Blade Posted September 24 Posted September 24 10 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: She's not even going to have 50 Senators at a single point during her presidency though. Like… Senate Dems are permanently cooked. There's no path to them ever having control of the Senate ever again. Just… lol This is an exaggeration. Kamala won't have a Senate majority if she wins but to say Democrats won't have control of the Senate *ever* again when they're likely to only be down 2 seats in 2024 with a map that isn't supposed to be friendly to them. 4
ClashAndBurn Posted September 24 Posted September 24 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Blade said: This is an exaggeration. Kamala won't have a Senate majority if she wins but to say Democrats won't have control of the Senate *ever* again when they're likely to only be down 2 seats in 2024 with a map that isn't supposed to be friendly to them. The 2024 map is the friendliest they have for the rest of the decade…. Next cycle they lose Ossoff to probably Kemp. The cycle after they could end up losing Warnock to MTG. Edited September 24 by ClashAndBurn 1 1
ClashAndBurn Posted September 24 Posted September 24 2 minutes ago, nooniebao said: Harris attracting the approval of Mark Cuban is far more concerning than random NeverTrumpers anyway. Cause yeah, wtf is this 3
Rotunda Posted September 24 Posted September 24 If it's a foregone conclusion that Kamala will never have the control of Congress necessary to pass a progressive legislative agenda, what exactly is all the handwringing about her rightward shift for? 7
Armani? Posted September 24 Posted September 24 For the Senate, guess the best outcome is she outperforms the poll averages with a 5 point lead, and Allred pulls a upset
ClashAndBurn Posted September 24 Posted September 24 4 minutes ago, Rotunda said: If it's a foregone conclusion that Kamala will never have the control of Congress necessary to pass a progressive legislative agenda, what exactly is all the handwringing about her rightward shift for? Her basically running as a Reagan Republican means any progressive who wants to follow her will have to work extra hard just to move the Overton window back towards running as an Obama or Clinton-coded liberal. And also means her likely successor will just end up being whatever Reagan Republican that South Carolina voters find most palatable in 2032. 1 3 1
Communion Posted September 24 Posted September 24 11 minutes ago, Rotunda said: If it's a foregone conclusion that Kamala will never have the control of Congress necessary to pass a progressive legislative agenda, what exactly is all the handwringing about her rightward shift for? Cause she is losing control of the Senate despite this rightward shift and conceding to move right on even items she has sole control over if she becomes president under a false understanding of the world. The Senate is doomed because she has this ideology, not in spite of it. That centrism is an electoral dead end. If moderate or centrist views were popular, Tester would be up 5 yet is down neatly double digits. 1 3
Redstreak Posted September 24 Posted September 24 22 minutes ago, Rotunda said: If it's a foregone conclusion that Kamala will never have the control of Congress necessary to pass a progressive legislative agenda, what exactly is all the handwringing about her rightward shift for? Or following politics at all
thesegayz Posted September 24 Posted September 24 What a great idea, let's run an even further left candidate in Montana! That'll make Harris win in a landslide -someone who's never talked to anyone in the mountain west 1
Rotunda Posted September 24 Posted September 24 (edited) 19 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: Her basically running as a Reagan Republican means any progressive who wants to follow her will have to work extra hard just to move the Overton window back towards running as an Obama or Clinton-coded liberal. And also means her likely successor will just end up being whatever Reagan Republican that South Carolina voters find most palatable in 2032. I mean, aside from not really agreeing that she's running as a Reagan Republican, I guess I'm struggling to conceptualize a reality where progressives can't muster up the political capital/coalition building to provide a new way forward, particularly if a Kamala admin offers nothing beyond stagnation at best. Like obviously we've known for a while that the Democratic Party's main power brokers have no vision beyond a Diverse Centrism where Black cops and gay consultants rule the world, but I don't understand how that necessarily forms/shifts the limits of possibility - particularly as disillusionment over that kind of inclusion politic seems to be growing amongst my/(our?) generation(s). 13 minutes ago, Communion said: Cause she is losing control of the Senate despite this rightward shift and conceding to move right on even items she has sole control over if she becomes president under a false understanding of the world. The Senate is doomed because she has this ideology, not in spite of it. That centrism is an electoral dead end. If moderate or centrist views were popular, Tester would be up 5 yet is down neatly double digits. Are you saying the senate would be in play if she shifted leftward? Edited September 24 by Rotunda 2
Relampago. Posted September 24 Posted September 24 1 hour ago, Adrian14 said: It scares me too much to see the polls almost tied Boo! 👻 7
americanlife Posted September 24 Posted September 24 58 minutes ago, Armani? said: Oh no!, the Manchin dickriders won't vote for Kamala, whatever will we do? What Wendy said
Armani? Posted September 24 Posted September 24 8 minutes ago, thesegayz said: What a great idea, let's run an even further left candidate in Montana! That'll make Harris win in a landslide -someone who's never talked to anyone in the mountain west It's obviously not as simple as running someone more left. They'd have to be charismatic and be straight forward on popular left policies in messaging.
GhostBox Posted September 24 Posted September 24 So some good polling for Harris and a few not too good. I've seen this play before 😂
Communion Posted September 24 Posted September 24 3 minutes ago, Rotunda said: Are you saying the senate would be in play if she shifted leftward? Is trying to appeal to old Republicans in Montana or Ohio working? Tim Ryan ran on anti-Asian racism and white farmers in Ohio still didn't vote for him. Those same farmers are possibly going to take Moreno over the line while the party dictates that outreach to progressive young voters in places like Youngstown is pointless. Texas has one of the youngest populations in the nation, many of them shown to be liberal and progressive. Beto is the closest Dems have gotten to challenging for the Senate and he ran an explicitly progressive campaign with young people. If Harris wasn't endorsing genocide, she could have Chappell Roan storming Missouri with Lucas Kunce and actually possibly flip the seat by driving up youth turnout. 3 3
Communion Posted September 24 Posted September 24 3 minutes ago, Rotunda said: Are you saying the senate would be in play if she shifted leftward? Is trying to appeal to old Republicans in Montana or Ohio working? Tim Ryan ran on anti-Asian racism and white farmers in Ohio still didn't vote for him. Those same farmers are possibly going to take Moreno over the line while the party dictates that outreach to progressive young voters in places like Youngstown is pointless. Texas has one of the youngest populations in the nation, many of them shown to be liberal and progressive. Beto is the closest Dems have gotten to challenging for the Senate and he ran an explicitly progressive campaign with young people. If Harris wasn't endorsing genocide, she could have Chappell Roan storming Missouri with Lucas Kunce and actually possibly flip the seat by driving up youth turnout.
ClashAndBurn Posted September 24 Posted September 24 4 minutes ago, Rotunda said: I mean, aside from not really agreeing that she's running as a Reagan Republican, I guess I'm struggling to conceptualize a reality where progressives can't muster up the political capital/coalition building to provide a new way forward, particularly if a Kamala admin offers nothing beyond stagnation at best. Like obviously we've known for a while that the Democratic Party's main power brokers have no vision beyond a Diverse Centrism where Black cops and gay consultants rule the world, but I don't understand how that necessarily forms/shifts the limits of possibility - particularly as disillusionment over that kind of inclusion politic seems to be growing amongst my/(our?) generation(s). Are you saying the senate would be in play if she shifted leftward? Stagnation was what we got with 6 out of 8 years of Obama, so we've seen how Democrats and their voters have responded to this before. All that you can expect from Team Blue is more of the same. Oh, and draconian immigration laws passed through bipartisanship. This kind of disillusionment won't manifest until we've died of old age. Because a right-wing Kamala loss, whether in 2024 or 2028, will result in an even more right-wing Democrat running in 2032, just like how we went from Hillary to Biden. 1
Relampago. Posted September 24 Posted September 24 I think it's fair to say that Democrats shifting right is troubling from an electoral standpoint because the more they blend in with Republicans, the less differentiation there is, then people just vote Republican. Moving left may not yield results in the upfront (but it probably could too!), but educating and winning small battles at least set up Dems for a potentially bright future by actually offering truly different positions on policy outside of social issues or abortion. A lot of what holds back progressive policy is the fact it's a battle that has to be fought against Republicans AND centrist Democrats who comprise most of the party. Kamala as the party's leader advocating for progressive policy, even if she cannot pass it, at least helps the messaging and outreach portion immensely as the single most powerful person in the US and on the planet. This slow move to the right is only sustainable for so long. Republicans don't even care to pass legislation that goes to the right either (see: Bipartisan Immigration bill). They just want to sabotage the Democrats however they can, so we truly won't get anywhere trying to push right wing agendas either. I don't think many of you realize how dangerous the Republican Party can become. If they stop the racism, many POC who are coming here have conservative values. That is a huge voting bloc that Democrats would lose quickly. Dems need to differentiate themselves in a meaningful way, and once Republicans move left on social issues (which they may or may not to, but it would be easy to do), it's pretty much game over for them. 3
Communion Posted September 24 Posted September 24 14 minutes ago, thesegayz said: What a great idea, let's run an even further left candidate in Montana! How are you genuinely so illiterate? The point is you don't waste money in deep red states cause you think ancestral Dems or moderates are winnable and redirect that money to drive up turnout with Dems' young progressive base of color for senators already with a fighting chance (Sherrod Brown) or where young voters have shown to almost help flip a seat (Giving Allred the coalition that Beto had). And even if the candidate is more populist than progressive like Kunce, you don't let the national nominee poison the water so badly with important subsets of voters that the most famous Missourian in all of the country is protesting Harris rather than helping her flip her state's senate seat by rallying young voters. You don't waste money trying to appeal to voters over the age of 65 in Montana or Florida. 1 1
GhostBox Posted September 24 Posted September 24 6 minutes ago, Communion said: Is trying to appeal to old Republicans in Montana or Ohio working? Tim Ryan ran on anti-Asian racism and white farmers in Ohio still didn't vote for him. Those same farmers are possibly going to take Moreno over the line while the party dictates that outreach to progressive young voters in places like Youngstown is pointless. Texas has one of the youngest populations in the nation, many of them shown to be liberal and progressive. Beto is the closest Dems have gotten to challenging for the Senate and he ran an explicitly progressive campaign with young people. If Harris wasn't endorsing genocide, she could have Chappell Roan storming Missouri with Lucas Kunce and actually possibly flip the seat by driving up youth turnout. Oh please if Roan really cared about anything she'd go help campaign for him anyway 😂 Harris isn't gonna campaign there anyway. So she doenst matter. again proving she doesn't really care about the lgbtq issues she says she does 🤷 4
Recommended Posts