Support NeoGAF

[Dubbedinenglish]

Do opposition parties in the US not have a party leader outside of election season?

The Dems really could use a charismatic face of the party in this era of populism to stand against everything Trump says or does

3 parts to this:
1. Obama just left office and is away from the spotlight for a short time. Also the standard bearer was just defeated in the election.

2. Republicans have made such gains due to gerrymandering and a lack of broad strategy in the state and local elections that the bench is pretty dry. Also the lack of control at the Federal level leaves the Dems headless.

3. The DNC is headless until a new chair gets installed. The current is poisoned goods so she isn't really in command of the party. Should change next month.

 

[joedan]

When they go low we go high.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Right. But we have the capability of voting on individual pieces of legislation. We don't have to simplify every single vote as universal approval or condemnation of the Trump agenda. I just don't understand why it's necessary to vote no on the legislation to send puppies to cheer up sick kids at the children's hospital just because Trump and/or the GOP proposed it. Like I said, this isn't a way to encourage us to cave in on important shit now under the misguided delusion that the GOP will play ball later or try to get senpai Trump to like us. But I also don't see the need to draw a hard line in the sand in favor of absolute obstructionism. It just seems unnecessary to me.

Because that piece of legislation sending puppies to sick kids probably ALSO strips voting rights from everyone with an unacceptably high level of melanin, or includes a provision about turning the sick and uninsured into a high-protein snackfood, or some other horrifying piece of bullshit.

Republicans are not rational or good-faith actors. They've realized that they can destroy the country for votes. So, assume everything they do is working in that direction. Oppose, resist, obstruct, always.

 

[Xe4]

Because that piece of legislation sending puppies to sick kids probably ALSO strips voting rights from everyone with an unacceptably high level of melanin, or includes a provision about turning the sick and uninsured into a high-protein snackfood, or some other horrifying piece of bullshit.

Republicans are not rational or good-faith actors. They've realized that they can destroy the country for votes. So, assume everything they do is working in that direction. Oppose, resist, obstruct, always.

Always is a lot. Even with the tea party, a lot of legislation passed, just not a lot comparatively. Don't you think this should made on a case by case basis instead of a broad statement. And if you're ok with the broad statement, how is that any different than McConnell promising to obstruct Obama on his night of inaguration?

 

[kirblar]

McConnell appears to be in a position where he doesn't want to kill the fillibuster because he doesn't trust Trump. The Dems can and should exploit that to maximum effect.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Always is a lot. Even with the tea party, a lot of legislation passed, just not a lot comparatively. Don't you think this should made on a case by case basis instead of a broad statement. And if you're ok with the broad statement, how is that any different than McConnell promising to obstruct Obama on his night of inaguration?

It's different because the Republicans actually do want to tear down the country, whereas in McConnell's case, that was just something they made up.

I think that at least Tea Party levels of obstructionism are called for, yeah. If it bothers Dem voters, they need to adjust their views of how this works. Functioning government has been out the window for a while now, we need to limit the damage Republicans can cause.

 

[Woorloog]

Road to hell is paved with good intentions. If the Democrats do not resist Trump administration, things will go to hell. And not just for the US, i think.

Are Democrats commenting publicly about Trump's EOs or anything or is it just radio silence?

 

[sangreal]

McConnell appears to be in a position where he doesn't want to kill the fillibuster because he doesn't trust Trump. The Dems can and should exploit that to maximum effect.

you're giving way too much credit to McConnell. He doesn't want to kill the filibuster simply because he is a traditional politician that realizes he may be back in the minority some day. Regardless, he has made clear he will kill it if it comes to that

This is what has always kept the filibuster alive, but in this day in age of extreme politics it doesn't work. And frankly, that is because of McConnell's unprecedented obstructionism

 

[Deleted member 1159]

Obama? :\

Wrong skin color

 

[RMI]

We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

But right now, there's a greater likelihood that one night I'll get a knock on my door, and it'll be Idris Elba, Michael B Jordan, Drake, and Trey Songz, and they'll say to me, "Hello, sorry to disturb you, but we were on our way to the Annual Sexy Male Celebrity Convention, and our car broke down. Do you mind if we use your phone? Oh, and run a train on you?" than it is for the current Republican party to propose some unfettered good legislation.

Until Republicans show signs that they're willing to stop being shits, they should be offered the same courtesy and respect they gave Obama.

Great post and my thoughts exactly aside from the running a train on me part, though I think I would be comfortable kissing Idris Elba full on the lips.

 

[Xe4]

It's different because the Republicans actually do want to tear down the country, whereas in McConnell's case, that was just something they made up.

I think that at least Tea Party levels of obstructionism are called for, yeah. If it bothers Dem voters, they need to adjust their views of how this works. Functioning government has been out the window for a while now, we need to limit the damage Republicans can cause.

So, your problem was never with the obstructionism, but because it was done against legislation that you liked, or done by a party you didn't like correct? Because if your problem was with the obstructionism itself, then it would be strange to be wanting to do it now.

In any case, obstructionism may be good in the short term, but in the long term it is going to doom America. A lot of times, the only reason anything worked in the government was because the democrats worked their ass off trying to get the bare minimum of legislation passed. Two parties both obstructing each other is going to do a lot of harm to America.

It has to stop sometime, and to be honest I have no idea how it will. What we're seeing now is the worst it's been since the civil war, and that was only solved by the country nearly tearing itself apart. It's very worrying.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

Scorched Earth, Motherfucker!

 

[Ether_Snake]

Democrats have to go after individuals, Trump, the administration but never talk about "The Republicans". If they always focus on individuals, even people most Americans don't know about such as governors, mayors, etc., it will work to their advantage. Going after "The Republicans" is a waste of time.

 

[Staccat0]

Democrats have to go after individuals, Trump, the administration but never talk about "The Republicans". If they always focus on individuals, even people most Americans don't know about such as governors, mayors, etc., it will work to their advantage. Going after "The Republicans" is a waste of time.

I honestly think this is a lesson for everyone and the way they talk about this online.

 

[Kthulhu]

This seems like a repeat of that other thread. So, I'll just note:

I personally have no idea why "prioritizing eight" versus "gumming up" all the nominees, is seen as the most terrible thing in the world. People seem to be forgetting that the Democrats are the minority, with limited power to do anything to "gum up" these appointments anyway. Nikki Haley is not a hill to die on.

And non-functioning government plays entirely into GOP narratives, thus, the consequences of trying to obstruct everything, and to being seen as doing so for the sake of doing so, is actually entirely simpatico with the Tea Party voter.

But not necessarily the Democratic voter in Indiana or Virginia.

And again, people seem to be forgetting the Democrats are the minority, this seems to need repeating. The GOP engaged in unprecedented fuckery when they blocked Merrick Garland yes. But they had majority power.

So, to take Steve's example above of nominating Garland, and bring it back down to earth a bit. Two of the front-runners for Scalia's vacant Supreme Court seat are Gorsuch and Pryor. Gorsuch is for all intents and purposes a respected, learned and thoughtful, albeit highly conservative in the vein of Scalia, jurist. If he is nominated, the Democrats should absolutely vet him publicly, and they don't need to vote for him. But they should, ultimately, allow a vote on him.

Cf Pryor, would be someone to fight to the point where the only way McConnell could push him through is by changing the rules of the Senate.

I recommend you watch this video and see if your views are the same:

https://youtu.be/H76e8yIbXi4

 

[Aaronology]

Democrats have to go after individuals, Trump, the administration but never talk about "The Republicans". If they always focus on individuals, even people most Americans don't know about such as governors, mayors, etc., it will work to their advantage. Going after "The Republicans" is a waste of time.

I can see the merits to this approach.

 

[Ether_Snake]

I can see the merits to this approach.

Sadly I bet if I turn the news on next week the first thing I'm going to hear from a Democrat is "The Republicans". They'll be afraid to attack Trump and will attack the Republicans instead.

It's so obvious that it's a completely ineffective method of attack, it only draws a clear dividing line in people's minds and sounds like criticism for the sake of criticism. If instead they never said those two words and always spoke of a specific politician, a specific bill and its main backers and their titles and districts, the impacts of their decisions on their constituents, I think Republicans would be completely disarmed and their use of "The Democrats" would become much less effective. Plus, the points mentioned would slowly build up in people's minds, whereas an attack of "The Republicans" gets in one ear and out the other, it makes the criticism detached of any face, and makes it sound less plausible. And when they would be criticized directly, individually, over actual specific positions or actions, they would be forced to find an equivalent to counter with.

It reminds me of how in parliament in Canada, the Liberals stopped clapping during the question session, even traditionally the parties would have been clapping after a statement from a member of their own party. The Conservatives freaked out, openly attacked the Liberals for not clapping for themselves, because all of sudden the Conservatives looked like a bunch of dumb self-back-patting and clapping seals whenever they did so themselves. So what happened? They stopped clapping too, which also resulted in no more jeering. Now there is no more clapping; there are questions, and answers.

 

[Monocle]

Good, fuck them all. Follow the obnoxious precedent the GOP established against Obama and stop these shitheels in their tracks. This time a policy of total obstruction is not only justified but morally compulsory.

 

[royalan]

Sadly I bet if I turn the news on next week the first thing I'm going to hear from a Democrat is "The Republicans". They'll be afraid to attack Trump and will attack the Republicans instead.

It's so obvious that it's a completely ineffective method of attack, it only draws a clear dividing line in people's minds and sounds like criticism for the sake of criticism. If instead they never said those two words and always spoke of a specific politician, a specific bill and its main backers and their titles and districts, the impacts of their decisions on their constituents, I think Republicans would be completely disarmed and their use of "The Democrats" would become much less effective. Plus, the points mentioned would slowly build up in people's minds, whereas an attack of "The Republicans" gets in one ear and out the other, it makes the criticism detached of any face, and makes it sound less plausible. And when they would be criticized directly, individually, over actual specific positions or actions, they would be forced to find an equivalent to counter with.

It reminds me of how in parliament in Canada, the Liberals stopped clapping during the question session, even traditionally the parties would have been clapping after a statement from a member of their own party. The Conservatives freaked out, openly attacked the Liberals for not clapping for themselves, because all of sudden the Conservatives looked like a bunch of dumb self-back-patting and clapping seals whenever they did so themselves. So what happened? They stopped clapping too, which also resulted in no more jeering. Now there is no more clapping; there are questions, and answers.

The only part of this I disagree with is that individualizing members of the Republican party and separating them from the party itself makes it easier for people to continue to support the Republican Party.

This is exactly what the Clinton campaign did when they transitioned from the primaries to the general election; they isolated Donald Trump and attacked him as separate from Republicans, and Planned Parenthood just sponsored a series of focus groups that showed this to be a big mistake. Because Hillary focused solely on Trump, Trump voters thought that the horrible shit Trump was campaigning on as shit he was just saying to appeal to a far right base. They were completely unaware of the thing they should have most feared: that Trump was campaigning a lot of the shit Republican leadership actually believes and pushes for.

This leads to an obvious question: If these women think defunding Planned Parenthood is a deal-breaker, why did they vote for a candidate who promised to do exactly that? After all, in a September letter addressed to ”Pro-Life Leaders," Trump pledged to strip Planned Parenthood's federal funding unless it stops performing abortions. But many of the people in the focus groups didn't know he'd made this assurance, and those who did didn't take it seriously. It seemed as if Trump's lasciviousness, which Clinton hoped would disqualify Trump with women, actually worked in his favor. The focus group participants couldn't imagine that Trump would enact a religious right agenda. ”He's probably paid for a few abortions himself," said the 58-year-old in Phoenix, eliciting a roomful of laughs.

In several focus groups, the moderator asked if people expected Trump to veto a defunding bill, and most hands went up. The new mother in Harrisburg pointed out that Trump avoided social issues in the campaign: ”That was never Donald Trump's platform." Said a Phoenix man in his 30s: ”I think this is coming from the bible-thumper mentality. I don't see Trump having that mentality, but [Mike] Pence, Paul Ryan, those guys, it's like they call up God from their cellphone. They're so out of touch with reality."

If so, they're not the only ones. The majority of people in the focus groups knew little about the intense social conservatism of people Trump has surrounded himself with. Shown a document listing Vice President–elect Pence's legislative history on reproductive rights, a 54-year-old man in Phoenix said: ”I'm astounded. I guess I've been living in a bubble. I wasn't aware of this. He sounds like a tyrant when it comes to this."

You have to attack the root, which is the party itself. You can't cut off one head of a many-headed beast and expect to down it.

 

[Ether_Snake]

The only part of this I disagree with is that individualizing members of the Republican party and separating them from the party itself makes it easier for people to continue to support the Republican Party.

This is exactly what the Clinton campaign did when they transitioned from the primaries to the general election; they isolated Donald Trump and attacked him as separate from Republicans, and Planned Parenthood just sponsored a series of focus groups that showed this to be a big mistake. Because Hillary focused solely on Trump, Trump voters thought that the horrible shit Trump was campaigning on as shit he was just saying to appeal to a far right base. They were completely unaware of the thing they should have most feared: that Trump was campaigning a lot of the shit Republican leadership actually believes and pushes for.

I didn't say "focus only on Trump". I said make it about the individuals in the GOP. People don't pay attention to all this, they don't follow the stories, they hear bits here and there. When Democrats say "The Republicans", people tune out, it sounds like there is no valuable information to be learned from listening to them. But if you name people, and associate them with issues, eventually that sticks in people's minds, and at some point you will have covered pretty much any issue affecting anyone specifically, and you keep pilling it. People will remember some of those comments, and some of the names.

When elections come around, any election, it will add up. Heck, the last quote about Pence shows as much.

 

[Platinumstorm]

The bathroom bill singlehandedly gave democrats the NC governorship, and might have given Hillary NC too if republicans nominated someone that gave a crap about republican social issues.

The bill was perfect for putting the blame on republicans for fighting dumb social fights instead of focusing on the economy, especially since that social fight was directly hurting their economy, with big businesses pulling out of the state left and right over it.

I agree it's not easy to run on trans-rights, but it's very easy to run against anti-trans-rights laws.

The economic consequences of the bathroom bill did that for NC, absolutely. I think you and I are mostly on the same page here.

 

[Ogodei]

The question of identity politics is a non-starter. I will straight-up leave the Democratic party if they start throwing the little guy under the bus just because standing up for them makes some squares in Youngstown uncomfortable.

Not that i fear they will do that, but the people suggesting it need to realize that disenfranchised minorities are the Democratic base now. If they go off trying to court people who can't stand minorities, then the party will truly die because the base will collapse.

 

[LegendofJoe]

The question of identity politics is a non-starter. I will straight-up leave the Democratic party if they start throwing the little guy under the bus just because standing up for them makes some squares in Youngstown uncomfortable.

Not that i fear they will do that, but the people suggesting it need to realize that disenfranchised minorities are the Democratic base now. If they go off trying to court people who can't stand minorities, then the party will truly die because the base will collapse.

Yep, I'd add millennials to that group as well . And thankfully there are a ton of millennial minorities gaining the right to vote every day. I'm hoping that Trump will light a fire under Latinos especially.A Latino Obama sure would be nice as well....it's nice to dream.

I couldn't imagine anything better than a passionate, intelligent Hispanic American going up against Trump in 2020. It's the Republican party's worst nightmare.