Democratic (Party) Direction

It doesn’t matter what his link was about. Conversation shifted in ways that were beyond my control and it will probably happen again.

You're the one who shifted it by bringing up grifting!

I remembered it being more of a fluid collectively driven and gradual conversational shift but maybe your right.

you’re

A Mothership email

lol pic.twitter.com/E3xEb8e3Bg

— da jdpon joker (@Hegelbon) December 23, 2020

and I think sic's link was about the video clip, not that it was Daou tweeting it. even a dude like Daou can spot a banana

yeah Daou is a clown but it was too late at night to bother looking for another source on the clip

Verrit was his hilarious "a numerical code to prove memes are true" project btw

also tbh I do feel happy for him that he saw through the emptiness of Sorkin centrism, even if he keeps being the same level of teethgrindingly earnest about actually positive pro-human policies. so if the thread drift came from gabbo aiming to clown me, fair enough

small rustled jimmies

“Sorkin Centrism”

That should be a thing we don’t say.

I guess if you don't say it then we won't be

Dianne Feinstein has filed with the FEC to seek re-election until 2030, when she will be 96.

Uh

Barbara, come get your girl

file and forget

Don't really know anything beyond this tweet, but FWIW:

Even candidates that literally say I AM NOT RUNNING AGAIN file this paperwork, it has to do with transferring campaign money around https://t.co/gplOW9cF2U

— metal dot txt (@metaltxt) January 13, 2021

Yeah, the amount of the national Democratic Party infrastructure is just consultancy grift and media buys to their friends isn’t really understood by most people, especially not by those who are paid to comment on them on air

thanks, this also sucks!

Say what you will about the Democrats, at least they're all going to vote for a second time to impeach and convict Donald J. Trump. Who else is going to do this public service on our behalf? The Republicans?

Reporting today says Biden picks Jaime Harrison as DNC chair, but I don't get it -- I thought DNC chair was a thing there was an election for, not a thing the President picks, am I confused?

Yeah, I've been confused about that, too.

Here's what the NYT said:

"Incoming presidents traditionally take control of the party committees, installing their own chair and staffers. Former President Barack Obama chose to try to establish his own political operation outside of the committee, a decision that many D.N.C. members say damaged state parties and led to years of dysfunction at the national level. Far more of a party institutionalist, Mr. Biden has promised to rebuild state parties and deepen investments in the committee."

So, I guess there was a DNC election in 2017 because there wasn't a Democratic president in the White House?

Also, Wikipedia says that the 2017 election was the first contested DNC race since 1985.

The general way it works is that the DNC is notionally the president’s operation when a democrat is in office. They set the national direction for the party, etc.

Obama shunned the DNC, which might have been OK for him but was disastrous for all the things the DNC is supposed to do. Debbie Wasserman Schultz arguably tanked the whole thing, and all he had to do to was wave his hand and she’d have been replaced

There would have been both pros and cons to him just installing a portion of his Obama for America staff directly in the DNC office, but in my opinion... it would have been a better idea than pretending he was independent of their operation

Anyone have a take on Schumer's proposed "power sharing agreement" with the GOP? Left friends already cringing, probably not a bad bet that they are right to, but just wondering if this is some kind of necessary move to avoid 100% deadlock.

Seems similar to what the Senate did in 2001 when there was also a 50-50 tie (for a few months, anyway, until Jim Jeffords switched parties)

Since ties in the committees will still send bills to the floor, having equal members doesn't seem like a big deal.

But don't you need equal members in the committees for that to happen, which has to be allowed by the 51-seat party? I don't get the rules (which seem by and large totally arbitary in the Senate)

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

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.

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

I shared this in the other thread: https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/18/politics/mitch-mcconnell-chuck-schumer-power-sharing-deal/index.html

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?

They're upholding Norms!

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/cheers/images/7/7f/Norm1.jpg

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

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

shame on you for these unbipartisan hopes

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

• 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

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.

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."

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

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.

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

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