One day it’s “Trump beats Biden in polls,” the next it’s “Democrats are on a winning streak.” Yeesh, I can’t keep up. The oooooonly poll that matters is the one on election day.
This article is talking about Democratic wins in actual elections.
It’s a radical thought, but do you think reading the actual article would help to convey this subtle point?
edit: for example, the first paragraph:
“Democrats have secured majority control of the Pennsylvania House and moved within one seat of ending Republican control of the New Hampshire House. Those wins are not aberrations. They are the latest measures of a nationwide blue wave that has seen Democrats outperform expectations in 24 of 30 special elections for open state legislative seats this year. Legislative contests that were once considered local or regional races are being nationalized, as concerns about abortion rights and voting rights—two issues that are up for grabs in statehouses—are putting Republican candidates in a perilous position.”Link from article (https://abcnews.go.com/538/democrats-winning-big-special-elections/story?id=103315703)
I think it’s important to recall that there are people within and outside the US who are doing all they can to make the US dysfunctional politically and administratively.
I agree, but did you reply to the right person?
It’s like that in other democracies too. It’s like analysists about the markets. They all know jack-shit but need to report something to justify their existence in media. The outcome is usually close enough to make them stay but never quite the actual result.
The article agrees with you.
These are actual elections. “Winning streak” means they won in actual elections, not polls.
It even specifically mentions that Democrats are outperforming expectations (those expectations are driven by Polls)
This is a reminder to think about direct propaganda from Russia to establish voter apathy in people who would vote Democrat when you read all these self defeatist posts.
wooohoo dems are going to take control where they will conservatively do fucking nothing. i guess thats better than urinating on democracy… but i wouldnt call it transformative.
‘democracy life support’ maybe
I mean it makes sense to want them to do more but calling it nothing is a little overblown. See: The horribly named inflation reduction act.
sorry, but ive watched them allow the erosion of the middle class while reinforcing our stance as the worlds police by overproducing human killing weapons for the last 40 years. im kinda out of patience… or hope
The Dems had control of the House and a filibuster-proof Senate under Obama… and did jack shit. They could have legitimately transformed healthcare and broken for-profit insurance and the Republicans could do nothing about it; but they bickered amongst themselves until suddenly the insurance companies stopped complaining.
I’m not holding my breath.
The Dems had control of the House and a filibuster-proof Senate under Obama
Theoretically. For 72 days.
However, the Senate supermajority only lasted for a period of 72 working days while the Senate was actually in session.
But let’s take a closer look at that statement, shall we? Because in my opinion, it’s a blatant lie:
https://eu.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-obama-had-total-control/985146007/
On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats…which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof “total control.” Republicans held 41 seats.
So far so good. Well, not filibuster proof.
The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate…and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)
Oh what’s this? The actual number was really 55 Dems + 2 independents!
Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009…Democratic votes 58.
In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21…Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.
Nope, still not filibuster proof.
Kennedy’s empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.
The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. “Total control” of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010…at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat.
There’s that filibuster proof majority of 58 Dems + 2 independents.
And when was the ACA passed in the Senate? Exactly in that period, on 24th of December 2009.
The House agreed on it on March 21st 2010, and by then, there was no filibuster proof majority anymore to go further than the ACA.
Oh, and after 2011, Dems never gained house and Senate majority together for a decade. That’s one reason why the US is so fucked, by the way.
Hi, my name is ProcurementCat and I call out people who pretend to be very leftist but actually only make leftist politicians look bad.
Edit: Oh, and there was one major amendment to the ACA, by the way: When Republicans used it for tax cuts under Trump.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act
It took a filibuster proof majority to pass the ACA, it took 51 votes to turn it into a 2.3 trillion tax gift for the rich. Don’t really hear you complain about that.
Good human
Thank you for the clear, concise, and accurate history lesson.
Yours was such a great and thorough answer, thank you.
While I definitely wish there was more under ACA, but to call it “jack shit” is too far. I know too many people who’ve hugely benefited from it to act like it’s nothing.
I wrote a reply with a little bit of context and explanation to that “filibuster proof majority”. The reality is: After passing the ACA, there was no chance in hell Dems could have gone further.
Not one single time after seeing someone parrot the “ZOMG Dems could have solved all problems if only they’d used that majority they had under Obama” line have I seen them acknowledge the post like yours that almost inevitably follows it.
None of these people seem to understand political capital.
It also gets credit for being the excuse Democrats gave for 10 years about why health care reform wasn’t important anymore. IMO the harm that has come from that momentum halt completely reversed any good the ACA did. If the Democrats treated it like the stepping stone it always was, I would agree it wasn’t “jack shit”.
What more were they to have done and how? They no longer controlled the House/Senate and the GOP had won on a platform of defunding and dismantling the ACA. What sort of support could be expected right now of the GQP?
They should have kept pushing for a full single-payer healthcare system as the policy platform instead of demonizing anyone who dared suggest it. Whether or not they could enact it yet, they’ve completely killed the momentum we had from passing the ACA by treating it like it solved everything. So now that’s the best we’ll ever have for the foreseeable future.
Throwing up the Republicans as an excuse is just typical blame-shifting. As you’re clearly aware, they were never going to be part of any solution, so they’re pretty irrelevant to the discussion.
The opposition party, that holds the House of Representatives, who has held the entire government budget process hostage multiple times… are irrelevant to you. I think that perhaps you do no understand the legislative process as well as you think you do.
No, you’re either not understanding my point or being intentionally obtuse. That the Republicans will oppose national health care reform is a given, and has no relevance on internal party policy. My point is that the Democrats failed to keep momentum even within their own party, and attacked anyone who claimed the ACA was insufficient. 2020 was the first election cycle where they finally admitted the ACA was insufficient.
Shifting between attacking positions and throwing the Republicans up as a get-out-of-argument-free card is exactly the same tired rhetoric the Democratic party has been using for decades.
You’ve clearly never used ACA. It is helping many millions of people and was recently expanded.
- Hot Saucerman ( @dingus@lemmy.ml ) English2•9 months ago
You know what would help more people. Universal healthcare.
- Hot Saucerman ( @dingus@lemmy.ml ) English20•9 months ago
Cool, because I really want the center-right Wall Street chode sucking gremlins to “transform” our politics into… the status quo.
Does anyone really believe the Democrats as a party actually have the balls to stand up for US citizens and/or change politics in this country dramatically?
Joe Manchin is a “democrat.” So are plenty of other Blue Dog motherfuckers. The party at the Federal level overall is absolutely by and large center-right.
Joe Manchin is a “democrat.” So are plenty of other Blue Dog motherfuckers.
Congrats, you cited literally the worst example of a Democrat 🙄 The one that we run in West Virginia because he’s the only chance we have of getting anyone that will even remotely ever agree with Democrats in that state.
There’s been plenty of real meaningful progress executed by Democrats. Including the infrastructure bill (which when combined with the inflation reduction act is some of the most profound legislation in the climate change fight ever passed in any country), efforts to correct the gerrymandering problem, changes to allow negotiation by medicare on drug prices, expansion of rural broadband, increased protection for made in America labels, reversal of various nutjob Trump era policies like banning transgender folks from being in the military, etc.
Thank you for some sanity. Dems are far from perfect but they’ve done a lot of good and can continue to if we can get more in office.
The collapse of the economy is going to gut that: 2024 won’t be won by the Democrats.
I hadn’t forseen the 17-month suspension-from-traiding put on Evergrande group, but that didn’t prevent them from losing, oh, 2 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE of value, on the day they began trading again…
You simply can’t remove the anti-financial-crisis-rules, as Trump did, without enabling financial-crisis-2, which is going to have Citadel simply disappear, instead of paying for the naked-shorting it’s been doing…
Whatever: nobody believes that the current-conditions are real, so why bother trying to communicate that the progression-from-now-to-inevitable-consequences is real, right?
The Republicans win 2024, due to backlash, and then their “Red Caesar” dictatorship plan decapitates “democracy” from the US in early 2025, and then … then the ocean-of-butchery begins.
This is, obviously, a testable prediction: simply wait & see.
I expect there to be about 260 million slaughtered in the 14 years beginning with 2025, in North America, not including those who die fighting in ww3, only including those who died in the internal war(s) & the natural-disasters of this accelerating ClimatePunctuation time.
Simply wait & see: science is made of testable predictions, and the tests that either falsify 'em or fail to falsify 'em.
Salut, Namaste, & Kaizen.
( :
