The Democrats need to wake up! Update: And near the last second, THEY HAVE (5 Viewers)

[Ditkaless Wonders]

What? I know exactly what bills the House passed last year and haven’t been taken up by the Senate. It’s pretty easy to look up. 

Ah Haaaa.  So you don't know, though it is knowable by looking it up.  He got you!  Now you feel shame.

 

[Sabertooth]

Nailed it. The Dems are doing nothing to improve the daily lives of Americans, they are too busy telling you want you are supposed to be outraged over that doesn’t impact your daily life. Then if you don’t they insult you. Cool party. 

To be honest, I don't feel the Democrats should take advice from the right on how to win.  I don't think their base will buy into a demagogue.  I find if laughable how often the right is on Fox News saying how the Democrats are losing this thing, as if they'd give actual advice.  Like you have any interest in what the left is doing, unless it's losing.  It's so disingenuous it's laughable.  It's such an obvious attempt to poison the well.  And the right just laps it up.  

 

[GoBirds]

To be honest, I don't feel the Democrats should take advice from the right on how to win.  I don't think their base will buy into a demagogue.  I find if laughable how often the right is on Fox News saying how the Democrats are losing this thing, as if they'd give actual advice.  Like you have any interest in what the left is doing, unless it's losing.  It's so disingenuous it's laughable.  It's such an obvious attempt to poison the well.  And the right just laps it up.  

Valid point, keep it up you guys are crushing it!

 

[GoBirds]

What? I know exactly what bills the House passed last year and haven’t been taken up by the Senate. It’s pretty easy to look up. 

Sorry, this talking point was debunked by @Widbil83 within seconds. People see through this stuff easily, you get that right?

 

[timschochet]

Sorry, this talking point was debunked by @Widbil83 within seconds. People see through this stuff easily, you get that right?

What? How? 

This isn’t the thread for it but if you’d like we can go over bill by bill passed by the House last year and ignored by the Senate and you can explain why McConnell refuses to take them up. 

 

[The Commish]

What? How? 

This isn’t the thread for it but if you’d like we can go over bill by bill passed by the House last year and ignored by the Senate and you can explain why McConnell refuses to take them up. 

Oh, bil's philosophy is that since GOPers don't vote for something or very few of them vote for something it doesn't count.  It also doesn't count if something is passed they know the President won't sign off on.  If any of that is true, then none of it exists....paraphrasing of course.  You can ask, but you'll be sorry you did.  Anything to avoid reality and how things are supposed to work in our government.

ETA:  I didn't know that's where he was going too, but it does make sense that he would.

 

[KPD]

Right.   Hillary thought so too.  And at the time she was a sure thing for the democrats.  

Good plan. Go with that 

I know a lot of people that thought Trump was just being bombastic during the campaign and expected him to be reigned in if elected and act presidential.  I don't think those people will be fooled this time around.

 

[AAABatteries]

Sorry, this talking point was debunked by @Widbil83 within seconds. People see through this stuff easily, you get that right?

Wat?  You think we can't lookup the bills that are waiting on the Senate to take them up?

 

[Thunderlips]

Because it’s a bunch of ridiculous stuff they passed that they knew wouldn’t make it through the Senate. Boehner and the crew did the same thing with Harry Reid in the Obama years. So yes, boff sidez!

The difference is that back then Republicans didn’t spend 9 months trying to impeach Obama spending every minute on every news channel entirely focused on that. 

Why aren't they sending it back or voting on it? 

 

[Thunderlips]

Valid point, keep it up you guys are crushing it!

In terms of elections....haven't they been?  2018 and 19 were very good for the Democrats. 

 

[sho nuff]

Perhaps you can answer what bill wouldn't?  And no...his post didn't debunk anything.  He made unsubstantiated claims about what the bills were.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/783637-the-democrats-need-to-wake-up/?do=findComment&comment=22487554

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

There’s a lot of indications that the nominee is going to be Bernie, so may need to wake up to the fact that if you want Trump out it will mean Bernie is in. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Please list out which bills are ridiculous stuff?  Even "a bunch" would be great.

Acting as if congress did nothing else but try to impeach is completely illogical and untrue.  Its an accusation that should have stopped long ago.  The facts do not bear out what you are saying.

Link

Another link

It’s incredibly important to understand that 9 out of 10 of these bills, 90 percent of this stack, is bipartisan,” 

so tired of hearing this. It is complete baloney. 

 

[GoBirds]

In terms of elections....haven't they been?  2018 and 19 were very good for the Democrats. 

If you aren’t worried about the Presidency and think nothing has changed the last couple years that’s a fair point. 

 

[Thunderlips]

If you aren’t worried about the Presidency and think nothing has changed the last couple years that’s a fair point. 

Both sides should be worried about their chance at the Presidency.  It's an Election Year in which enthusiasm on both sides is high.

I guess if you want to take the victory lap now....it's cool.  

 

[sho nuff]

It’s incredibly important to understand that 9 out of 10 of these bills, 90 percent of this stack, is bipartisan,” 

so tired of hearing this. It is complete baloney. 

It is?  Care to unpack which part of it is?

 

[The Commish]

Why aren't they sending it back or voting on it? 

There are several there, that if brought up for a vote in the Senate would pass and then the President would have to veto.  McConnell doesn't want that bad press.  So, they are touting this "Do Nothing Dems" instead and the President is parroting it.

 

[GoBirds]

Both sides should be worried about their chance at the Presidency.  It's an Election Year in which enthusiasm on both sides is high.

I guess if you want to take the victory lap now....it's cool.  

Still plenty of time for sure, but you acting like the current environment of Biden falling on his face in a weak group of candidates/Nancy losing it/Impeachment charade that boosted Trump 10 points is the same as 2018 is comical. 

 

[TripItUp]

Both sides should be worried about their chance at the Presidency.  It's an Election Year in which enthusiasm on both sides is high.

I guess if you want to take the victory lap now....it's cool.  

Turnout was way below Obama primaries in Iowa this year....I think its inaccurate, or at least premature to suggest enthusiasm is high on the left.

 

[Widbil83]

Sorry, this talking point was debunked by @Widbil83 within seconds. People see through this stuff easily, you get that right?

You can’t just waste everybody’s time on impeachment for 9 months and claim you’re getting stuff done. There was no walking and chewing gum here from the Democrats.

But I just came into this thread to see if Tim would say that I was right all these years about Biden. I will be bowing out of this thread now, because why would I want to get in the way of a good ole fashioned Democrat circular firing squad? 

 

[parasaurolophus]

It is?  Care to unpack which part of it is?

90% are not bipartisan. Very few bills on Mitch's desk are bipartisan. Probably only a couple, if that. There is some discussion in another thread somewhere, but they are counting bills with one GOP vote as bipartisan. That is simply a lie. If we can use that definition then congress is mostly bipartisan. 

The GOP and the Democrats just happily skipping along in the meadow, yay congress!

 

[Thunderlips]

90% are not bipartisan. Very few bills on Mitch's desk are bipartisan. Probably only a couple, if that. There is some discussion in another thread somewhere, but they are counting bills with one GOP vote as bipartisan. That is simply a lie. If we can use that definition then congress is mostly bipartisan. 

The GOP and the Democrats just happily skipping along in the meadow, yay congress!

Fair point.

Why aren't their votes on them?

 

[IC FBGCav]

All right I’m a very optimistic person and I’ve tried to maintain that optimism throughout this election cycle but I’m finally fed up. I’ve said many times that Donald Trump should not be difficult to defeat, and I still tend to believe that, but the Democrats have made it much more difficult due to unforced errors. 

The Iowa mess is only the tip of the iceberg. In one sense I don’t really care; screwups in counting votes in February is not going to kill us in November. But in another sense it’s emblematic of an overall incompetence and poor thinking that is going to lead to Trump’s re-election. Let’s go over this again: 

1. Bernie Sanders is not going to beat Donald Trump. Full stop. It’s not going to happen. A few days ago I wrote that if he’s the nominee he might have a 40-50% chance but that was being very generous. Bernie will lose because his biggest support largely comes from states that are already in the blue column: New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. The “coasts”. In the states that matter, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, he won’t win, because those voters don’t want Medicare 4 All and they don’t want socialism. 

2. Liz Warren is Bernie lite. She can’t win either for most of the same reasons. 

3. Buttigieg can’t get enough black votes to win the nomination. All he can do is take away votes from the other moderate candidates which makes a Bernie candidacy more easy. 

4. As much as I have tried to prop Joe Biden up he’s made one bonehead move after another. Why did he stay silent so long on the Hunter accusation. Why doesn’t he explain himself? Worst of all is the lack of energy he displays. We’re not even at our first primary yet and he’s so wounded I no longer have any idea what he’ll be like as the nominee. 

5. Amy Klobuchar says all the right things but has no traction whatsoever. If she comes in 4th in Iowa where is she expected to make her move? She’s almost a non entity at this point. 

6 Bloomberg’s plan appears to be working, but will he destroy the Democrats by winning it? He’s come in late and if he succeeds the narrative is going to be that a billionaire bought himself a nomination. Are progressives like AOc going to be able to put aside their resentment and vote for Mike Bloomberg? I have my doubts. 

No idea how this all plays out but we’re not off to a great start. Get it together! Time is a wasting. 

You felt great in 2016 at this point though, right?

 

[sho nuff]

90% are not bipartisan. Very few bills on Mitch's desk are bipartisan. Probably only a couple, if that. There is some discussion in another thread somewhere, but they are counting bills with one GOP vote as bipartisan. That is simply a lie. If we can use that definition then congress is mostly bipartisan. 

The GOP and the Democrats just happily skipping along in the meadow, yay congress!

Again...you are assuming rather than backing up what you are claiming here.

But the overall point is...calling democrats do nothing...or just proclaiming the bills are all bad is without any substance at this point.

 

[sho nuff]

Fair point.

Why aren't their votes on them?

Or even discussion

 

[parasaurolophus]

Fair point.

Why aren't their votes on them?

Don't really want to rehash this argument too much. So I will just say for some of them there should definitely be votes and I am upset about that. For some of them they should be thrown in the garbage and aren't worth the paper they are written on.  

Mitch and Trump shouldn't say "do nothing" and the house shouldn't say "bipartisan"

The house should criticize the senate for not taking up the bills that have a chance to pass. The senate should criticize the house for the 125 bills that are nothing more than partisan junk. 

That would be real dialogue. Instead we get the do nothing back and forth that has been going on for years, I even posted an article from when Obama was president and the criticism was almost identical as were the results,  just switch parties. 

 

[sho nuff]

You can’t just waste everybody’s time on impeachment for 9 months and claim you’re getting stuff done. There was no walking and chewing gum here from the Democrats.

But I just came into this thread to see if Tim would say that I was right all these years about Biden. I will be bowing out of this thread now, because why would I want to get in the way of a good ole fashioned Democrat circular firing squad? 

You have yet to answer what bills were so bad after you made claims about them.  The facts show they weren't just doing impeachment during this time.  Also...its opinion that it just wasted time.  Oversight is a part of their job...it was not a waste of time.

Instead of bowing out...you should back up some of the assertions you have made about the bills.

 

[squistion]

You have yet to answer what bills were so bad after you made claims about them.  The facts show they weren't just doing impeachment during this time.  Also...its opinion that it just wasted time.  Oversight is a part of their job...it was not a waste of time.

Instead of bowing out...you should back up some of the assertions you have made about the bills.

Yes, that would refreshing.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Again...you are assuming rather than backing up what you are claiming here.

But the overall point is...calling democrats do nothing...or just proclaiming the bills are all bad is without any substance at this point.

I am not assuming. When Pelosi released her letter about the 400 bills sitting on Mitchs desk she said 275 of them were bipartisan. That definition included many bills that had only one GOP vote and I believe 8 might have been the most. 

ETA 8 was the most on a shorter list. I can see some with as many as 33 votes. That would be fine to label bipartisan in my book. Tons with less than 8 though which is a joke. 

 

[zftcg]

Don't really want to rehash this argument too much. So I will just say for some of them there should definitely be votes and I am upset about that. For some of them they should be thrown in the garbage and aren't worth the paper they are written on.  

Mitch and Trump shouldn't say "do nothing" and the house shouldn't say "bipartisan"

The house should criticize the senate for not taking up the bills that have a chance to pass. The senate should criticize the house for the 125 bills that are nothing more than partisan junk. 

That would be real dialogue. Instead we get the do nothing back and forth that has been going on for years, I even posted an article from when Obama was president and the criticism was almost identical as were the results,  just switch parties. 

I think most Americans have yet to come to terms with the fact that our system has devolved to the point where divided government means that nothing gets done. Hell, even unified control means that most of what gets passed will be budgetary items that can be passed via reconciliation and don't require 60 votes in the Senate.

Are there exceptions? Sure, a few (the USMCA being a recent example) but the numbers will continue to dwindle, and the really big things will continue to not get done.

 

[PhantomJB]

I am not assuming. When Pelosi released her letter about the 400 bills sitting on Mitchs desk she said 275 of them were bipartisan. That definition included many bills that had only one GOP vote and I believe 8 might have been the most. 

Completely agree. The "bi-partisan" claim is garbage.

Many Democrats also claimed because of the Romney vote that the impeachment vote was "bi-partisan."

 

[parasaurolophus]

Also this isnt always a partisan thing. 

As I mentioned in the other thread too, the most bills passed that went untouched by the senate was the 110th which was a dem house and dem senate.

There was a bill last session(GOP house) that passed the house 387-0 and the senate did not take it up. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

From 2014...

The argument is often used to rebut claims that this is a "do-nothing" Congress, or, particularly recently, to counter Obama's insistence that he must act because Congress won't. And the thing is: Those Republicans are right. There are over 300 bills waiting for Senate action. But the other thing is: That's pretty much how things have always been.

 

[sho nuff]

I am not assuming. When Pelosi released her letter about the 400 bills sitting on Mitchs desk she said 275 of them were bipartisan. That definition included many bills that had only one GOP vote and I believe 8 might have been the most. 

ETA 8 was the most on a shorter list. I can see some with as many as 33 votes. That would be fine to label bipartisan in my book. Tons with less than 8 though which is a joke. 

Completely agree. The "bi-partisan" claim is garbage.

Many Democrats also claimed because of the Romney vote that the impeachment vote was "bi-partisan."

Sure...as was claiming there were all garbage as a poster did...which started us down this hole.

Can we agree there?

 

[PhantomJB]

Sure...as was claiming there were all garbage as a poster did...which started us down this hole.

Can we agree there?

pho sho. i would definitely agree they are not all garbage. there are a few climate ones in particular that are very sensible. 

 

[sho nuff]

pho sho. i would definitely agree they are not all garbage. there are a few climate ones in particular that are very sensible. 

Darn you...now Im hungry.

 

[tonydead]

You just listed the top 5 democratic candidates (plus Bloomberg), explained why they won't be able to beat Trump and then asked the Democratic party to get it together?  What exactly do you want them to do?  

 

[Skoo]

So in summary:

Hillary, a centrist who no one was excited about lost to Trump in 2016.

And the way to defeat Trump in 2020?

Biden, a centrist who no one is excited about.

Definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

 

[Skoo]

Also, I wholeheartedly reject this idea so many are parroting which is that Bernie is too radical to win.

1. He's not that radical when you realize Europe has been doing most of what he's proposing for years now.

2. People said all the same #### about Trump, including myself. We were wrong.

If Trump can win, Bernie can most definitely win.

 

[tonydead]

Also, I wholeheartedly reject this idea so many are parroting which is that Bernie is too radical to win.

1. He's not that radical when you realize Europe has been doing most of what he's proposing for years now.

2. People said all the same #### about Trump, including myself. We were wrong.

If Trump can win, Bernie can most definitely win.

From my view medicare 4 all is too radical to win.  Medicare 4 all is a big giant part of Bernie.  I agree with Tim, Bernie and Warren can't win because of that.

 

[PhantomJB]

Also, I wholeheartedly reject this idea so many are parroting which is that Bernie is too radical to win.

1. He's not that radical when you realize Europe has been doing most of what he's proposing for years now.

2. People said all the same #### about Trump, including myself. We were wrong.

If Trump can win, Bernie can most definitely win.

If the NYT can label Warren's ideas radical, then rational people can easily apply the same to Bernie.

Sanders will have limited political capital. What one specific initiative would be his highest priority?

 

[Skoo]

If the NYT can label Warren's ideas radical, then rational people can easily apply the same to Bernie.

Sanders will have limited political capital. What one specific initiative would be his highest priority?

If I had to guess it would be healthcare. That seems to be his #1 issue followed by changing the tax structure.

And I know the New York Times and everyone else is and can state that Bernie is too radical.

I just disagree. We've never had a progressive President in my lifetime. Not one. I wanna give it a try.

Anyone who is seen as "radical" is always gonna run into a lot of opposition. But what's the alternative?

The alternative is sending out weak candidate after weak candidate because you're so worried about being in the "center", which has been moving right for decades now.

How do you get change when you elect the same people with the same ideas over and over and over again?

 

[Thunderlips]

Still plenty of time for sure, but you acting like the current environment of Biden falling on his face in a weak group of candidates/Nancy losing it/Impeachment charade that boosted Trump 10 points is the same as 2018 is comical. 

It's been a great week for Trump.  No doubt.  Only the Romney thing is a speed bump on his highway this week.

I'm not worried about the D's though*. They'll circle their wagons, get it together behind a candidate and get their gifted 200+ EC votes.

The only things that really matter to me are PA,MI,WI,VA,NC, and AZ.....and A) it's too early for that and B) the D's have done well in those states since 2016. 

* Bernie and his supporters are a concern....as I could see them "taking their ball and going home".  But that being said, if they lose and don't want to get behind a candidate who (IMO) jibes with their political beliefs moreso than Trump....so be it.  They'll dislike the Trump Second Term (and the after effects of maybe another SCJ or two; redistricting, more judge appointees etc. etc.) way more than I will.  

 

[cubd8]

All right I’m a very optimistic person and I’ve tried to maintain that optimism throughout this election cycle but I’m finally fed up. I’ve said many times that Donald Trump should not be difficult to defeat, and I still tend to believe that, but the Democrats have made it much more difficult due to unforced errors. 

The Iowa mess is only the tip of the iceberg. In one sense I don’t really care; screwups in counting votes in February is not going to kill us in November. But in another sense it’s emblematic of an overall incompetence and poor thinking that is going to lead to Trump’s re-election. Let’s go over this again: 

1. Bernie Sanders is not going to beat Donald Trump. Full stop. It’s not going to happen. A few days ago I wrote that if he’s the nominee he might have a 40-50% chance but that was being very generous. Bernie will lose because his biggest support largely comes from states that are already in the blue column: New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. The “coasts”. In the states that matter, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, he won’t win, because those voters don’t want Medicare 4 All and they don’t want socialism. 

2. Liz Warren is Bernie lite. She can’t win either for most of the same reasons. 

3. Buttigieg can’t get enough black votes to win the nomination. All he can do is take away votes from the other moderate candidates which makes a Bernie candidacy more easy. 

4. As much as I have tried to prop Joe Biden up he’s made one bonehead move after another. Why did he stay silent so long on the Hunter accusation. Why doesn’t he explain himself? Worst of all is the lack of energy he displays. We’re not even at our first primary yet and he’s so wounded I no longer have any idea what he’ll be like as the nominee. 

5. Amy Klobuchar says all the right things but has no traction whatsoever. If she comes in 4th in Iowa where is she expected to make her move? She’s almost a non entity at this point. 

6 Bloomberg’s plan appears to be working, but will he destroy the Democrats by winning it? He’s come in late and if he succeeds the narrative is going to be that a billionaire bought himself a nomination. Are progressives like AOc going to be able to put aside their resentment and vote for Mike Bloomberg? I have my doubts. 

No idea how this all plays out but we’re not off to a great start. Get it together! Time is a wasting. 

If the candidates are either un-electable, likely to create internal division, not likely to get enough key support from specific geographic/demoographic, mistake prone or unable to garner attention how do you suggest that they get their act together?

If Trump can run on the economy, it's going to be an extremely close race. If he can't, he'll likely lose.

 

[wikkidpissah]

I’ve compared Sanders to George McGovern and Jeremy Corbyn, and Chait discusses the Corbyn analogy. But he also mentions Barry Goldwater in 1964 and perhaps this is the best analogy at all. This is not really similar to Trump in 2016; it’s true that both candidates are populist, but Bernie is an ideologue and his supporters have a puritanical ideological fervor that Trump’s movement lacks. That’s why it compares to Goldwater. 

Goldwater is an excellent analogy to Sanders, but he v Trump would be more like Goldwater v McGovern, each staking out a hard 1/3 with no clue how the middle third will respond. My mistrust of Sanders as my Senator has made me reluctant to support him, even tho his views are closest to mine of any candidate since McGovern, but i am now prepared to stipulate that having the response from the American people (esp the young) that he has may have given him a Bobby Kennedyesque transformative experience. All i know is that the Democratic party has never had a better op to sneak some real leftism past the American people for their own good and i am even more sure that victory by a traditional Democrat candidate will not be an improvement on Trump. Reform NOW or hasten the wind.

 

[KPD]

If the NYT can label Warren's ideas radical, then rational people can easily apply the same to Bernie.

Sanders will have limited political capital. What one specific initiative would be his highest priority?

It should be to ask Congress to pass laws restricting the power of the Executive and then signing it.

 

[Thunderlips]

Dancing around the 270 to win EC map and some polls....

What the hell happened to MO?  Wasn't that a "purplish" state within the past 20 years?  That thing is redder than an Irishman on the equator at noon.  

 

[PhantomJB]

If I had to guess it would be healthcare. That seems to be his #1 issue followed by changing the tax structure.

Anyone who is seen as "radical" is always gonna run into a lot of opposition.

Not to ignore your other comments...but let's look just at the practicality of this for a minute.

Bernie's #1 idea Med4All is so huge and such a radical departure that you are correct. It is going to encounter major opposition. Not just from the right but centrists and moderate Democrats. (Many people see Obamacare as a failure and now we're going to double down?)

Therefore it will take a major diversion of political resources from other major pent-up initiatives (climate change, passing the other 300 or whatever existing bills on McConnell's desk) to even have a snowball's chance of getting done.

If you try and jam it down the conservatives' throats then you are just going to create the Tea Party 2.0. And then in four years federal politics will be even more polarized than it is now.

Bernie's entire political identity is tied to Med4All. No way he will be compromising on getting it passed and therein lies the problem with his candidacy.

 

[The Commish]

I'm looking at these definitions and I'm struggling to understand exactly where the line is for something to be "bi-partisan" in the eyes of many.  This feels much like the stupid "transcript" debate of 2019.  Not sure why you're wasting time on this.  If there is support from both parties, it's bi-partisan isn't it?  If that's not the case, then I need to understand how one's arbitrary line is better than another's....TIA.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Bernie's entire political identity is tied to Med4All. No way he will be compromising on getting it passed and therein lies the problem with his candidacy.

If he doesn't have the votes (which in all likelihood he won't), what choice does he have?  Of course he'll compromise if he can move things in the right direction without preventing some future administration from passing single payer.  Something like lowering the Medicare age to 50 that someone mentioned above seems like a compromise he would sign on to.  What makes you think he wouldn't?