Donnelly blew a shit ton of goodwill. Dems in these parts are asking what the difference is between him and Braun. Lake and Marion are probably going to shore him up, but he lost a lot of votes in Monroe, though Monroe is smaller. The rumblings on the ground that I’m picking up are that he played a dangerous game, but won solely because people really hate Trump. I wouldn’t count on him winning the same game in 2024.
2 Likes
no. please answer the question as asked.
how long do i have to choose an evil (admittedly lesser of two) before I “earn” the right to vote for who best represents my views?
Again, this wouldn’t be the first time the national Dem leadership decided to disavow a whole raft of state-level politicians and officials who refused to get on board with a core value.
Should the Dem leaders in the 1960s just have allowed the likes of Strom Thurmond to stay in the party despite his dedication to racist lost causes? Or is it perhaps better that they made their core value clear enough that he had no choice but to leave and join the GOP in 1964?
That’s who I’m criticising: the party leadership who excuse Manchin and Donnelly and their ilk, despite being able to disavow them. Schumer and Obama have the power to insist on the changes that are required or simply impose party discipline on a core value, just like powerful party figures during the Civil Rights era did.
At this point, it’s effectively a core GOP value (see the NY Mag article posted above), just as the immigration platform plank you discussed is effectively supposed to be one of the Dems’.
I’m glad you used that term. It’s an important one when discussed in the context of a brand.
The party is hugely different from the way it was in the 60s, and reforms starting in the mid-1960s have stripped quite a bit of power from the central core. Schumer’s party power, outside of the floor of the Senate and outside of New York, is practically nill.
That said, the Democrats did not force Thurmond to leave the party, he left on his own, because he felt his racist views no longer aligned with the Democrats as they had become. Manchin knows full well that his views on choice and immigration are far outside the Democratic mainstream, but he chooses to stay.
Not so different that someone like Manchin couldn’t be disavowed by senior party members for breaking with a stated core party value and platform plank and, in the process, supporting one the opposition’s main fear-based and bogus talking points.
Then why bring him up as a leader at all? Leaders have power.
I happen to see him as having at least enough influence to get others in the party to go along with disavowing Manchin.
And what they had become is a party with a new core value that they wouldn’t compromise on. That effectively forced the old bigot out.
Now what might happen with Manchin if the current Dems had an existing core value about immigration that influential leaders like Obama and Schumer wouldn’t compromise on? To be clear, “not compromising on” does not include the national party giving support and resources and endorsement to someone who wants to compromise the core value.
There are some values, like recognising the value of birthright citizenship in an immigrant nation or like recognising the value of desegregation in a more racially equal nation, that are worth being uncompromising on.
Not always.
2 Likes
That just demonstrates my point about the haplessness of the Dems when it comes to party discipline. They have no real leadership in that regard. The GOP, evil though their core values are, do.
2 Likes
One Democrat voted for Kavanagh. One Republican did not. This doesn’t seem to me such a clear argument for GOP superiority in control over their members.
And Jeff Flake voted for Kavanaugh despite his supposed misgivings and he isn’t even up for re-election. That tells me a lot about how they handle their politicians, including in retirement.
Manchin, meanwhile, not only voted for Kavanaugh but is now questioning birthright citizenship. I wonder what other Dem core values he’ll oppose as a United States Senator?
2 Likes
Come on, don’t be so inflexible and uncompromising with that bottom-up grassroots position. It’s a big tent party. /s
6 Likes
Flake voted for Kavanaugh despite his supposed misgivings and he isn’t even up for re-election. That tells me a lot about how they handle their politicians, including in retirement.
Flake was never going to vote to oppose (and his “retirement” is a matter of interpretation, he’s just leaving this one office).
It would have been great to primary Manchin out, but it didn’t happen. Even the West Virginia democrats obviously want someone like him.
At this point the choice is Manchin or someone who makes Manchin look like Trotsky. Realistically, what he brings to the table is one more “D” in the Democratic tally, votes on some issues where he is more of a Democrat than a Republican, and somewhat less rabidity than the GOP candidate would be on those issues where he breaks from the Democrats. Even if the Democratic leadership had the power to change Manchin’s mind, or replace him with someone better - which they don’t - there’s not much that can be done about him, except possibly make things worse. As Saul Alinsky was wont to point out, the route to your political goals sometimes involves compromising with your enemies.
1 Like
My point exactly. Retirement for a GOP politician is a sinecure in the wingnut welfare apparatus. The Dems have nothing approaching it.
Yes: a Republican on core values like immigration, suitable SCOTUS justices, and perhaps the Presidential candidate for 2020. All of which you seem to be dismissing as minor issues.
If Manchin was running for the governorship or statehouse of WV as a Dem I wouldn’t care. What happens inside a backwards state like that doesn’t affect me or the majority of Americans much. But he’s running to be a U.S. Senator.
On minor tactical issues, not on strategic core values. Do you really want a sitting Dem Senator in 2020 to endorse Il Douche and his immigration policy and yet more SCOTUS justices?
2 Likes
because i tried to answer your question, i quote myself–
we are never guaranteed a perfect choice. what i have done here in texas has been to actively involve myself in democratic politics in my county. i have worked for 25 years to interest people i know locally with progressive mindsets to participate along with me. i have convinced some of them to run for office and run for party positions. on two occasions i have held county party positions, once as a precinct chair and once as an assistant field organizer. in 2008 i was an obama delegate to the state convention. i have had a few opportunities to help draft county recommendations to the state platform committee, which opportunities i used to work to help pull the state party to the left. we cannot improve our candidates or our party except by the hard work of participation and dedication.
5 Likes
If you want to get properly annoyed, try this:
A right wing history teacher with 117,000 Youtube subscribers explaining to his students why he can’t be bothered to vote.
2 Likes
Huh? Where do you get that? These are supremely important issues, reflective of degenerate core values that are fundamentally amoral at best, actively evil at worst. I just don’t see a change in the Democratic party structure to be more like the GOP as a positive goal, nor do I believe that there is anything to gain from purifying the party’s body politic if it comes at the cost of strengthening the GOP.
As for Manchin, to be honest I think having a Senator from West Virginia who publicly states that he believes man-made global warming is real, who opposed Trump’s tax cuts and who opposes overturning the ACA, but who votes to support candidates like Kavanaugh is more valuable than having a senator who thinks global warming is a scam, that Obamacare is evil, loves tax cuts, and who still also votes to support candidates like Kavanaugh. I think that’s the choice, and I think that Schumer knows that that’s the choice.
1 Like
Your dismissal of the Dems needing to bring Manchin in line on those issues.
We’ve been down this discussion path a couple times already. In a firm 2-party system like ours, you will have 3 choices only: Democrat, Republican, or abstain, which is universally fatal. If you want to, as most of us do, change the stance of the party, you must get out and vote in primaries. That is where you decide on a progressive vs a third way. In the general, with the state of things in our country right now, my only thought is to defeat Republicans anyway possible. Vote your conscience in the primaries. That is where the “soul” of the party is decided, and where the vast majority of voters can t be bothered to vote. In answer to “when do I earn the right to vote for a candidate I like” the answer is when you get one nominated.
5 Likes
So I can never choose the candidate who best matches my views?
Of course you can. If the Republican candidate best matches your views, you can absolutely vote for them. Same for the Democrat. Otherwise you are abstaining, which allows your views to be ignored. Vote in the primaries. That is where the real decisions are made as far as progressive / third way / moderate / socialist or whatever.
7 Likes
