half of the Bible.

In the vast swaths of country between the megapolises there are people raising families of 5 on $57,000 a year and doing it relatively painlessly. And yeah, economic issues don't mean a goddamned thing to them.

TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:00 (fifteen years ago) link

Plenty of families of five with $57,000 a year would still like a better health insurance system, you just can't win an election on that alone.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:03 (fifteen years ago) link

hey, gabbneb, thanks for posting that article. it takes some time to think about....

patrick bateman (mickeygraft), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:04 (fifteen years ago) link

"the American Environics team argued that the way to move voters on progressive issues is to sometimes set aside policies in favor of values"

Wow, what an incredible insight. Very novel!

"Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

I've long thought that if the Democratic party would focus their message on individualism (and the resulting freedom it implies) that they might get somewhere.

Today’s average American “worker” is, in short, very much on his or her own -- too prosperous to be eligible for most government assistance programs and, because of job laws that date back three quarters of a century, unable to unionize. Such isolation and atomization have not led to a new wave of social solidarity and economic populism, however. Instead, these changes have bred resentment toward those who do have outside aid, whether from government or from unions, and an escalating ethos of every man for himself. Against that ethos, voters have increasingly flocked to politicians who recognize that the combination of relative affluence and relative isolation has created an opening for cultural appeals.

"Every man for himself" has been an American credo for hundreds of years. It's the essence of competition, of capitalism, of industry. There's a bridge somewhere between individualism and community--is the Democratic party forcing people over a bridge or seeking one?

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Maybe they're taking shelter because they don't think it's an economy that's pitting man against man, it's shelter from the resulting culture war. What are "traditional, sensible middle-class values" anyway? The only hint we get from this article is that candidates should talk about religion and that will mitigate their stance on the death penalty (in Virginia.)

I am happy to see the wasteland that is the Democratic Party looking inward. The Republicans wouldn't dare stare into their own dark abyss.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:35 (fifteen years ago) link

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs. We've had a Republican president and congress for the past 5 years, and what have we got? A "jobless recovery". The brilliant Republican plan for creating jobs is to give more money back to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. They are still trying to sell the country on a supply-side economics platform. Look at Gov. Pataki's new budget in NY that came out this week. 24% of the tax cuts going to those who make over $200K per year. His rationale: it will create jobs and boost the economy. I think people need to start to question if that strategy really helps to create the kind of jobs this country needs. The one thing that we can be sure it does is make the rich even richer. I mean maybe if you're a BMW dealer or you sell Piaget watches, then these tax cuts are good for your business, but the average middle class type of jobs are probably not getting much of a boost.

As for the "average American household" that makes $60K a year, it would have been more informative to see the median income, because the average is skewed upwards by those at the top of the scale - ie., less than 50% of Americans make the "average" income.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:37 (fifteen years ago) link

Campus recruiting is definitely needed. I went to Rutgers, nicknamed "Kremlin on the Raritan" by some for its supposedly left-leanings, yet the Dems had almost no visibility on campus. Granted I went to school during the Nader years, when being a Democrat seemed like the lamest possible option. But the Dems need to pull talent at that level -- that's where Republicans end up with people like Rove.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:44 (fifteen years ago) link

Hmm, maybe "almost no visibility" is an exaggeration.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:45 (fifteen years ago) link

Re: Lakoff, despite the writer's early dismissal of him, I don't think the article suggests anything significantly different that what he's been talking about for years.

Lakoff's extensively written about the need for Democratic candidates and progressives in general to start explicitly talking about values. Also, for campaigns to work at creating more of an overall narrative for a candidate than just a laundry list of policies. It's only his work on the framing aspect that's received attention lately, not so much his work on defining the values systems that right/left folks tend to hold(e.g. "maintaining authority" vs "care & responsibility").

He's offered up Schwarzneggar's campaign as an example of a guy who ran entirely on narrative & perceived identity, and expressively refused to offer up any policy suggestions. Most folks don't have the time/energy/inclination to get into policy specifics, but if they trust your guy, they're trust him to take care of the details.

As he says,

"The pollsters didn’t understand it because they thought that people voted on the issues and on self-interest. Well, sometimes they do. But mostly they vote on their identity -- on persons that they trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire"

which connects to that aspirational bit that the article mentions.

Jim Wallis has talked about several of these same issues over the last year as well, especially with on the whole "onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows" bit.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:52 (fifteen years ago) link

Also, re: the poorer folks freaking out more about culture, I don't see the article acknowledging that it was a deliberate multi-year campaign on the part of conservertive politicos to get folks so het up about cultural issues that they didn't worry so much about the economics. It's a causal thing similar to Ethan's thread yesterday about outrage used for political gain.

Wallis has written about conversations his group has had with Frank Luntz and some other Repub pollsters who were quite open about their m.o. being to get voters so caught in such intense issues that they vote against their economic interest.

As other folks have pointed out, the Republicans have been better that bring the polls to them(gay marriage is the biggest thing you care about) vs the Democrats moving to where the polls now seem to be(well i guess we need to move rightward on gay marriage).

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:53 (fifteen years ago) link

interesting stuff. i don't really believe a lot of it, but i believe it's what people say, which still makes it significant. (i.e. a lot of people allegedly alarmed by the culture are also watching "desperate housewives" and "E!") it's not so much that the moral center is disgusted by the out-of-control culture, it's that a lot of people feel guilty about the very things in the culture that they participate in. massive moral cognitive dissonance, which the republicans exploit by convincing people that it's all someone else's fault (hollywood liberals, big-city elitists, gays gays gays). i'm not sure how the democrats can effectively tap into the same thing, and i sort of hate the idea that they need to, but maybe they don't have a choice.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:01 (fifteen years ago) link

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs.

That's the thing, innit? If you build up an entire apparatus to both promote & reinforce certain narratives, people will believe them even if they have no basis in fact. George W. Bush is steadfast & strong, Kerry's a weak-willed flip-flopper, Republicans are all about a smaller government, supply-side economics works, etc

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:06 (fifteen years ago) link

massive moral cognitive dissonance

oh fuck yeah this is a major bit of it, too. But since when did we start promoting self-reflection and critical thought?

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:07 (fifteen years ago) link

hard to promote self-reflection and critical thought when you're fighting hand to hand and desperate for power.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:39 (fifteen years ago) link

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:47 (fifteen years ago) link

very true. and I think that the number of folks who have to struggle is increasing.

xpost

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:49 (fifteen years ago) link

The Democrats are fucked - a weak, demoralized, decentralized party with no unifying political will, no narrative, and no reliable bases of power. The only thing keeping them around is the fact that the two-party system is so heavily institutionalized and entrenched. They're coasting on past glories and slowly squandering away all of their political resources so that they can become the eternally emasculated "opposition" party.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (fifteen years ago) link

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Please God, take Hilary quietly so she won't fuck up the party with a presidential campaign. WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE EVER.

elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (fifteen years ago) link

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas. the democrats at the moment seem disconnected from whatever constitutes their base, and even suspicious of it. it seems very top-down.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:55 (fifteen years ago) link

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

Huh? He's only been going this stuff in the press for about two years. Second, there are plenty of other folks who have made the connection, but have gotten shit for coverage(not fitting in with "religious = rightwing conservative" media narrative?), even when they got arrested for it on the Capitol steps.


For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

DLC-candidate-in-centrist-message shocker

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:56 (fifteen years ago) link

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas.

very much otm. The change will come from the outside.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:58 (fifteen years ago) link

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:00 (fifteen years ago) link

Clinton is the worst. I'd stay home before I'd vote for her. Jonathan Tasini, who is pretty great on a lot of issues, and is a pretty good speaker as well, is running against her in the primaries. I really hope he has an impact.

Re the direction of the party, past actions indicate the party will be quicker to line up behind someone with Clinton's politics as opposed to Tasini's. I'm not too hopeful when it comes to the future of the Dems.

TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:02 (fifteen years ago) link

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections

do you think it's necessary for dems to use the religious right's language ("morals" and "values")? would a less-loaded word like "ethics" skew too liberal?

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:03 (fifteen years ago) link

I think values do matter to a lot of voters

my question is, when do they not? unless a voter has completely descended into some cynical nihilism, of course.

i mean, yeah, "values" has come to signify a very specific set of values, which just goes to further show that democratic types do need to start talking about theirs.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:05 (fifteen years ago) link

haha "what's the difference between morals, and ethics..."

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:06 (fifteen years ago) link

yeah the committees are going to have equal members under this agreement

Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Tuesday, 19 January 2021 16:30 (five months ago) link

I guess the question for me is whether there *needs* to be an agreement at all. The narrative around the Senate since November has been that the Democrats would win control with a 50-50 split because Harris would break ties. From that perspective, any discussion of "power-sharing" looks like feckless deference on the part of Democrats. Like, you have a majority, act like it!

On the other hand, it's possible that the actual operation of the Senate requires some minor adjustments when there is a 50-50 split. And it might be the case that the Democratic majority is seen as more of a functional majority (because of Harris) rather than an intrinsic one -- although the fact that Dems will be committee chairs does make it seem like an actual majority.

jaymc, Tuesday, 19 January 2021 16:52 (five months ago) link

I guess my question is - what if Schumer decided he didn't want to do that? What would happen?
(My guess is that, they do this as a sort of handshake agreement to appease the other side and hope that the Republicans will treat them fairly in other situations, which, lol)

xp jaymc right, that's what i'm wondering

Nhex, Tuesday, 19 January 2021 16:52 (five months ago) link

yeah what Nhex said, that's what I'm trying to understand - are Democrats getting something out of this that they wouldn't already have with the tiebreaker seat, and is what they're getting worth whatever they're giving up?

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Tuesday, 19 January 2021 16:57 (five months ago) link

They're upholding Norms!

Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Tuesday, 19 January 2021 17:02 (five months ago) link

Seriously though, they're not losing anything really, so it's not worth the bad press they'd get by breaking with tradition

Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Tuesday, 19 January 2021 17:03 (five months ago) link

Sure as hell hope none of those six senators who objected to the electoral vote are on these committees

Nhex, Tuesday, 19 January 2021 17:48 (five months ago) link

shame on you for these unbipartisan hopes

shivers me timber (sic), Tuesday, 19 January 2021 20:02 (five months ago) link

three weeks pass...

https://media3.giphy.com/media/B88DHpHV7Wd0c/giphy.gif

"The Democrats have given unto you these two thousand... FOURTEEN hundred dollars"

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Friday, 12 February 2021 16:06 (four months ago) link

three weeks pass...

I have to admit, I am genuinely happy about the payments for families with children in the stimulus bill (avoiding referring to them as a "child tax credit" because I think that undersells how good they are and obscures that they will most likely be monthly checks). I feel like maybe the Clinton/DLC era of the party is finally ending, and it almost makes me want to cry happy tears.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, 10 March 2021 04:32 (three months ago) link

I won’t be happy til I get my childless tax credit

Canon in Deez (silby), Wednesday, 10 March 2021 04:33 (three months ago) link

They only get half credit as long as it's a one year bump, we'll see how negotiations go for a longer term plan.

Joe Bombin (milo z), Wednesday, 10 March 2021 04:34 (three months ago) link

I feel like maybe the Clinton/DLC era of the party is finally ending, and it almost makes me want to cry happy tears.

Yesterday's Pod Save America episode title was "The Era of Big Government Is Back." :D

jaymc, Wednesday, 10 March 2021 04:48 (three months ago) link

lol, big government never went anywhere. But welfare did.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, 10 March 2021 04:49 (three months ago) link

• The average household in the bottom quintile of America’s economic ladder will see its annual income rise by more than 20 percent.

• A family of four with one working parent and one unemployed one will have $12,460 more in government benefits to help them make ends meet.

• The poorest single mothers in America will receive at least $3,000 more per child in government support, along with $1,400 for themselves and additional funds for nutritional assistance and rental aid.

• Child poverty in the U.S. will drop by half.

• More than 1 million unionized workers who were poised to lose their pensions will now receive 100 percent of their promised retirement benefits for at least the next 30 years.

• America’s Indigenous communities will receive $31.2 billion in aid, the largest investment the federal government has ever made in the country’s Native people.

• Black farmers will receive $5 billion in recompense for a century of discrimination and dispossession, a miniature reparation that will have huge consequences for individual African-American agriculturalists, many of whom will escape from debt and retain their land as a direct result of the legislation.

• The large majority of Americans who earn less than $75,000 as individuals or less than $150,000 as couples will receive a $1,400 stimulus check for themselves and another for each child or adult dependent in their care.

• America’s child-care centers will not go into bankruptcy en masse, thanks to a $39 billion investment in the nation’s care infrastructure.

• Virtually all states and municipalities in America will exit the pandemic in better fiscal health than pre-COVID, which is to say a great many layoffs of public employees and cutbacks in public services will be averted.

• No one in the United States will have to devote more than 8.5 percent of their income to paying for health insurance for at least the next two years, while ACA plans will become premium-free for a large number of low-income workers.

• America’s unemployed will not see their federal benefits lapse this weekend and will have an extra $300 to spend every week through the first week in September.

hopefully this won't be the only thing that passes

Zach_TBD (Karl Malone), Wednesday, 10 March 2021 04:53 (three months ago) link

sorry, meant to link to the original, which has sources for most of those claims:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/03/what-is-in-covid-relief-bill-stimulus-checks-biden-progressives.html

i got to the fourth item and, just for a moment, let myself feel good. it's only half, but cutting something that important by half is huge.

Zach_TBD (Karl Malone), Wednesday, 10 March 2021 04:56 (three months ago) link

lol, big government never went anywhere. But welfare did.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Tuesday, March 9, 2021 10:49 PM (eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Yeah, but "welfare" is what Clinton meant when he said "The era of big government is over."

jaymc, Wednesday, 10 March 2021 04:59 (three months ago) link

ok yeah, I figured that was probably what they were ironically referring to but I don't listen to the show

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, 10 March 2021 05:01 (three months ago) link

I assume (but IDK) that part of the reason it doesn't cut child poverty by even more is that a lot of the poorest people don't file taxes, and it's still based on last year's taxable income.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, 10 March 2021 05:02 (three months ago) link

thanks for that list Karl - there's a lot i didn't know about in there

Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 10 March 2021 10:40 (three months ago) link

three months pass...

Feinstein, asked about some Dems saying they'd choose democracy over the filibuster: "If democracy were in jeopardy, I would want to protect it. But I don't see it being in jeopardy right now."

— Andrew Solender (@AndrewSolender) June 10, 2021

bobo honkin' slobo babe (sic), Thursday, 10 June 2021 22:16 (one week ago) link

phew

Linda and Jodie Rocco (map), Thursday, 10 June 2021 22:23 (one week ago) link

Cool-ass party IMO.

Joe Bombin (milo z), Thursday, 10 June 2021 22:27 (one week ago) link

odds that Feinstein even remembers 1/6?

Washington Generals D-League affiliate (will), Friday, 11 June 2021 01:39 (one week ago) link

her 16th birthday party, back in 1832? hell yeah she remembers that! that was the night before she sold her soul to satan and swallowed her puke for $2!

Karl Malone, Friday, 11 June 2021 03:34 (one week ago) link

Aged 16 in 1832 ? Then she was born at the dawn of The Era of Good Feelings! Maybe that explains it.

What's It All About, Althea? (Aimless), Friday, 11 June 2021 03:45 (one week ago) link

On Hugh Hewitt's show, McConnell says it's "highly unlikely" he'd allow Biden to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in 2024 if he's majority leader. He also doesn't commit to allowing a vote on a nominee if a seat opened up in *2023*.

"Well, we'd have to wait and see what happens."

— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) June 14, 2021

bobo honkin' slobo babe (sic), Monday, 14 June 2021 19:51 (five days ago) link

oh for real?

Clara Lemlich stan account (silby), Monday, 14 June 2021 19:53 (five days ago) link

when you lol the loud part loud

bobo honkin' slobo babe (sic), Monday, 14 June 2021 20:02 (five days ago) link

So Breyer’s really gonna keep riding this one out to see what happens, huh…

Sam Weller, Monday, 14 June 2021 20:12 (five days ago) link

Why not? The Democrats are doing the same.

Joe Bombin (milo z), Monday, 14 June 2021 20:28 (five days ago) link

6pm:

What a wonderful bipartisan women Senators dinner at our @VP’s residence! Thank you Kamala! I am so proud of you! pic.twitter.com/l5sVNWO7lU

— Sen. Debbie Stabenow (@SenStabenow) June 16, 2021

8pm:

Sisterhood, solidarity and a late night Chinese dinner is our fuel 😘 pic.twitter.com/atZcEY8bNs

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) June 16, 2021

bobo honkin' slobo babe (sic), Wednesday, 16 June 2021 07:48 (three days ago) link

Andrew Yang: "Yes, mentally ill people have rights, but you know who else has rights? We do!" pic.twitter.com/l6AJ4xpqWV

— KnowNothing (@KnowNothingTV) June 17, 2021

d-fens

bobo honkin' slobo babe (sic), Thursday, 17 June 2021 06:46 (two days ago) link

NYC left twitter was AWASH this morning with responses to that hot Yang take. Bleh.

Ima Gardener (in orbit), Thursday, 17 June 2021 13:13 (two days ago) link

It's scary that people take Yang seriously given how much of a complete and utter clown he is

80's hair metal , and good praise music ! (DJP), Thursday, 17 June 2021 13:14 (two days ago) link

Yeah. It seems like the clownishness, which is actually kind of chaotic, like, accelerationism??? appeals to ppl who think politics is a sport that you watch for entertainment. Ie, I guess, people who already have all the rights so they don't care because it doesn't affect them.

Ima Gardener (in orbit), Thursday, 17 June 2021 13:26 (two days ago) link

Is he likely to actually win?

intern at pelican brief consulting (Simon H.), Thursday, 17 June 2021 13:31 (two days ago) link

(Genuinely curious, have not been following the mayoral race)

intern at pelican brief consulting (Simon H.), Thursday, 17 June 2021 13:31 (two days ago) link

Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams holds a solid 11-point lead in the Democratic primary for mayor, according to a new survey released Wednesday.

Adams is the choice of 26 percent of likely Democratic voters, with entrepreneur Andrew Yang in second place with 15 percent support, the poll conducted by the lobbying firm Capalino & Company with the Honan Strategy Group.

rank choice makes this unpredictable though

Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Thursday, 17 June 2021 13:38 (two days ago) link

I am never getting past "YEEEEEEEEEEAH"

80's hair metal , and good praise music ! (DJP), Thursday, 17 June 2021 13:48 (two days ago) link

How old is that poll the last major one i saw was adams by like 2 over garcia and adams is no one’s second choice

yesterday i think

Muswell Hillbilly Elegy (President Keyes), Thursday, 17 June 2021 13:59 (two days ago) link

^^ from a couple of days ago

80's hair metal , and good praise music ! (DJP), Thursday, 17 June 2021 14:00 (two days ago) link

I think the end message is "too many people take Yang seriously"

80's hair metal , and good praise music ! (DJP), Thursday, 17 June 2021 14:04 (two days ago) link

Enough of New York City loves rich people telling them what to do, sadly.

Nhex, Thursday, 17 June 2021 14:07 (two days ago) link

been laughing at yang campaigning on "re-opening our schools" when schools have basically been open for months already.

his whole campaign is based on targeting low-information voters.

the mai tai quinn (voodoo chili), Thursday, 17 June 2021 14:27 (two days ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.