Clinton and Obama proved that not to be true.You are certainly smart enough to see the difference in their presidencies and Biden's.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running for president.
- Thread starter Tony Stark
- Start date
Clinton and Obama proved that not to be true.You are certainly smart enough to see the difference in their presidencies and Biden's.
Clinton was signing welfare reform and glass-steagall repeal with Gingrich and yet progs supported him.
Meanwhile Socialist Bernie Sanders is praising Biden for one of the most significant bills for the working class and I am supposed to nitpick differences with the Clinton administration known to be centrist moderates.
Clinton was also signing healthcare,assault weapon ban,tax increase bills.You are arguing against your own previous argument that progressives will only vote for super progressive fairytale candidates.We will cut you some slack if you get us some of what we want.
You don't have to be Bernie,Warren,AOC etc to get our votes.You do have to be better than Biden or Hillary (I did vote for Hillary as I did Biden,would not again though for either).
You know who else signed assault weapon ban and tax increase bills? The Bush's. Those things were not some progressive trademarks back then.
Pretending that Clinton won because of his progressive credentials is hilarious considering he basically gutted the social safety net along with Gingrich right before his re-election which he won comfortably.
You accuse Biden of not doing anything and yet Clinton did huge harm by signing Gingrich's bills and yet he faced no repercussions for his re-election.
So either progressives don't care for their policies or they are dumb to not see what was being done.
a yes, the enlightened centrist take of "we could never lose with an unelectable dog-shit candidate so blame the progs". Fetterman's centrist positions is surely what landed him those wins in red districts....
You also got me pegged as some sort of Bernie or buster. I'm not. I've just come to understand the dem party needs to clean house.
Do you guys forget who Fetterman was against? A terrible candiate named Oz. Did everyone forget Mandela Barnes who lost to the third most unpopular Senator in the country?
I don't get these theoretical nonsense like clean house - what does that even mean, you work with what you have and push where you can, real world doesn't work on theories just like the markets.
Fetterman had prior wins in his district before running against OZ. Is Manchin's opponent orders of magnitude better than OZ where a Fetterman-like figure is inconceivable?
Clean house to me means keep working with what you have and push out the DINOs in the process. If we have no chance of reversing Citizens United anytime soon, your donor/PAC history ought to become the litmus test if you want to keep your seat. I have no illusions of this being done in 1 or 2 elections, just what it means to me.
I suspect cleaning house to Tony means handing dems losses which to me is a non-starter since the GOP is gung-ho on going fascist and you can't advance the democratic process under those conditions.
Out of 4 acceptable to prog Dems 3 won and 1 lost by 27,000 votes.OH has a prog Senator that has won reelection twice,while the centrist Ryan lost by 6 points.
Lets see how centrist Senima and Manchin does in 24
Fact of the matter is that progressives want lot of action and noise but when it comes to delivering seats they deliver rarely, even Fetterman didn't come across as some DSA type candidate, the ones always looking for a revolution.
Nobody would have cared for Manchin if people like Barnes could win against unpopular incumbents like Ron Johnson.
Those 3 progs were running against horrible candidates (Oz, Walker, Masters) in states Biden won.
Biden won Wisconsin too and yet Barnes lost to another horrible candidate because he was the incumbent.
That's not a great test case for progressive candidates getting elected unless you can outrun Biden numbers in the states and unseat Republicans.