AOC giving Joe Manchin the death stare over "defund the police"

[True Dough]

How do these two belong to the same political party. Such dissimilar views and agendas.

Link to tweet

[MyOwnPeace]

1. The Democratic Party is a "Big Tent!"

Unfortunately, Manchin's has some serious leaks.

[George II]

58. On the other hand some Democrats think our tent is "too big"....

In fact, some feel they and Biden don't belong in the same tent.

[johnp3907]

2. He wants what done to his butt?

[WA-03 Democrat]

63. Rip it's

Fiber out. Most people call it a “colonoscopy prep.”

[Laelth]

3. Manchin is not helping us ... at all.

With friends like that, who needs Republicans?

-Laelth

[pnwmom]

13. Sure he is. AOC would get eaten alive in West Virginia. And the slogan "defund the police"

is one of the stupidest ever, if the aim is to appeal to most Americans.

"Reform the police" would work. "Fund mental healthcare" would work.

"Demilitarize the police" and "Support community policing" would work.

"Defund the police" is a non-starter as a slogan.

[CincyDem]

24. That's why republicans laid it in us.

They took our complex story of limiting the degree to which police forces were being stocked with battlefield level armories and building capability in police forces to do more than simply shoot to kill under stress...republicans turned that into defund the police.

And we never got out from under it.

IMHO

[pnwmom]

76. I don't think "defund the police" began as a Republican slogan, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police

The "defund the police" slogan became common during the George Floyd protests starting in May 2020.[6] Black Lives Matter, Movement for Black Lives, and other activists have used the phrase to call for police budget reductions and to delegate certain police responsibilities to other organizations.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] In Black Reconstruction, first published in 1935, W. E. B. Du Bois wrote about "abolition-democracy", which advocated for the removal of institutions that were rooted in racist and repressive practices, including prisons, convict leasing, and white police forces. In the 1960s, activists such as Angela Davis advocated for the defunding or abolition of police departments.[15] The 2017 book The End of Policing by Alex S. Vitale has been called "... a manual of sorts for the defund movement."[16]

Some sociologists, criminologists, and journalists have criticized aspects of the police defunding movement.[17][18][19][20] Among the general public in the United States, the concept of defunding is unpopular, including among Black Americans.[

[Bettie]

177. How do you propose to control

activists and protestors' use of "unapproved" slogans and signs?

Seriously? How do you control the message you don't like without entirely abandoning the protestors and embracing the white supremacy and brutality inherent in police culture?

[pnwmom]

182. AOC and other politicians can control their own mouths and tweets. You can support BLM

without that particular slogan, which many Black people also disagree with, by the way.

[Laelth]

29. He's the best we can do in WV.

I get that, but I can not excuse his blatant declaration that he intends to join with Republicans in the key legislative matters that we will soon pursue. There was no reason and no need for him to come out in opposition to Joe Biden’s agenda (which he did) and no reason for him to effectively align himself with Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party (which he did).

Sure, “defund the police” was a stupid marketing slogan, but neither AOC nor anyone else on the left came up with it. That one, dumb marketing slogan doesn’t give Manchin, an elected DEMOCRAT, the right to abandon his party and now vote with the Republicans, and that’s exactly what he is threatening to do.

-Laelth

[pnwmom]

79. Yes, people on the left did come up with that slogan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defund_the_police

The "defund the police" slogan became common during the George Floyd protests starting in May 2020.[6] Black Lives Matter, Movement for Black Lives, and other activists have used the phrase to call for police budget reductions and to delegate certain police responsibilities to other organizations.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] In Black Reconstruction, first published in 1935, W. E. B. Du Bois wrote about "abolition-democracy", which advocated for the removal of institutions that were rooted in racist and repressive practices, including prisons, convict leasing, and white police forces. In the 1960s, activists such as Angela Davis advocated for the defunding or abolition of police departments.[15] The 2017 book The End of Policing by Alex S. Vitale has been called "... a manual of sorts for the defund movement."[16]

Some sociologists, criminologists, and journalists have criticized aspects of the police defunding movement.[17][18][19][20] Among the general public in the United States, the concept of defunding is unpopular, including among Black Americans

[Celerity]

139. it actually goes back long before that, W. E. B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America (1935)

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/currentstudents/undergraduate/modules/fulllist/second/en213/syllabus2017-18/backtowardslavery_blackreconstruction.pdf

Du Bois wrote about "abolition-democracy", which advocated for the removal of institutions that were rooted in racist and repressive practices, including prisons, convict leasing, and white police forces.

[George II]

163. Well, to that end New York City has already "defunded the police", i.e., remove the white...

...police force. Only 43% of the NYC officers on patrol are non-Hispanic white.

I don't think Du Bois meant total removal of those institutions, or "defunding" them, but a reorganization of them to eliminate the racist aspect of them.

[Celerity]

164. Number of Black Patrol Cops Falls as NYPD Upper Ranks Remain Majority White

https://www.thecity.nyc/2020/6/24/21302335/number-of-black-cops-falls-as-nypd-upper-ranks-remain-white

Over the last year and a half, the NYPD has marginally increased Black, Hispanic and Asian representation in its topmost ranks, yet has witnessed a slide in the number of Black officers on the street, an analysis by THE CITY found.

Three out of four police officials with a rank above captain are white, a modest decrease from the 78.5% in January 2019, but still a retro phenomenon in a city that is now only 32.5% “non-Hispanic white,” according to Census numbers.

As of the end of May, 315 of 419 of police leaders above the rank of captain were white, including two of the top three cops at One Police Plaza: Chief of Department Terence Monahan and Police Commissioner Dermot Shea. The third, First Deputy Commissioner Benjamin Tucker, is Black.

The number of whites holding a rank above captain fell from 334 to 315 between January 2019 and May 31. Meanwhile, the number of Blacks above captain rose from 42 to 49, Hispanics from 43 to 46 and Asians from six to nine.



snip

[George II]

165. Correct. And that will change over time, too. The upper ranks are the people who have been there...

....for the longest. Most likely many of them have been there for 20 years or so. As they retire those below them will move up, and inasmuch as 57% of the patrol officers are non-white, chances are the percentages of the upper ranks will change quite a bit when patrol officers are promoted.

Detectives and Sergeants are already close to 50/50.

On the other hand, the issues with police departments have been among the patrol officers, not the upper ranks - detectives, sergeants, lieutenants, and captains aren't driving around making traffic stops or answering distress calls.

[SophieJean]

100. Love your comments, Laelth.

There is no logical reason for Manchin to align himself with Republicans, particularly at this time- but that is what he has always done for the most part because apparently a genuine Democrat is not allowed in WV.

[Laelth]

175. Thank you. n/t

-Laelth

[Celerity]

126. perfectly stated

[Bettie]

179. Well said Laelth!

Thanks!

[Hekate]

47. What you said

[George II]

61. Even the one that originally insisted on "defund the police" recognizes that what NYC did...

...i.e., SHIFT funds, is the correct way to go about it. But "defund the police" hasn't been abandoned.

[Alhena]

68. Exactly, seems like there's a purity-test rush to the furthest left among some, but it kills us in

elections.

[Celerity]

124. the main purity test I see is centrists/conservatives (Manchin self-labelled as one) only need apply

[zebrapa]

101. 100%

Correct. Defund the Police destroyed many of our congressional candidates. That term and the word socialism should be erased from the Dem party vocabulary.

[pnwmom]

110. I know. Why they can't call themselves FDR Democrats or something similar

is beyond me. Why they insist on branding themselves with the same name used by Soviet Russia and Castro's Cuba makes no sense.

We are so stupid at branding.

[Celerity]

123. strawmen, AOC is not running in WV, she did not campaign on 'defund the police', and she is

not the one who is starting a foodfight in public. That would be the centrists. Manchin, instead of attacking by using RW MEMES, should instead be pointing out that NONE of what ANY Dem campaigned on is 'socialism', and should stop trying to tie our elected officials to platforms they did not run on, which is yet another RW meme he is giving life to.

I love how it is always a one-way street when talking about geographical areas. WV is nationalised as somehow the model all the party has to doff the cap to, and NYC/California, etc are shit on. Running off the left quarter to third of the party via these constant centrist attacks on anything to the left of Klobuchar (for example, I am not picking on her, just using her as a baseline) will result in electoral disaster for the Party as a whole.

[pnwmom]

129. She didn't campaign on that, she just provided ready-made quotes

about defunding the police, for the R's to use against her and all Democrats.

And AOC does use the word "Democratic Socialist" to describe her views, just as Bernie does. This isn't something the R's made up.

You can run on the left -- like Elizabeth Warren -- and not apply the socialist label to yourself, or advocate defunding the police.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez

[Celerity]

130. I have said many times they need to ditch the dem soc false label, it is my main beef with AOC

What they need to do is stop the false self-labelling that they are democratic socialists when NONE are remotely socialists at all. They farthest left of the farthest left (on an American crazy shewed to right scale versus the rest of the advanced Western world) are just bog standard social democrats. None of them advocated for state control of the means of production which is fundamental to all accepted long held socialist beliefs. Bernie himself has said over and over he is not in favour of that. Yet they think (with a fair amount of hubris) that they can simply re-label a couple hundred of years globally accepted definitions (accepted both at academic and common everyday levels) and make it their own. It will never work in uber reactionary America.

The prime driver of all this is the poison-pill DSA. Democratic Socialists of America. It is a completely mixed bag and has genuine, actual socialists and even some actual full-stop communists (mostly Trotskyites but even some revanchist Stalinists.) in it. It does have basic social democrats as well, but it is too nebulous and ultimately pushes terribly destructive (electorally) things. Some of them helped AOC win in 2018 (they poured out in large droves and worked the fuck out the district) and thus AOC (who has distanced herself a bit) felt obligated to a point. Hopefully she and the small, small handful of others who actually do claim the dem soc label pitch it into the dustbin of history where it belongs. The label cannot be changed nor can it be rehabilitated in the horridly under-educated US, where the average person has zero problems with instantly conflating socialism with full-stop Marxist-Leninist and then Stalinist communism.

Two other organs that are extremely problematic are the online magazines and sites Jacobin and Current Affairs. Both ARE actual socialist orgs, and they openly state that they know full well that Bernie and the rest are not socialists, but ARE stepping stones to far more radical, real socialists getting elected and then pushing a genuine socialist agenda. They calculate that the new vanguard's actual socialist agenda will make the tame (and it is tame, compared to the rest of the advanced western world, regardless of how much people inside our party buy into RW framing and call it 'far left' or radical or socialist, and also regardless of how much the RW vermin lie and scream) social democracy advocated by Bernie or AOC, etc seem normalised, mild as hell, and thus can be passed. THEN they plan to do the same thing all over again, but this time use truly radical programmes to lay down a much further left marker, and then try and drag baby steps socialism, or 'socialism-lite' across the line like they did (well attempted to do) with the bog standard, mild social democracy of AOC and Bernie. Lather, rinse, repeat. It is madness, it will never work in the US.

I live in a social democratic governed nation, Sweden. I know what I am talking about when I speak of comparative politics. Sweden is so NOT socialist, we actually have a far more vibrant capitalist sector than the US does (in terms of productivity per actual hour worked, upward social mobility, far higher wages on the low end, etc etc.) It also is very highly regulated (and I argue is so vibrant BECAUSE OF, not despite the regulation) and works synergistically hand in hand with our expansive social safety net and welfare state. It is NOT (like so many in the US think) one or the other. You need both to have a truly healthy nation state, especially one with extremely fair wealth equality, which is the number one statistic that determines the overall health of a nation state at almost every level. The US has extreme wealth inequality, and it is ripping it apart. It has to be rectified or it will eventually cause the breakup of the union (from so many different angles it would take days to lay out.)

[pnwmom]

137. We are completely on the same page on this, Celerity.

They are social Democrats, not Democratic Socialists, and that's not the same thing. Anyone who reads the DSA page can see that.

But as long as they self-label that way, they leave themselves, and the rest of the Democrats, wide open to comparisons with Soviet Russia, Fidel Castro, and other socialists and communists. It seems that they are simply stubborn and self-absorbed enough to think that they can WILL the rest of America and the world into accepting their definition of socialism.

[Celerity]

138. AOC is savvy enough that she has been sliding away from it, but Bernie and the (thankfully there are

Last edited Fri Nov 13, 2020, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)

very few who do call themselves this) handful of others are lost causes I fear. AOC I think realises that if she has higher aspirations, she has to distance herself fully from the DSA. They are bad news, especially because they (the DSA) contain full-stop radicals, radicals who be considered radicals here in Sweden, ffs, and that is pretty radical (left speaking) lolol.

IF they (AOC, the Squad, Bernie) kept their current programme structure and supposed (talking more about Bernie here as he is the one who has the long record) core current beliefs, the far left party here (Vänster aka The Left) would laugh at them calling themselves 'democratic socialists'. They would point to the mainstream centre-left (centre-left for Sweden and the EU and most all other advanced western nations) Social Democrats (my party here, and the dominant party in Sweden for almost 100 years with some gaps) door. The Left/Socialists/Communist parties here have NEVER been in a government with the Social Democrats. The most they do is a 'confidence-and-supply' agreement at times. In fact the Social Democrats have been quite brutal with them at times, including running covert spying on them, which has caused major scandals over the decades.

[Spazito]

185. Excellent post, very informative....

making the difference between the designation of Democratic Socialist and Social Democrat clearly understood.

Thanks for this.

[brush]

152. Spot on. Sanders and AOC made a mistake calling themselves...

Last edited Fri Nov 13, 2020, 02:51 PM - Edit history (2)

democratic socialists as America is not ready for socialism and probably never will be.

Those two are nationally prominent and cost us votes in non-deep blue districts as repugs know to just mention their names to scare voters away from Dem candidates hundreds of miles away from NY and Vermont even.

[anamnua]

181. My favourite quote about American politics:

‘Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as a disadvantaged proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires’

— John Steinbeck

[Celerity]

187. +1000

[brush]

205. And it'll probably always be that way as republicans keep reenforcing.

that thought daily.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

190. We are ready for socialism. We have had elements of socialism for over a century.

People are stupid. Can't fix that.

[brush]

207. I agree we have elements of socialism like social security and medicare...

unfortunately most voters don't know that which is why I posted that America is not ready for socialism.

[brush]

144. She has declared herself a democratic socialist though.

And she's very outspoken about it. That's another big vote loser—see what just happened in Florida and other states where repug candidates in their attack ads align their Democratic opponents with Sanders and AOC to scare voter, and it works.

That's just dumb. America is not ready for socialism.

[Celerity]

148. I already addressed that at length, and yes, she needs to distance herself from it fully

she has not led with it lately, at least

here is my full treatment

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214541298#post130

I do have to add

That's just dumb. America is not ready for socialism.

NONE of them are actual socialists, lol, they are bog standard social democrats (I go into it in depth at that link)

[brush]

153. I know. They are not "the state owns the means of production"...

socialists. And I saw your longer piece after I posted the piece you responded to. It's very well stated.

[Celerity]

154. all good!! cheers

[Laelth]

176. Hear! Hear! n/t

-Laelth

[Demsrule86]

14. We have a minority in terms of the Senate. We need every Senate seat we can get...a GOP would

replace Manchin. We get nothing without the Senate and consider had Manchin not been in the Senate during the ACA vote, it would be gone.

[Laelth]

18. He has already declared his allegiance to McConnell and the GOP agenda.

With friends like that, who needs Republicans?

-Laelth

[brooklynite]

40. Point to a key Democratic vote he didn't support.

[Laelth]

54. So far, he has been a good team player.

I don’t deny that, but his most recent rhetoric indicates that he may not be a good team player going forward. That is what concerns me.

-Laelth

[Demsrule86]

42. We need his presence or we have no chance for a majority regardless of what happen in Georgia.

He can't do the things AOC can do as he represents a conservative district...and the same is true of the Arizona Senators and God willing the new Georgia Senators.

[sheshe2]

35. Yes. We get nothing without the Senate.

We get nothing without the Senate and consider had Manchin not been in the Senate during the ACA vote, it would be gone.

That was huge.

He also voted against Kavanaugh.

[Demsrule86]

43. He did and that was a big risk for him.

[sheshe2]

65. It was, Demsrule.

He is doing all he can as a Senator in a blood red state.

Looks like Fox is carrying the same story to stir up shit among Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

80. I like Joe Manchin and what some don't get is by saying he will block the court expansion and

ending the filibuster..he helps our efforts in Georgia where the GOP are using this against us. He has always voted with us when it counted. And as I pointed out earlier, if AOC decided to retire and do something else, we keep her seat. That can not be said for Joe Manchin's seat.

[sheshe2]

97. + to all you said.

[Demsrule86]

102. Thank you sheshe.

[vsrazdem]

64. We also get nothing without progressive votes in the house, so best not to alienate them.

[sheshe2]

70. How so?

Please explain.

You mean Democratic votes, correct? We are all one party.

[vsrazdem]

117. Tell that to Joe Manchin.

[sheshe2]

118. Your response is not a response.

Manchin is a Democrat in a deep red state. We are not a lockstep party. We are a huge tent and have very different electorates.

Again I ask you to explain.

[vsrazdem]

121. Exactly. People have differences of opinions.

As you said, we are a big tent and should stay that way, so no point in alienating members of our own party. I don't want it to turn into what happened with the Tea party. They got to the point they didn't care, they just wouldn't pass anything. We can't deal with that now so I say everybody should just get along.

[melman]

119. +1

[Demsrule86]

84. I guess it is up to them if they want to stop all legislation that is possible. There will have

to be deals made because much of what the progressives have proposed won't pass the Senate which has moderate to conservative senators; this assumes we are fortunate enough to win in Georgia.

[Dem4Life1102]

178. No he voted for Kavanaugh

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/5/17939302/brett-kavanaugh-vote-joe-manchin

[Demsrule86]

23. We need Manchin in order to have a 50 50 Senate... take a look at the 50

states...and try to find a majority without Senators from red states or purples states. Hint Hint, it can't be done. The reality is we need a big tent and that will include both AOC and Manchin. And consider that if for some reason AOC decided to retire as she has discussed, we will hold her seat in the House. The same is not true for Manchin.

[Laelth]

50. Sure.

But if he doesn’t vote with us, what’s the point?

Control of the Senate and committee control matters. I get that. If Manchin (along with two, new, Democratic Senators from Georgia) can get us control of the Senate, I will be thrilled.

But I do not excuse Manchin’s recent pronouncements against the party platform and against members of his own party.

-Laelth

[MyOwnPeace]

69. Yep - sit back and shut up!

You don't need to jump up on the stage and announce your "keepin' it home" promise before there's even a vote taking place. "Say" what you need to say when you need to keep the homies happy - but don't run onto the stage before the show even starts!

[Demsrule86]

30. He caucuses with us thus he helps us...again without him, we have no chance for the Senate.

[Laelth]

37. I hear that. I do.

We’ll have to pick up both Georgia seats to get control, but I would like to get one more just to offset Manchin who has declared that he intends to vote with the Republicans in all matters of import.

-Laelth

[Demsrule86]

52. There are no more.I want more too...the only time we had a 60 person majority, the numbers included

conservadems like Blanche Lincoln. We have work to do in order to run progressives in these states...win hearts and minds. I am hopeful after Florida passed a $15.00 minimum wage...they might not elect us lately but they have adopted some of our progressive ideas. In the meantime, we need to have a fifty state strategy.

[JI7]

85. Others would be similar to Manchin if they are in red states. It's the people of the states you

have an issue with.

[Laelth]

162. I definitely do not understand WV.

I will give you that, but it’s like the second most consecutive state in the republic.

-Laelth

[Doremus]

5. I'm unable to say what I'd like to for fear of running afoul of DU rules.

I'll leave it at that.

[njhoneybadger]

6. If looks could kill.

[kacekwl]

7. This guy is a pandering jackoff. He

knows damn well what "defund the police" means and there is no socialist agenda. I really don't like people who think those he's speaking to are stupid.

[pnwmom]

15. It doesn't matter what "defund the police" is INTENDED to mean. It's a terrible slogan,

and might well have had something to do with our losses in the House.

[Demsrule86]

20. Yes it is and I expect it cost us seats.

[doc03]

28. +1

[moose65]

33. But no candidate used it

The REPUBLICANS seized on it and acted like every Dem was using it. It would be like if the Dems took something that crazy Greene woman from Georgia said and kept repeating it and acting like it was Republican gospel. What are Dems supposed to do? Everyone who was asked disowned it, as far as I know.

[George II]

62. Not true...

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/505307-ocasio-cortez-dismisses-proposed-1b-cut-defunding-police-means-defunding

Ocasio-Cortez dismisses proposed $1B cut: 'Defunding police means defunding police'

“Defunding police means defunding police,” the congresswoman said in a statement. “It does not mean budget tricks or funny math. It does not mean moving school police officers from the NYPD budget to the Department of Education’s budget so the exact same police remain in schools.”

[moose65]

78. That was her answer to a question about it, I'm sure

So okay, I’ll give you one. One Representative who is in a deep, deep blue district. Her Republican opponent was the beneficiary of millions of dollars from people who hate her (much like many Democrats who gave to McGrath and Harrison). She won her election 70% to 30%.

Still, I’m sure she didn’t include Defund the Police as a slogan in her campaign.

[caber09]

82. Said by the highest profile freshman rep did a lot of damage

[pnwmom]

83. In case you haven't noticed, the R's frequently use AOC as their boogeyman, so when she added

to the voices calling to defund the police, it was immediately turned against the whole party.

And it doesn't matter whether she had it in her official campaign materials. Get real.

[moose65]

86. Republicans will do what they do

They also label everything as “socialism.”

We can’t let them define every Dem candidate. Why do we buy into that baloney?

[pnwmom]

95. WE aren't buying into that baloney. But millions of Democrats and Independents

aren't as informed as we have -- and they're susceptible.

Why do we have to be so terrible at branding? Is that some rule for Democrats I didn't know about?

[George II]

87. Unfortunately no. From her campaign website:

https://www.ocasiocortez.com/issues#real-public-safety

Alexandria strongly supports:

H.R.5070 - A Just Society: The Mercy In Re-entry Act;

H.Res. 702 - The People’s Justice Guarantee;

Defunding police and investing in healthcare, housing, education and other services;

Ending qualified immunity for police and making police misconduct records public;

The use of clemency and emergency powers to reduce vulnerable populations and limit the spread of the Coronavirus in prison;

The release of individuals over the age of 50 currently serving a sentence of one year or less or serving time for a parole violation at Rikers Island.

[Celerity]

161. from the article

Calls to defund the police and put government funding toward other social services have gained traction in the weeks since the May 25 death of George Floyd at the hands of the Minneapolis police.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

191. So you support SROs?

So you support just making it look like we are putting money elsewhere (like education) when we are actually keeping the same level of police funding?

I know that you have fully adopted the AOC is the boogey man concept, but, it seems like you don't support any level of decreasing police funding to put that money where it could actually do some good.

[George II]

194. I wish you would present the actual quotes where I said any of that. Thank you!

[caber09]

77. Stop saying no one said..AOC said it herself

[moose65]

81. I didn't say no one "said" it

I said the truth. Republicans seized on it and painted every Dem with it that they could. It was NOT a slogan that Democrats used.

[caber09]

88. Pretty sure Omar and Tliab also supported defund the police too

[moose65]

93. And they won re-election, right?

Why is it okay for Manchin to “represent” his constituents but AOC, Tlaib, and Omar can’t?

[caber09]

96. They won in deep blue districts any of us would win in them lol

They won their districts and cost us many seats all over the country...these three can easily replaced, swing districts cannot...They try to project themselves as the base and its false, i come from two districts over from AOC in nyc, in a very deep blue district and she'd lose there...she is not well liked there.

[aidbo]

106. Joe Manchin would surely not win in Ilhan Omar's district, or AOC's.

[caber09]

107. Manchin would win more places than the squad would please stop kidding yourself, they cost us...

Seats that we should've won, they were drags on the ticket even in liberal nyc...the liberal nyc council and nys assembly are blaming her rhetoric for seats..in liberal nyc she cost us and made other races a lot closer than they should've been...the slogan did a lot of damage, sorry to break it to you

[George II]

98. I have to agree - it was not a slogan that Democrats used.

[caber09]

99. AOC literally used it and has it on her website

[Ferrets are Cool]

39. This will be the 12584th time this will be repeated on this board...

ITS NOT A DEMOCRATIC PARTY SLOGAN!!!!! IT IS NOT IN OUR DEMOCRATIC PLATFORM.

It only had any effect because REPUGS are so fucking good at lying about our Democratic Party members.

Sheesh

[kacekwl]

74. Yes it is.

And he knows that. He also knows what it means. Don't go out blathering like you are Hannity drooling to your stupid audience. Why not explain it not mock shithead.

[Demsrule86]

22. Defunding the police means something very different than what you might think in a red

state like West Virginia.

[EllieBC]

45. No one is waiting for explanations or nuance ever. So come up

with better slogans to start. “Defund the police” sounds edgy and hip. That’s about it.

[George II]

66. A Democratic Senator is a "pandering jackoff"? REALLY????

[sheshe2]

103. +++

[Cuthbert Allgood]

193. Yup. He is.

Anybody supporting him on this thread is only doing it as a "well, we need him for the majority."

Do you not think he's a jackoff?

[George II]

196. I wouldn't have posted what I did if I thought that.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

197. So which specific policies/stances of his do you support?

Which ones do you not like?

For me, I don't understand why he isn't a Republican. I get it. He puts us in the majority if we win both in Georgia, but I find very little about the guy I like and find myself agreeing with him very rarely--at least on the major issues.

[George II]

198. I support the fact that he's a Democrat and he wins Senate elections in West Virginia...

I support the fact that he does vote with the Democrats the majority of the time. I would prefer a (Democratic) Senator that votes with the Democrats 50%, or 60%, or 70% of the time than a republican that would vote with the Democrats 0% of the time.

The days of Jay Rockefeller are long past.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

199. He votes with Trump about 61% of the time. But I see you don't want to say when you support him.

What is he voting for that you support?

[George II]

201. I don't know where that number comes from but 538 says he votes "with" trump 32% of the time....

In other words he votes against trump 68% of the time (pretty close to what I speculated earlier)

Isn't that better than a Senator who votes with trump 100% of the time or against him 0% of the time?

To answer your question, I "support" (I don't follow the daily votes of each and every Senator) the 68% that he votes with the Democrats.

Who would you like to see run against him in West Virginia?

[melman]

206. 538 doesn't say that

[Spazito]

214. Actually 538 says he has voted 77% of the time with the Democratic Party...

over his time as a Senator:

"Of course, progressives opposed to Manchin don’t really seem to care that Manchin is a stronger candidate in West Virginia than a generic Democrat. They simply want someone who will oppose Trump more often. Manchin has voted with the president 67 percent of the time in the current Senate. That’s more than any other Democrat; the median Democratic senator, in fact, has supported Trump’s position just 26 percent of the time.4 Over the course of his career, meanwhile, Manchin has broken with Democrats pretty regularly. Since he entered the Senate in 2010, during the 111th Congress, Manchin has voted with his party 77 percent of the time in the average Congress5 on votes in which at least 50 percent of Democrats voted one way and 50 percent of Republicans voted the other way. (For shorthand, I’m calling these party-line votes.) The median senator6 over that stretch voted with her party 94 percent of the time on such votes."

Footnote 5 states: "This is through 2015, as 2016 data has not been released by Congressional Quarterly."

You are probably thinking about this current Senate rather than his voting record overall.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/liberals-would-be-foolish-to-target-joe-manchin/

[George II]

225. Yes, the current Congress. The point was made about how much he votes with trump.

There are all sorts of ratings and % calculated. They're not the best among Democrats, but still better than any republican. I'd just like to know who they think would be a better Democrat that can get elected in West Virginia.

[Spazito]

226. I would hazard a guess there would be no other Democrat that could...

get elected in a State that trump won 68.7 percent of the vote. He was challenged in the Primary but won it handily. West Virginia is growing more red not less in recent years.

[George II]

219. ....

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

Now poke holes in it.

But even if it was 95%, isn't that better than a republican who will vote with trump 100% of the time?

No one wants to venture to say who they'd rather have instead of Manchin.

[melman]

221. Okay

You took the number most favorable to your position and pretended it's the whole story. That's called cherry picking.





https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/joe-manchin-iii/

[Cuthbert Allgood]

210. Just a little place called factcheck.org

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/sen-manchin-often-votes-with-trump/

You pop up your link from 538 and we'll compare.

I don't know who I'd like to run against him, but I'm pretty sick of Dems acting like he's not a jackoff and also then turning around an attacking AOC because she's too liberal.

[Sapient Donkey]

104. There are plenty of people who advocate "defund the police" who mean abolish the police

That's the problem with these simplistic slogans. They can mean different things to different people. So, if someone says defund the police, then I ask them what specifically what they would like to see happen. It's the only way to have any meaningful conversation (whether you mean it in the way you likely mean it, or you mean it to be abolish all police) Sadly it seems when pressed, many people haven't given it much thought past the slogan level either. I wish people would stop using the term, because I don't find it very useful for the optics and because it doesn't have any nuance.

[Celerity]

125. +1000

[brush]

8. Defund the police is the dumbest slogan ever. AOC needs to distance herself...

from that foolishness at every turn. It's nothing but a vote loser that needs re-wording. Reallocate police funds; Reform the police; Fire bad apple cops—all work better than the unbelievably foolish 'Defund the police'.

[LisaM]

9. I agree.

It's really poor messaging.

[George II]

92. But she has it on her campaign website.

[brush]

105. She needs to take that down.

[Celerity]

127. good thing she did not come up with it, nor campaign on it. Manchin is using a RW bullshit meme

to attack (plus the whole 'socialism' dross as well) and divide.

[George II]

157. I don't know who came up with it, but she campaigned on it. She refers to it on her campaign website

[Celerity]

159. She listed a statement on it with additional caveats that flesh it out (that people leave out)

buried on her website, she did not go around making campaign speeches with it as a principal slogan.

Manchin is the one in the wrong here, not AOC. He is wilfully throwing bombs that will surely lead to infighting (and only serve to bring the whole thing up again), and at a horrid time as well, when we are desperately trying to win those two run-off races in GA.

[George II]

160. See post #62 please.

[JI7]

10. Becsuse one represents blue New York and the other red west Virginia

[ChazII]

12. +1. Thank you for your common sense

and for pointing out that they are representing different areas of our country.

[LanternWaste]

11. Manchin is pandering to his base.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is aware of this, and I fully sympathize with her distaste of both the man as well as his method of appeasing his constituents in a simplistic, t-shirt slogan style of comic-sans sub-literacy.

[Demsrule86]

16. If we lose Joe Manchin, the Georgie seats would not even matter and the new Arizona

Senators will vote much like him I bet.

[LanternWaste]

46. I'm not suggesting we lose Manchin.

He's the right Tool for his state.

[Demsrule86]

55. Good to know!

[Celerity]

140. Sinema is just as conservative and likely to defect on many things a micrometre too far to the left

BUT she is not a bomb thrower like Manchin. She is a far more polished politician, regardless of her shorter tenure. Manchin is adopting overall RW framing and it is a shitstir inside the party, which is the last thing we need.

Yes, Defund the police (especially when the SECOND part and investing in healthcare, housing, education and other services; is left out) is very bad framing, and needs to be dropped ASAP, but the overall gist is indeed the right thing to do. And Manchin screaming SOCIALISM! is just silly (he might as well scream COMMIES! as for 95% + of brain-dead Rethugs it is (ludicrously) the exact same thing), as regardless of whatever numpty self-labelling a small, small handful do, NONE are socialists, no Dems are, not remotely so. Manchin is only aiding the rotter Rethugs when he blasts out this dross.

[Demsrule86]

19. That is what one does...they serve their constituents.

[LanternWaste]

32. I'm not arguing otherwise.

'twas but an observation rather than a point of contention.

[pnwmom]

21. And so is she. The slogan "defund the police" only works for a narrow slice of educated Americans

who are willing to overlook the literal meaning of the words, in favor of a common understanding of the broad reforms policing needs to undergo.

But the term itself sucks as a messaging tool. Very few are seriously suggesting we literally "defund the police."

[LanternWaste]

44. I honestly don't know of *any* notable politician who uses the phrase...

let alone believe it in the literal sense (as you mentioned).

I will say the GOP was objectively successful in defunding education and social services over the last generation, but did so in such a way as to place the responsibility of argument on the Democrats with less accurate (but more polished) attack phrases such as "you can't throw money at every problem..." and "a billion here, a billion there-- it adds up"

I'd rather see social workers and health care professionals rather than police respond to many calls they otherwise take (as I'd guess we all would), but you're right of course... Defund the Police sucks as a branding tool.

[brush]

108. It literally means "no police". About the dumbest bit of messaging ever.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

195. It literally does not mean that. It isn't "un"fund the police, it's "de"fund the police.

You know, like "de"crease the funding.

[brush]

204. Hahahahahahahaha! Seriously?

Ya should've checked a dictionary before posting that. It's easy, just go to Google. See below from Merriam-Webster. I did it for you even though I already knew what defund means. Now you do too.

de·​fund | (ˌ dē-ˈfənd

defunded; defunding; defunds
Definition of defund

transitive verb
: to withdraw funding from

[Cuthbert Allgood]

211. "withdraw" does not equal "remove"

One can withdraw funding without giving no funding.

But, sure, you fight for keeping the police as they are. No problems.

[brush]

213. When did I say I want to keep police as they are?

There are much better slogans than defund the police, and I've posted some in other threads.

Reallocate police funds.

Reform the police.

Fire bad apple cops.

Just three ideas. Others who also know defund police means eliminating police, have posted others. You've probably seem them.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

216. We could start by letting people know that defund does not mean eliminate.

That might be a start. Because that's what that word means. People just WANT to hear that it means get rid of the police which, literally, nobody is arguing for.

Reallocate is going to get the same spin as defund. Absolutely will.
Reform is not what we are talking about. We are talking about having other places take over a lot of the things we have cops do that they are nowhere equipped to do.
Fire bad apple cops is just bullshit. It's a system that is designed to do things poorly and needs to be changed with the money going to those organizations that can do those things well.

[brush]

217. You stick with your inaccurate denial about what defund means.

I'm through with this.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

218. So when I fill out the "withdraw fund" sheet at my bank

that means I'm closing my account? Because they have never closed my account. They just give me the funds I'm asking to withdraw and not the whole account.

My assessment of what the word means is not inaccurate. Neither defund nor withdraw mean to take it all away. That's just not correct.

[brush]

220. Again, google it and stop with inaccurate statements.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

222. "Google it" isn't an answer.

When you go to the bank to withdraw funds, according to you, that means you are closing the account. That is a very accurate restatement of the argument you are making.

If case you forgot:
1. You said defund meant to take all funds away from
2. I said it didn't
3. You said google told you that defund means to withdraw
4. I said withdraw doesn't have to mean you take it all away
5. Your retort was "google it" which does nothing to address that withdraw doesn't mean take it all away.

So, what's your argument about withdraw? Which was your word of choice that you thought proved everything, FYI.

[BainsBane]

17. I can't stand Manchin

but the slogan--not the changes--"defund the police" has got to go. It's not about defunding the police, and the branding is terrible.

[mvd]

25. Well I am on one side, but..

I really want to get Biden’s transition to be smooth and make sure Trump doesn’t try anything first before getting into these discussions.

Love AOC and Manchin is the only kind of Democrat we could get from WV. WV is dark, dark red.

[fearnobush]

26. That slogan is like saying "please vote me out of office."

We all know what it means and it worked quite well in a few cities who were bold enough to reform. The slogan is untrue and ultra destructive. A simple Police Reform would do.

[Spazito]

27. Good lord, why would the Representative tweet anything the right wing rag...

the Washington Examiner put out and then attach a picture of herself with it, yikes!

[melman]

36. The "Examiner" link is in Manchin's original tweet

Link to tweet

[Spazito]

41. But why on earth would she attach her own photo to it....

it is promoting the Examiner just as Manchin did, imo. Surely there was a better way for the Representative to get her point across rather than a photo of herself.

[melman]

49. lol

You tried to get a dig in at AOC and it backfired. It's okay to admit it.

[Spazito]

51. Ahhh, no answer to the question, original and second, of why the attachment of

her photo. No problem, I understand why.

[George II]

56. Sadly that's the way it is sometimes, or more correctly most of the time. "It is what it is"!

[Spazito]

59. LOL, too true! n/t

[LanternWaste]

57. Hint: if one hunts hard enough, one can find an insult anywhere.

Even in places where they don't exist. "It's ok to admit it..."

Good luck!!

[George II]

72. Bazinga!

[LSFL]

31. Demilitarize the police is more accurate.

Old school swat teams are sufficient for most emergencies.

You cannot give cops military gear and tactics and not give them military discipline. It gets civilians killed. I cringe to see how they handle themselves and treat the citizenry.

Remember, a lot of these guys are unfit to serve or are sheepish about joining the military. Giving them carte blanche to use military grade weapons is madness.

But to all of you guys who are in it to serve and protect and be an integral part of your community, I salute you.

[relayerbob]

34. While I agree with the intent, saying "defund the police" was very shortsighted

Plays to a very small audience and is/was easily twisted and distorted. Dumbest move this election season, IMO. Also, IMO, costs us votes, handed Trump the "law and order" title on a silver platter, even though he clearly was the exact opposite.

"Demilitarize" the police, reform the justice system, reinforce the police with social workers, de-escalate the police, and on and on. Many options.

"Defund" was stupid ... and who actually coined it anyway? My guess: the right, or the Russians, to have exactly the effect it had.

[Mariana]

156. Then it isn't helpful for Joe Manchin to go on about it. nt.

[relayerbob]

186. Democrats as a whole don't understand teams.

Whether we like it or not, the GOP is far better at that, and is why they manage to win.

[ismnotwasm]

48. Really.

[BGBD]

53. I'll take Manchin over AOC...

Manchin actually accomplishes things besides dancing in the hallway.

Manchin also doesn't lots of things that hurt him politically just to help Senate Democrats. Voted for ACA, Voted against Kav and ACB, voted to convict in impeachment. He also never said he was going to support the republican agenda, he said he was going to not vote for three things that are extremely unpopular across the country a d specifically in GA where we are in a fight. These are also the things that hurt Biden and our shot at an outright majority this year.

So you guys can take that "He's a republican" shit and shove it. AOC needs to take a trip out of her safe blue district a d understand what the rest of the country is like before she starts offering critiques of longtime Democrats.

[BannonsLiver]

60. +1

Last edited Fri Nov 13, 2020, 02:16 PM - Edit history (2)

I’ll drink to that.

Let the self marginalization continue.

[liskddksil]

122. The post your plus oneing has a glaring lie, so you might want to pour it out nt

[NurseJackie]

142. You speak the truth.

[liskddksil]

167. Guess you like Brett on the Court? Nt

[NurseJackie]

171. LOL! I said no such thing and you know it. What I said was "he speaks the truth."

Guess you like Brett on the Court? Nt

LOL! I said no such thing and you know it. What I said was "he speaks the truth."

Like it or not, the only OTHER choice we'd have for a West Virginia senator would be an ACTUAL Republican who'd vote with the GOP even more often. Is that what you want? It would also give us one LESS seat in the Senate, thus pushing us even further away from having a majority. Surely you don't want that either, eh?

I'm grateful to have him there. We're very fortunate to have Manchin as the senator from West Virginia.

Count your blessings.

[betsuni]

143. I luv you.

[liskddksil]

168. Brett stan here nt

[betsuni]

184. I luv smart people.

[OnDoutside]

149. Well said.

[liskddksil]

170. Just wandered into the Kavanagh fan club I guess nt

[OnDoutside]

183. Is that how you spell Manchin ?

[liskddksil]

166. Guess I wandered into Free Republic. Kavanaugh

good. AOC bad.

[steve2470]

173. We need to WIN ELECTIONS, period....

Note: Before you start typing angrily to me, realize I have voted 100% Democratic since 1974. I gave Joe Biden $2800 to defeat the fascist (thank god). My brother runs a county Democratic committee here in Florida (no, not saying which county). My father gave significant funds to Democrats. My Dem credentials are pretty damn solid.....ok...type away.

If we do not win elections, we are out of fucking luck. To defeat the authoritarian and fascist Trump Party, we MUST win elections.

Manchin helps us do that, in WV. AOC helps us do that in NYC. Blue-dog Democrats help us do that in AL or ND or MO or KS.

We have to be extremely careful of what gets attached to the Democratic Party. The slogan "defund the police", rightly or wrongly, got glued onto us and according to reports I have heard, it was a factor in the defeat of down-ballot Democrats.

The chaos that went on in Portland and Seattle got glued to us, rightly or wrongly. Sure, the ideas behind the protests in Portland and Seattle were morally correct, but the chaos looked really bad. As soon as protests involve any kind of property destruction, fighting with the police, burning down police buildings, and taking over entire sections of cities, it's a non-starter with the vast majority of Americans. Yes, I am sure no genuine Democrats were involved in any of that, but...again....perception is reality, as much as we hate it.

Fracking ? Sure, eventually it needs to be phased out, but if we advocate loudly for its banning, we lose PA and OH, easily. Do we want to do that ?

Call me a cynic, but I'd rather be somewhat morally pure and win elections and try to get Democratic ideas passed, than be totally morally pure, lose elections, cry in my beer, and wonder why those "fucking stupid Americans" (my phrase) did not vote for us.

SEVENTY MILLION AMERICANS VOTED FOR THE FASCIST. Think about that... long and hard. Yes, they voted wrongly. They voted, most of them, based on ignorance and racism and just voting for the Republican.

We have to find a way to WIN ELECTIONS, keep our sense of morality intact, and appeal to Americans in precincts that are not predictably blue. Yes, we will probably never win Utah. I can deal with that. Can we win Texas ? Sure, with the right messaging and candidates. We might not be able to win Texas in 2022 or 2024, but maybe 2028 is possible ? A 2024 win would shatter the fascist Trump Party.

[nsd]

71. +1

[caber09]

73. Amen +1..

Agreed and look what Abrams said today, the candidate must represent the people's views they are looking to represent...by the way I've seen quotes in here where it's pointed out that AOC said "defund the police means exactly that" that cost us races everywhere...I've said this many times, I come from a very very blue district two districts over from AOC, she wouldn't win there...let alone try to project her district onto other places in the country.

[fearnobush]

109. Thank you

Big tent and Manchin is a big part of it from a hyper red state

[liskddksil]

120. Umm, Manchin voted for Kavenaugh. Check your sources before smearing AOC nt

[zackymilly]

145. Umm, read his post #133 about Manchin's yes vote. It didn't matter at that point. n/t

[liskddksil]

174. The poster's original post said Manchin voted against Kavenaugh and than when I call them

out on a blatant untruth, the poster proceeded to personally attack me.

On the substance, Manchin gave Susan Collins cover for her vote by making it bi-partisan in favor. If Manchin had voted no, then Collins has no cover.

[Budi]

128. +a million. & double that drink!

[Polybius]

134. This!

[ck4829]

141. One of those people outraged that AOC danced on a rooftop right here folks

[zackymilly]

146. "outraged". LOL nt

[mtnsnake]

172. Add another +1 from me

You are spot on.

[NurseJackie]

67. He makes valid points.

[Indykatie]

75. The "Defund the Police" Mantra Was Stupid Phrasing and a Gift To the GOP n/t

[wellst0nev0ter]

90. So you admit the goops are better at messaging dems

Than dems are messaging themselves?

Those who let goops set the terms of the debate will always lose to the goops.

[USALiberal]

94. Refund the police is stupid! Reform the police is better! Nt

[regnaD kciN]

89. "I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

– Will Rogers

[Demsrule86]

91. Like herding cats...

[Baked Potato]

111. Please Democrats, let that phrase die. It's a flop.

[Mariana]

155. Tell it to Joe Manchin. nt.

[Baked Potato]

192. I get it. And I REALLY like AOC, and have said so many times here.

I want Joe Manchin to stop it too. Unfortunately, the issue of police misconduct gets twisted into a wedge issue. Police reform should be bipartisan. If not, both sides will dig in and just toss out trigger words and phrases and nothing will get done. The issue will devolve into partisan politics with everyone just playing to their particular constituency. Trump, in his terrible way, makes every issue a giant either/or and gets everyone fighting and choosing sides. It’s not normal and hopefully we can get to a place of compromise and respect.

[brooklynite]

112. When the progressive left can win somewhere more competitive than D+20....

Joe Manchin will wither under her gaze.

[Celerity]

131. works both ways, when Manchin can win in a Dem primary in an AOC type district, then he can

take shots (but he still should not use RW memes)

[radius777]

136. +1. and this is not about 'winning in xyz district' as some are

disingenuously arguing, but about which 'type' of Dems have the right to voice their opinion on a national scale.

AOC has every right to voice her opinion as much as Manchin does.

Dems don't lose because we're too centrist or progressive or whatever - but because we're often not in tune with our base - which is heavily urban and diverse. For all the focus the media has on rural whites in diners - without the heavy turnout from Milwaukee, Detroit, Philly, Atlanta etc - Biden does not win the presidency.

[brooklynite]

151. No it doesn't

I can be happy with whomever represent the safe-D seat. To actually be in the majority requires taking the competitive races.

[Celerity]

209. yes it does, Manchin or a Manchin type would get pummelled in that district against a run

of the mill NYC left liberal type

[brooklynite]

215. And we'd still have the same level of representation in Congress

As opposed to a "real" Democrat losing a VW seat to a "real" Republican.

[Celerity]

223. neither of the farthest edges of the Party, not AOC et al, nor Manchin and Henry Cuellar types

get to singularly set the agenda for the overall party, and in terms of attacking fellow Dems atm (not to mention endorsing a Rethug Senator in a crucial race that we lost) Manchin and his edge are not doing themselves proud.

I am truly a big tent Democratic voter and supporter. I maxed out to both Pete and to Bullock in MT, who are hardly hardcore lefties, but I also will defend AOC and others on the further left when I see them hammered unfairly IMHO. A bird needs two wings to fly, and I see certain things that seem to want to play scorched earth with the 'left', and try to drag the party even further rightward, which, (again my opinion) will have a disastrous overall effect, as it will blow out more voters than we will attract with such a move rightward in an attempt to capture this mythical cache of moderate Rethugs. The entire party cannot be tailored to cater to one Senator in an overall fucked up Trump-ADORING state, just like it cannot be tailored to cater to every whim of the Sanders/AOC crowd. Manchin went full blast (using RW memes) at a horrid time (when we are trying to win those 2 run-offs.) I am not going to stand by and either say, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles, or even worse, join in on the pile-on of the groups he is attacking with dodgy framing.

I am trying my level best to play it down the middle of the actual party, not playing to some ludicrously spun to the right artificially skewed political axis.

If you read up you (and in multiple other threads for 2 years or so) will see I took AOC et al. to the woodshed a bit myself (over their stubborn refusal to drop the false (literally) self-labelling as Democratic socialists.) I am not some doctrinaire tribal warrior when it comes to inside the party flare-ups. I think there are a couple on the left (NOT AOC) who may be trouble, but let us all hope not, and if they go full bonkers, I shall be right there criticising them, just as I am criticising Manchin's untimely and ill-conceived attacks atm.

[caber09]

203. It def does NOT work both ways...

Anyone of us could win in AOCs district, she leaves, another D steps in no problem...we need candidates who can win in areas that arent +30 dem, and again AOC wouldnt do well in my +Dem district a few miles away.

[Celerity]

208. try running Manchin or a Manchin type there against a regular NYC left liberal

fail

[radius777]

113. Manchin is a white conservative who doesn't get systemic racism

and how police brutality affects communities of color and other marginalized groups.

'Defund the police' is a poor slogan, but the underlying issues AOC speaks to are correct.

The police are RW thug militia that needs to be broken down and rebuilt - reform the police... humanize the police.. reimagine the police.. take your pick.

[True Dough]

114. And she wants do make some drastic changes to stave off devastating climate change

And she wants all Americans to have medicare.

All seem like commendable goals.

[radius777]

115. +1. The game board is tilted against us.

We are held back by a retrograde minority due to the structural imbalances (Senate, Electoral College, gerrymandering, etc) that favor rural conservatives.

Most people actually support many of the things liberals propose, but getting through the 'structure' as it currently exists is the problem.

I'm not as progressive as AOC, but she is unfairly targeted and demonized simply for speaking her mind.

[Celerity]

132. lack of proportional representation will be one of the causes of death listed on the remains

of the union

[Ell09]

116. Way past time to stop being afraid of being Democrats

The "defund the police" slogan is terrible, but police reform is necessary. As is so often the case with the Democratic Party, the messaging of policy positions is inconsistent at best and frequently terrible. The issues with Manchin is he goes on Fox News and uses REPUBLICAN messaging like "packing the courts" given validity to their ridiculous framing of a key issue. What the Democrats absolutely must do is "UNPACK" the courts that have been packed by McConnell over the last 8 years. Manchin also voted to confirm Kavanaugh which is unforgivable and allows Republicans to claim "bipartisan" support for Kavanaugh and several other other controversial moves over the past few years.

The reality of the Senate is that we "need" Manchin as long as we continue to be afraid to stand up for what we believe in because it might not poll well. We're convinced we "can't win" if we support Medicare for all or a Green New Deal or in some cases even raising taxes on the very wealthy. The Senate leadership decided not to fight the Coney Barrett nomination hard because they were afraid it might not break our way. Guess what? We didn't win the Senate anyway and now there might not be a path to do anything about a 6-3 court filled with Republican hacks. Look at what the Republicans do. How does the Pro Life position poll? Hint: not well. What about their support of the NRA and virtually no gun control? the same. How about their views on the environment or government programs like social security? I could go on. Republicans don't run away from opinions that are unpopular with the majority, but popular with their base. They embrace them. Democrats run against themselves "I don't believe in those left wing policies" and lose votes from potential supporters because of it. Worse? Those Democrats that run away from the left STILL get branded in every Republican ad as being as left wing as Bernie Sanders or AOC. Here in Iowa, Theresa Greenfield ran as a very unexciting moderate candidate. She didn't excite the left of center crowd at all, but every ad declared her to be "a puppet for Pelosi and Sanders" and a member of "the radical left". When we have Democrats suggesting others in the party are "radical" then it carries weight and allows for these attacks. Ever see a Republican call our another Republican for being too far right? Didn't think so. The idea that the base of the Democratic Party will come out year after year and put up with bending over for Manchin and having John Kasich get more airtime at the DNC than any liberal member of the Party is a fantasy. At some point, people are going to get fed up and refuse to vote for the moderate that is doing more to (unsuccessfully) appeal to moderate Republicans than to secure their votes. I'd argue that clearly already happened in 2016 (and I thought Hillary was immensely qualified and was happy to vote for her) and lead to Trump.

Improve the messaging. Start being proud of what you/we believe in and argue passionately for it. If you are going to lose, lose because your real ideas are rejected and not because your poll influenced, mealy mouth, uninspiring overly nuanced approach is rejected for something that is easier to understand by the average to low information voter who voted for Obama in '12 and then voted for Trump the last two cycles.

[Celerity]

135. +1000

[brush]

158. We have work to do with our messaging. I agree. We have...

Last edited Fri Nov 13, 2020, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)

to figure out how to win in this country as it's certainly not being aligned with the two, self-avowed democratic socialists in our party. When we win we get to call the shots. We did retain the House, though we lost some of our majority because of the "radical socialism" tag. And we've so far fallen short in taking the Senate, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed in hoping that we win the two Georgia Senate run-off elections coming up. And I will be donating.

And btw, you mentioned we didn't fight hard to stop the Coney Barrett confirmation. You do know that we had no chance to win that as the repugs have the majority in the Senate, right? No chance, which why the Georgia run-offs are so important.

[Laelth]

180. +1

No phony Democrats!

The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it.

The record the Democratic Party has made in the last 20 years is the greatest political asset any party ever had in the history of the world. We would be foolish to throw it away. There is nothing our enemies would like better and nothing that would do more to help them win an election.

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

Harry S. Truman, May 17, 1952

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/library/public-papers/129/address-national-convention-banquet-americans-democratic-action

-Laelth

[empedocles]

150. Are we doomed?

'Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.'

The quote is most likely due to writer and philosopher George Santayana, and in its original form it read, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

[Autumn]

169. Good for her. She knows.

[eissa]

188. In any other democracy

these two would never belong to the same party. Our tent may be a bit too big.

[Baitball Blogger]

189. How are these two in the same party?

Have you ever wondered what Black Americans had to bear sharing the same party with Southern Democrats? It's mind blowing! The best thing that could have happened in the last four years is if Southern Democrats left the party.

[BusyBeingBest]

202. I don't really care for either of them.

I know he's going to lean conservative by necessity, but he goes out of his way to antagonize the Democratic Party for his own benefit, and she does the same from the other end of the spectrum. And also she's a little too full of herself, get tired of seeing her constant self-promotion. A millenial thing, I guess, but it's tiresome--every day you're not out there on camera or on social media is a day wasted, to them.

[Hortensis]

212. How? A big difference I see between Manchin and Ocasio-Cortez is

that as a moderate conservative Manchin has another, extremely powerful party to join -- IF he wanted, which he didn't.

He's conservative but not a GOP extremist, he's for progressive government programs, he's against abortion and most LGBTQ rights, but he is not FOR the extremist GOP authoritarianism, white male power, religious domination, racism, and misogyny. The things he says to keep WV trumpsters from waging outright war on him shouldn't fool anyone: He has two powerful choices, and Dems are a much better fit for him, albeit one that keeps him struggling for political survival.)

Otoh, Ocasio has the private democratic socialist website as an alternative. There is no other party for her to wage socialist class warfare from.

[Steelrolled]

224. Don't mock the death stare

That got her some Internet points.

[maxsolomon]

227. Nothing makes me dislike DU more than its collective

dislike of AOC.

As she pointed out quite recently, "Defund" and "Abolish" are ACTIVIST phrases, and the Party doesn't control Activists.

The Party didn't control Act Up, either, or Gay Marriage advocates. They won in the end.

But here we are again, another 200+ posts into a thread, and no focus on the issues of vital concern to BLM; just carping how their righteous anger wasn't polite enough for the Petit Bourgeoise.

[Dem4Life1102]

228. Well said

And I thought the bashing of a Democratic Party elected official was not allowed here.