[datsci_est_2015]

Increasingly true in Trump’s America.

It’s somewhat the point of democracy to maintain a limit on rent seekers’ and wealth extractors’ power on the political process. It should come as no surprise that the individuals who have grifted and extorted their way into power are also fiercely antidemocratic. The xenophobes and bigots that have hitched their wagons are equally deplorable.

[forgetfreeman]

I'ma keep it creamy with you, both parties have had the kind of political majority required to clamp down on the corporatization of our society, and neither have so much as paid lip service to doing so. You want to be mad at the current administration by all means there's fertile ground, but don't waste anyone's time blaming them for a situation that's been decades in the making with both major political parties pushing in tandem to realize it.

[jimbob45]

The last time was 2009-2010 for the Democrats. The Republicans have never held 60 seats.

But the real crime is that the left never exploited that. If I was in charge, I’d have mountains of draft legislation vetted, proofread, run by every lawmaker, and printed out years before any potential majority just in case it ever came about. Whoever was in charge of the DNC in 2009 should feel ashamed of letting a generational advantage largely go to waste.

[lotsofpulp]

Crack open some Wikipedia and learn about how there were at least 2-3 independents as part of the 60 votes, who often did not vote with Democrats. See the myriad compromises that had to be made for healthcare reform to pass so that the ACA could become reality, including nixing the “public” option due to some of those aforementioned independents.

[inigyou]

The democrats aren't the left. How would the left exploit a democrat majority? That is like saying the democrats didn't exploit a republican majority.

[lesuorac]

The 60 seats business needs to stop.

Fillibuster is a senate procedure rule. That's about the weakest a thing could be. At any point Democrats could have gotten rid of the filibuster with a 51 majority.

Democrats would much rather let congress do nothing than do something. It's hurt their reputation so much.

[johnnyanmac]

It's an oddly convenient tool. Especially if you value passing good laws less than allowing bad laws to pass. And it seems like our government is indeed run like a business; highly risk adverse to the point where it's better to spend more time in meetings than doing actual work. These people won't be chastised as much as they deserve for doing nothing, so that won't push them either.

I like the idea of the filibuster, but like most things it degraded from a way to force the stand to consider your ideas at all costs, to a blatant stalling tactic, to a lazy button to push against anything you disagree with. I'd rather throw it out these days than keep it, but ideally we'd completely revamp it to close such obvious loopholes and bring back some skin in the game.

[pstuart]

If you're going to play the "both sides are the same" game you need to be more precise in what that means. DNC is absolutely subservient to their patrons and party leadership in general owned by the donor class.

But the similarities stop there. The party platforms are in stark difference, and the GOP is now literally a cult of personality run by a mob boss. The naked corruption is off the charts.

In fact right now Trump is working to cancel or refusing to acknowledge mid-term elections and acts as if he were king.

I say this as someone who used to be a Democrat but left in disgust when Clinton remade the DNC into pro corporate puppetry. Partisan politics is a cancer on the citizenry and may very well be the end of what we call democracy in the United States.

I've tracked presidential politics since watching the Watergate hearings and what is happening today is beyond the political pale.

[inigyou]

On this particular issue both sides are identical. On other issues they are not.

[pstuart]

On corporate whoredom? Absolutely.

My pushback is that now is not the time for both-sides-ism. It needs to be addressed but most voters are poorly informed or vote their emotions and that talking point needs to go in the back pocket for later, if there is one.

I get your point, and the other one stating that Democrats are not "the left", but they are the the least worst option that a 2 party system offers.

The game is rigged, but this quote nails it:

On Undecided Voter s: "To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I inter est you in the chick en? ” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broke n glass in it?”

To be undecided in this elect ion is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chick en is cooked.” ― David Sedaris

[forgetfreeman]

"My pushback is that now is not the time for both-sides-ism"

Of course, and that line of reasoning has consistently failed at the polls since it was deployed as a readguard attempt to bolster Clinton's failed presidential campaign. Like, how many times does the DNC have to stick a fork in this particular outlet before it becomes transparent that this line of rhetoric simply doesn't produce the desired results?

Not only is it absolutely time, it is well and truly past time to underline the functionally identical economic policies of both parties, how the economic turmoil this causes drives identity politics and political division in this country, with a clear eye towards bringing an end to all of that through any means available.

[pstuart]

Let me try this again.

A two party system is a rigged game. Period.

The Democratic party absolutely needs to be taken to task and none of their bullshit should be tolerated or defended, ever, except one small exception: election day, in the general election -- because we can't fix the government if it's no longer a democracy.

[inigyou]

It seems the DNC are fine with Trump winning. He appeases the corporate doner base, and that's all the DNC wants.

[romanhounds]

will you give up identity politics for the deplorables vote?

[johnnyanmac]

Identity politics hasn't been a national debate topic... ever? Unless you count "the presidential candidate is a woman/black" as identity politics. Harris was quiet on trans issues in her campaign and Obama didn't talk much at all about gay marriage in 2008. Maybe he was more accommodating in 2012, but it didn't come up in his campaign.

If you read through any of the DNC talking points of any given campaign, you're not going to see much on social issues until you maybe get to Kennedy. It's just not really something that's a pressing issue for a presidential run.

And honestly, I can't think of any social policies in the last 50 years that was seriously pushed by a sitting president. They at best pay lip service by painting a rainbow on some building, often years after the actual legal and legislative battles were won.

----

Now, to directly answer your question: I'd rather not rely on deplorables to vote progressive. the nature of how they approach life simply won't allow that, even if they are otherwise in full agreement with every point. We need to energize the entire 3rd of the country that took one of the most important elections in the past 60 years and simply shrugged, staying home. We need to give them someone who will fight for them.

[pstuart]

> will you give up identity politics for the deplorables vote?

That phrase gets used a lot, I'm curious what you mean by that.

If you mean "woke", then you're probably missing the irony of how that is actually used politically. Based on the phrasing of your question, I'm guessing you might have an irony deficiency. But please go on.

Political discussion here is frowned upon because it usually devolves into partisan name calling -- which justifies it not being tolerated.

But if you want to discuss policy or "hacking society", please do. I am of no political party and am more than happy to acknowledge the foibles of those I might associate with, as well as any of my own because everybody makes mistakes, no?

[defrost]

Non-US PoV - US identity politics as an actual threat to panic and pearl clutch about seems to be largely a creation of the US right.

Actual US identity expression "issues" (visible drag queens, actually trans people, sports questions) seem to be small number small beer problems that should fall under US principles of "We let Nazi's march, so why not Furries" ?

[JumpCrisscross]

> On this particular issue both sides are identical

There is nothing sweeter to the oligarch constitunecy than the idiots who can't see shades of grey.

[insane_dreamer]

sure, US political parties have been largely pro big-biz

but if you can't see the stark difference in pro-mega-corp policies and blatant pay-to-play corruption in the last 1.5 yrs with the previous 4 years, you're clearly not paying attention

the fact that BigCorp couldn't wait to get rid of Lina Khan, and found a willing ally in Trump, is just one tiny example