A political 2022 Referendum

[ThatRobGuy]

They then label Democrats as "radical socialists" and then "socialist" becomes a dirty word.

Socialist was already a dirty word... it takes one heck of a PR team to take a word (that's rightfully earned its negative stigma) and try to rebrand it.

I know the Bernies and AOCs have called their position "Democratic Socialism"...they'd be better off just referring to their position by its rightful name "The Nordic Model"

Socialism is a defined term that has a specific meaning and underlying set of ideals behind it that specifically refer to having a centrally planned economy, with a huge public sector, and participation in that public sector being compulsory.

And specifically referring to their position as "Democratic Socialism" isn't necessarily helpful because just about every socialist leader attached the word "People's" or "Democratic" to their party name. East Germany called themselves the "German Democratic Republic", along with several other countries.

Eastern Bloc - Wikipedia

Search the page for the word "democratic", you'll get a lot of hits.


You can imagine, if a person tried to start a new political movement based on including all of the positive policies that were implemented by late 30's Germany, but specifically omitting all of the nasty ones pertaining to ethno-nationalism and anti-Semitism...and called their movement "Inclusive Nazism"... they can't be too surprised when the other side pounces on that.

 

[mark46]

Interesting. I was raised a Democrat, a Humphrey Democrat. I met and kind of liked Eugene McCarthy but I was solidly in the Farmer-Labor wing of the Minnesota DFL party. Later that same party became the party of abortion and they made it clear there was no room for anyone like me. After years of resistance I took the never subtle hint and reluctantly joined the other party. They were way more welcoming of me and my Humphrey Democratic Party positions than the Democrats were of a pro-life Democrat. I even ended up very briefly on the State Central Committee.

When Trump came along most of us at the State Convention were opposed to him. But he had won too many primaries and could not be stopped. He was popular with primary voters because at that the me the media were all in favor of Trump. It was only after he had the nomination sewn up that the media switched on a dime to being against Trump. The media loved him until they hated him.

I am a never Trumper. I quit the GOP rather than sell my soul to Trump. But I didn’t sell my soul to Hillary or to old Joe either. We dodged a bullet with Hillary but got shot by a Trump bullet. Last election we dodged the second Trump bullet but got shot by the Harris-Biden bullet. And most everybody in the country still thinks we need to belong to one of these two big and out of touch parties.

The really sad thing is how many people vote Republican being they say that they are against abortion and they want to prove it by making abortion illegal, not teaching sex education, and reducing heath services for women.

The Democrats have a different approach. They don't want to make abortion illegal, They want to REDUCE the number of abortions. Check out the stats under Democratic presidents. Obama was in for 8 years. Did the number of abortions go down or up. It is Democratic policies that reduce the number of abortions.

 

[Guinan]

The really sad thing is how many people vote Republican being they say that they are against abortion and they want to prove it by making abortion illegal, not teaching sex education, and reducing heath services for women.

The Democrats have a different approach. They don't want to make abortion illegal, They want to REDUCE the number of abortions. Check out the stats under Democratic presidents. Obama was in for 8 years. Did the number of abortions go down or up. It is Democratic policies that reduce the number of abortions.

I've posted the statistics of the abortion rates being reduced during Democratic presidencies, but the information I posted was relatively dismissed or it was ignored. I thought I'd quote it here too.

I've shared the following information before and it was relatively ignored by those who are anti-liberal and anti-Biden. However, the facts speak for themselves, no matter how hard some conservatives try to explain them away, dismiss and ignore them. It's not as black and white as some of them pretend.

Sharpest drops in abortion under Democrats

The sharpest drops in abortion rates in America have been under Democratic presidents

And here's an interesting article excerpt to share with you.

Why abortion may increase during a Donald Trump presidency

When the ACA repeal is complete, it is possible – even likely – that Trump will have contributed to an upturn in the number of abortions in America.

That’s because despite the lip service that GOP candidates have paid to reducing abortion, what’s required isn’t just appointing pro-life judges. What’s required is creating hospitable conditions for American women, especially the poor, to actually raise to honorable adulthood any children they don’t abort.

And that is where Republicans fall short.

Let’s take a look at the CDC’s annual numbers. After increasing under Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan, abortion began to decrease in the late 1980s with the administration of George H. W. Bush (senior). It has continued to decrease with every presidency ever since, so that’s something to celebrate.

However, the more dramatic plunges have occurred with Democratic presidencies, not GOP ones.

• George H. W. Bush (Rep.), 1988–1992: .008% decrease over 4 years
• Bill Clinton (Dem.), 1992–2000: 36.9% decrease over 8 years
• George W. Bush (Rep.), 2000-2008: 3.7% decrease over 8 years
• Barack Obama (Dem.), 2008-2013: 19.5% decrease over 6 years (data from 2014 and 2015 are not yet posted by the CDC)

In other words, abortions decreased during Bill Clinton’s presidency by nearly ten times the amount they decreased during George W. Bush’s (-36.9% vs. -3.7%), even though both men served the same number of years. During Bush Sr.’s administration, the rate of abortion didn’t even drop by a single percentage point.

Despite his promises to repeal Roe v. Wade, Donald Trump’s economic policies are poised to Make America Abortion-great Again. He’s creating the perfect storm of economic conditions in which abortion flourishes. Poor women now face a lack of health care (including contraception coverage), increased tax rates for the poor, a stagnant minimum wage, severe cutbacks to food stamps and Medicaid, AND an end to early-childhood programs for educating their kids.

Republicans, apparently, want every unborn child to have a chance at being born. But if those children also want health care, food, or an education, they’re out of luck.

<<end of excerpt>>

And for the record, Roe v. Wade was put into effect under President Richard Nixon, a Republican.

A total of five Republican presidents had the resources to overturn Roe v. Wade because they had the House, the Senate and the presidency, including the first two years of Trump's administration. Roe v. Wade was decided in a 7-to-2 vote by a court with a 6-to-3 Republican majority; five of the six Republican appointees voted to legalize abortion (source). A Republican majority legalized abortion.

President Trump denounces restrictive abortion bans, compares himself to Ronald Reagan

Trump and top Republicans distance themselves from Alabama’s controversial abortion law

Just a reminder that the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade was written by a lifelong Republican

 

[chevyontheriver]

The really sad thing is how many people vote Republican being they say that they are against abortion and they want to prove it by making abortion illegal, not teaching sex education, and reducing heath services for women.

The Democrats have a different approach. They don't want to make abortion illegal, They want to REDUCE the number of abortions. Check out the stats under Democratic presidents. Obama was in for 8 years. Did the number of abortions go down or up. It is Democratic policies that reduce the number of abortions.

In those eight years of Obama there were many state laws passed restricting abortions. Laws Obama disapproved of but had no power to stop. I find it disingenuous to propose that Obama reduced abortions when it was multiple state legislatures doing things which Obama didn’t like which had the real effect.

 

[mark46]

In those eight years of Obama there were many state laws passed restricting abortions. Laws Obama disapproved of but had no power to stop. I find it disingenuous to propose that Obama reduced abortions when it was multiple state legislatures doing things which Obama didn’t like which had the real effect.

It is a matter of studies. Of course, since this is political forum, they are of little import. Let us agree to disagree.

I well understand that the teaching of sex education, the support of women's health programs, the access of contraception to poor women, and the support of pregnant women in the workplace all contribute to lowering the number of abortions. But I come from a background where the respect for scientific study is taken for granted. And yes, I have a couple of degrees in the social sciences.

Restrictive laws by states do indeed decrease the number of legal abortions in their states. The about of damage to society is enormous, including the number of illegal abortions, and the poor madeical prognosis of those who have those abortions.

But, as I said, let us agree to disagree.

BTW, I find it hugely disingenuous for you to say that you didn't support Obama because of his abortion positions, and then proceed to posit that Obama had no effect, but rather the states had the effect.

BTW, I tend to agree. The states do have more effect.
==============
For me, it makes little sense to choose abortion policy as a one issue litmus test for presidents or even senators. But then there usually are 3: no abortions, no restrictions on guns, and no gay marriage or other rights.

 

[mark46]

That's why democrats like James Clyburn and Abigail Spanberger were so frustrated with certain democrats' own use of the word "socialism", as they're basically playing into the republicans' hand when they use that type of misplaced/inaccurate lingo to describe their own policies.

Many people on the farther end of the left side of the spectrum (particularly younger people) have incorrectly tried to use the word "socialism" as a way to describe "What Denmark has"

If they want a market economy with an expanded welfare state (like Denmark has, and is very different from socialism), then they should be referring to their plan by the rightful name of "The Nordic Model" or "Nordic Capitalism".

Carville and Clyburn has been warning the Democrats for years. We almost lost both the House and the Senate in the 2020 election. The progressive tone by so many got lots of Democratic moderates defeated, reversing much of the 2018 gains. It took truly amazing speeches and actions by Trump to wrest defeat from the jaws of victory in the House and Senate. It took truly heroic work from Clyburn for Biden to win the nomination and the election, and keep the control of the Democratic party in the hands of its moderates. As an aside, I don't call Manchin a moderate; he is a conservative, but that's fine; we are a big tent party.

And yes, this is because progressive Democrats call their ideas socialist or social-Democratic. They think "defund the police" is a clever slogans, and that reparations is an idea to considered, along with one-payer medical care and the Green New Deal. The Democratic Party talks about "people of color" instead of blacks and Hispanics. Yang was surprised to hear that he was keeping a mayor of color from being elected. Democrats speak in the words of the language of elites on both coasts and in the universities.

Let's be very clear. Biden is NOT a progressive. He was, and is, appalled by the "defund the police" approach to crime. He made clear today that much more money should be allocated to the police, using lots of money from the stimulus plan. Biden is, and always was, a "law and order" politician. He is also a strong supporter of some gun restrictions (as are almost all police chiefs). Biden also has a strong commitment to police reform and criminal justice return. But, make no mistake, his views are far to the right of the progressives (as he is on immigration reform).

 

[mark46]

Socialist was already a dirty word... it takes one heck of a PR team to take a word (that's rightfully earned its negative stigma) and try to rebrand it.
.

Progressives can't help themselves as they profess their views to the public: socialism, democratic socialism, defund the police, the Green New Deal, Medicare for all, tax the rich, punish the rich corporations, open borders and health care for the undocumented, and all the rest.

Biden opposes almost all of this, as he has for many decades. Besides, these positions were/are political losers in 2020, 2022, 2024 and for the foreseeable future.

I find it very, very unlikely that Democrats will reverse the 2020 trends and keep their House majority. Democrats have a better chance in the Senate where there are lots of opportunities.

 

[SimplyMe]

That's why democrats like James Clyburn and Abigail Spanberger were so frustrated with certain democrats' own use of the word "socialism", as they're basically playing into the republicans' hand when they use that type of misplaced/inaccurate lingo to describe their own policies.

Many people on the farther end of the left side of the spectrum (particularly younger people) have incorrectly tried to use the word "socialism" as a way to describe "What Denmark has"

...since they've never lived it (by it's true definition), I think there are some blind spots there. You find just about any immigrant (or first-generation descendent of...) who grew up in places like Cuba, China, or Venzeuala...or that lived in any of the eastern bloc countries in the 70's or 80's... that word elicits a very different emotional response from them...and that very economic system could've been the driver behind their decision to pack up and leave their home country.

Immigrant Neighborhoods Shifted Red as the Country Chose Blue

NY Times did an interesting piece (with an interactive map) on it showing where neighborhoods in major cities (in blue states) had some stark shifts from blue to red over the past few years in areas with large immigrant populations - specifically immigrant neighborhoods with large Latino, Chinese, and Eastern European populations.

In Latino areas: "Mr. Trump received 45 percent more votes in these areas than four years ago. Mr. Biden still won, but the number of people who voted Democratic did not increase over 2016."

"In a belt of suburbs north of Chicago — precincts that are home to South Asian, Arab and Eastern European immigrants — there was also higher turnout, and a shift to Mr. Trump."

"In Chinatown, Mr. Trump’s vote increased by 34 percent over 2016, while Mr. Biden received 6 percent fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. Mr. Biden still won in precincts with a majority of residents of Asian descent, but the Democratic margin of victory fell 12 percentage points."


With the Latino community, it's a bit of a political riddle (as the article puts it). Because depending on the country they moved here from, they may have a very negative reaction to "socialism" (places like Cuba & Venezuela), but if you have an immigrant from Chile (who had to live under a far-right dictator like Pinochet), or someone from central America (where "free-market solutions" ended up equating to "allow US interests to come in and buy up your companies, and then price gouge you for your own resources"), then those folks are going to have a more negative response to some of the republican economic rhetoric.

However, I don't know that same dichotomy exists with regards to immigrants from Eastern Europe for a certain age group.

For instance, I think you'd be hard pressed to find an immigrant who lived in East Germany or Romania in 1980-1986 that has a positive view of the word "socialism"


That's one reason why I've made the suggestion to many on the farther end of the left to be more clear about what it is they want so that they don't just feed political ammo to the far right. Obviously I don't agree with their positions on several issues, but some of them I'd like to see happen (like universal healthcare)

Unless they're actually calling for a centrally planned economy with public sector size > 70% (with compulsory employment in the public sector), then they shouldn't be calling their plan "socialism" or "democratic socialism", etc...

If they want a market economy with an expanded welfare state (like Denmark has, and is very different from socialism), then they should be referring to their plan by the rightful name of "The Nordic Model" or "Nordic Capitalism".

Of course, then you run into the issue that Republicans have falsely labeled the "Nordic Model" as socialism, so even that term won't work. In fact, if you notice, almost anything Democrats propose is frequently termed "socialism," even though it is never actually socialism, including the ludicrous claim that Joe Biden is a socialist. The issue, as I see it, is how do Democrats successfully fight back about these claims of "socialism" in a US where people tend to only listen to sound bites?

 

[Brihaha]

I would like to have an option when voting. But if republicans cannot be honest with the American electorate and tell us the truth, I cannot vote for them. Their exploitation of constituents has led America to this state of tribalism. Placating misguided voters' grievances have regressed America's growth, which is the opposite of progress. I want our grandkids to grow up in an inclusive, tolerant American society, not this divided political win at all costs, hate your neighbors cesspool!

 

[Brihaha]

I vote ABD

Anyone
But a
Democratic

So you vote exclusively for the rich elites and corporate businesses. It's literally the only constituency republicans work for. Congratulations.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Of course, then you run into the issue that Republicans have falsely labeled the "Nordic Model" as socialism, so even that term won't work. In fact, if you notice, almost anything Democrats propose is frequently termed "socialism," even though it is never actually socialism, including the ludicrous claim that Joe Biden is a socialist. The issue, as I see it, is how do Democrats successfully fight back about these claims of "socialism" in a US where people tend to only listen to sound bites?

Oh I have no doubts that republicans would still falsely twist whatever safety net pitches they have into "socialism" for a sound byte. I've even encountered some GOP members in my own family that have made the claim "the push from lefties for people to consume less meat" relates to socialism, even though dietary preferences have nothing to do with it.

When pressed for their justification of it, it was some silly theory about how "trying to get men to go vegan means they will consume more soy, which will make them more weak-willed and feminine, and make it easier for the socialists to take over"


My point was simply that they shouldn't be handing it over to them that easily. If you know all of their talking points are going to be scaremongering about socialism, why anyone would give themselves that label (especially when that's not actually what they're pitching) seems like poor planning.

Republicans have been using the socialism talking points since Reagan, it wasn't until a few democrats started self-identifying as such that they started losing some seats in some moderate areas where people typically voted democratic and ignored the republican talking point.

You always have the far-right republicans that will take the bait when pundits label things as socialism, however, moderates haven't been swayed as much by that stuff (historically), and could basically see through the rhetoric. However, when you have democrats actually calling themselves that, it's not about the republican rhetoric anymore.

In the areas where democrats lost house seats in 2020, those weren't due to far-right voters...safe to assume they'd been voting republican the whole time. Those were moderate voters (who weren't basing their choice on far-right rhetoric), but rather, the fact they didn't like the vibe that the party (they'd previously voted for) was putting out there.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Carville and Clyburn has been warning the Democrats for years. We almost lost both the House and the Senate in the 2020 election. The progressive tone by so many got lots of Democratic moderates defeated, reversing much of the 2018 gains. It took truly amazing speeches and actions by Trump to wrest defeat from the jaws of victory in the House and Senate. It took truly heroic work from Clyburn for Biden to win the nomination and the election, and keep the control of the Democratic party in the hands of its moderates. As an aside, I don't call Manchin a moderate; he is a conservative, but that's fine; we are a big tent party.

And yes, this is because progressive Democrats call their ideas socialist or social-Democratic. They think "defund the police" is a clever slogans, and that reparations is an idea to considered, along with one-payer medical care and the Green New Deal. The Democratic Party talks about "people of color" instead of blacks and Hispanics. Yang was surprised to hear that he was keeping a mayor of color from being elected. Democrats speak in the words of the language of elites on both coasts and in the universities.

Let's be very clear. Biden is NOT a progressive. He was, and is, appalled by the "defund the police" approach to crime. He made clear today that much more money should be allocated to the police, using lots of money from the stimulus plan. Biden is, and always was, a "law and order" politician. He is also a strong supporter of some gun restrictions (as are almost all police chiefs). Biden also has a strong commitment to police reform and criminal justice return. But, make no mistake, his views are far to the right of the progressives (as he is on immigration reform).

I would agree, I wouldn't have voted for Biden if I thought he wasn't a moderate. Typically, I vote 3rd party out of principle, and would've done so again if Trump had been running against someone like an AOC.


As far as Manchin goes, in terms of global politics, he'd be conservative, but within the US political Overton Window, he'd be "moderate"

While he holds some conservative values, he does hold many that are "liberal by US standards"... like his position supporting ACA, his support of expanding social security, his stance of increasing taxes on the wealthy, staunchly pro-union, and a more left-leaning (by US standards) position on immigration.

 

[cow451]

If Trump tries to become Speaker, 2022 becomes a different ballgame.

** Trigger Warning! The following post may contain humor upsetting to some posters may find it Please reply accordingly. No animals or humans were harmed in the development of this post.


Et tu, [insert name of GOP Republican]?

 

[JSRG]

People constantly try to pitch midterms, especially for the House, as some kind of a referendum but the fact is that statistically, almost every midterm election has party of the president lose seats in the House of Representatives. This is true even for popular presidents.

 

[mark46]

People constantly try to pitch midterms, especially for the House, as some kind of a referendum but the fact is that statistically, almost every midterm election has party of the president lose seats in the House of Representatives. This is true even for popular presidents.

Yes, folks should have been much more concerned that the Democrats lost seats while winning the presidency. That is indeed unusual.

Losing seats in 2022 would not be related to Biden. The popularity of House members doesn't seem to be linked to him. The 2022 challenge is to the party itself. How many seats will be lost by the continuing more of House members to the left? Was 2020 the end of losing seats, or will the trend continue?

 

[cow451]

Yes, folks should have been much more concerned that the Democrats lost seats while winning the presidency. That is indeed unusual.

Losing seats in 2022 would not be related to Biden. The popularity of House members doesn't seem to be linked to him. The 2022 challenge is to the party itself. How many seats will be lost by the continuing more of House members to the left? Was 2020 the end of losing seats, or will the trend continue?

The success of the GOP in 2020 was overshadowed by the childish behavior of EX President Trump. Were it not for Trump, GA would have two GOP Senators.