Liberals also say and do stupid shit

[ShivaX]

@Diddums

And here’s where I don’t agree, because this supposedly hardcore left district with “radical constituents” elected a centrist stalwart (just Google Joe Crowley centrist) for twenty years.

They’ll elect anyone with a D by their name.

Just like my district will elect anyone with an R by their name.

We kept reelecting Steve King. We’re less conservative than her district is liberal.

It just a thing in politics now. Safe Districts. Both sides have them and the people in them can go off the reservation. The only threat is being primaried. AOC could get primaried if she goes full King (or whatever the opposite of that is), but unlike King she’s not an idiot.

It took an entire decade to get rid of King. AOC would have to be full on idiot for at least that long before a primary challenger is likely to take a shot at her. And she won the primary over a less liberal person who’d been there for decades. Which strongly implies that centrist, wasn’t liberal enough for the district.

If anything your point affirms what we’re saying. Crowley wasn’t liberal enough. He got primaried out by an unknown with no political experience. That indicates the district is far more liberal than he was.

[Timex]

@Diddums

Sigh. Supertanker said that she “trumpets her views from a very safe” (which is also what you and ShivaX are saying, and I agree) “hardcore left” district. And here’s where I don’t agree, because this supposedly hardcore left district with “radical constituents” elected a centrist stalwart (just Google Joe Crowley centrist) for twenty years.

And then he was challenged by someone with literally no experience at all, who was much further left… and she won.

I mean, he held that district for a large time basically via inertia.

@Diddums

So she can absolutely lose a primary if she veers off the reservation, beyond the pale of her constituents.

I don’t believe she could possibly get primaried successfully by the center.

Just to be clear here, I don’t think that AOC somehow doesn’t deserve her position. She totally does. She came from nothing and won that seat. She represents the views of her constituents. (although I think attacking that Amazon deal still ultimately hurt the businesses there)

[ShivaX]

You also have to remember the Democrats tend to “take turns” with stuff. It was likely his turn back in the day, so he ran and got elected. He stayed elected because the establishment didn’t want to stab their dude in the back. Then AOC decided he wasn’t doing his job well enough. The district agreed. Now it’s her district.

She won with almost 70% of the vote. She hasn’t held back or played centrist at any point.
And she doesn’t need to.

You don’t get 68.8% of the vote if people don’t generally agree with you. And it’s not like she’s flying under the radar, she’s on par with Speakers, President and Majority Leaders as far as coverage and being known.

[inactive_user]

Petition to rename this thread “Democrats should be '90s Republicans, Because Reasons”

[Aceris]

@inactive_user

Petition to rename this thread “Democrats should be '90s Republicans, Because Reasons”

This post definately belongs in this thread.

[scottagibson]

@CLWheeljack

In NY, the same candidate can be listed under multiple parties. For instance, I voted for Biden under the Working Families Party instead of under the Democratic Party (it’s my tradition for railing against a 2 party system).

How does this even work? Does the Working Families Party have their own slate of electors distinct from the Dem ones, or do they use the Dem ones, or do they have none at all? Which slate are you actually voting for?

[scottagibson]

@Timex

I mean, he held that district for a large time basically via inertia.

Well, not solely by inertia. The party is actively hostile to primary challenges of established members.

[inactive_user]

Sorry, yes, please resume your regular programming of how Democrats shouldn’t push gun regulation, reproductive rights, redistributive economics, worker rights, or progressive taxation because Republicans will attack them for it.

[scottagibson]

@inactive_user

Petition to rename this thread “Democrats should be '90s Republicans, Because Reasons”

Seconded.

[ShivaX]

@inactive_user

gun regulation

I mean you don’t push it. So why lose votes over it?

@inactive_user

reproductive rights,

This is more popular than it isn’t. No reason at all to change on it really.

@inactive_user

redistributive economics

Well, that’s not playing well with anyone. Don’t push that.

@inactive_user

worker rights, or progressive taxation

Both fairly popular positions.

[CLWheeljack]

@scottagibson

How does this even work? Does the Working Families Party have their own slate of electors distinct from the Dem ones, or do they use the Dem ones, or do they have none at all? Which slate are you actually voting for?

They use the Dem ones. You’re just voting for the same electors under a different row.

I think typically in other states you’d just see one row with multiple parties listed. It’s basically the same. The WF party occasionally runs different candidates for local races, or more commonly, leaves certain races blank if they don’t have an endorsement there, so the rows aren’t identical.

It’s called Electoral Fusion, apparently.

[magnet]

@scottagibson

As a practical matter, Democrats have given up gun control for 20 years.

Democrats more or less had given up on gun control, but that changed in the wake of the Parkland shootings. Many Democrats campaigned on the issue of gun control in the 2018 House election, and it very likely contributed to the blue wave.

Since 2018, House Democrats passed a significant gun control bill that predictably died in the Senate. Democrats had more success at the state level. More than half of the states have passed new gun control laws, mostly in blue states but occasionally with bipartisan support.

[Enidigm]

Make me President;

1. Ban private sale of ammunition
2. Create a massively tiered “militaman” rating which would allow more and more access to varieties of calibers, like 7 tiers, up to a full “militiaman” rating that the gov’t could cal up “to defend the county in response to an invasion” (yea I know but that’s the fantasy you want to encourage rather than the “2nd is to kill Democrats and taxmen fantasy” they have right now. Gives them something to do. Grandfather in people who owned sufficient land for some calibers.
3. Win the inevitable SC battle over the term well-regulated militia and dare them to rule that what we have now is well regulated or a militia.

Otherwise, I guess, give up trying because the system we have now will go nowhere.

I mean this is the Big Question right now - what do Democrats have to give up to get at least some GOP voters to switch? The problem is that they’re all linked - imo you have to give up all taxes increases AND abortion AND 2nd AND regulation. I mean, at that point, Conservatives have won everything they want but the Gay Marriage thing. Is this the only way? Give up everything for LGBT, police reform, and maybe just maybe a bit of climate change?

[Timex]

@Enidigm

Create a massively tiered “militaman” rating which would allow more and more access to varieties of calibers, like 7 tiers, up to a full “militiaman” rating that the gov’t could cal up “to defend the county in response to an invasion” (yea I know but that’s the fantasy you want to encourage rather than the “2nd is to kill Democrats and taxmen fantasy” they have right now. Gives them something to do. Grandfather in people who owned sufficient land for some calibers.

This would actually work

[Calelari]

How do you envision the XP curve? Straight line, exponential? Would there be hell levels a la classic Everquest? And will you bake in room for the inevitable expansions?

[ShivaX]

[ShivaX]

[Timex]

Why can’t that guy have a gun?

[rrmorton]

That’s gotta be fake.

[Nesrie]

That’s a fake, designed to spread discord. It also started circulating months ago.