Hot, Bad & Unpopular Takes

[DINGO Joe]

New Jersey Tossup sounds like an extremely lewd. gross sex act.

Does it involve whipped cream, graham crackers, and a prostate massage?  If yes where do I sign up?

No not at all.  I'd imagine it to involve a landfill and excrement that may or may not be human.  I'm  really not up on all the slang, you'd have to ask Kavanaugh or Trump.

But you did change your name.

[Lord Admirale]

New Jersey Tossup sounds like an extremely lewd. gross sex act.

Does it involve whipped cream, graham crackers, and a prostate massage?  If yes where do I sign up?

No not at all.  I'd imagine it to involve a landfill and excrement that may or may not be human.  I'm  really not up on all the slang, you'd have to ask Kavanaugh or Trump.

But you did change your name.

Wait no

[HillGoose]

"My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign."

- George W. Bush, March 19, 2003.

I still believe this day to be one of the greatest days in world history, and truly the United States' finest hour.

[Lourdes]

I'm against all forms of gun control.

I feel like I'm one of the few left-leaning people on here like this, which is especially weird since I'm left on practically everything else.

I'm anti-NRA though

[Dr. MB]

I'm against all forms of gun control.

I feel like I'm one of the few left-leaning people on here like this, which is especially weird since I'm left on practically everything else.

I'm anti-NRA though

Yeah, I feel exactly the same way.

[Virginiá]

A Democratic coalition based on suburbanites, white college graduates and upper-class whites is not inherently bad. People are generally sheep and will twist and alter their political views to fit the "tribe" they identify with, so if those people basically become Democrats, then there is a lot of latitude, policy-wise. Further, it's not just flipping previously Republican voters. Millennials have always been strongly Democratic and once they fan out into the burbs, they will shift them into the D column. Ditto for POC who are diversifying districts as well.

I agree that this kind of coalition probably isn't the best long-term bet due to the issue of higher taxes, but Democrats have to play with the hand they are dealt, not the one they want. We can't just decide we want to win "economically leftist" working class whites and then snap our fingers and make it happen. We'd have to change the entire perception of the national party, which includes de-emphasizing and/or dropping certain issues which will probably piss off other faction(s) that we need. It's a very complicated needle to thread and it takes decades to do it, not one or two election cycles.

Also, speaking in terms of pure electoral politics, white college grads are a reliable midterm voting bloc, so that is a bonus for Democrats. They need something to counter their unreasonably low-propensity voters.

[YE]

A Democratic coalition based on suburbanites, white college graduates and upper-class whites is not inherently bad. People are generally sheep and will twist and alter their political views to fit the "tribe" they identify with, so if those people basically become Democrats, then there is a lot of latitude, policy-wise. Further, it's not just flipping previously Republican voters. Millennials have always been strongly Democratic and once they fan out into the burbs, they will shift them into the D column. Ditto for POC who are diversifying districts as well.

I agree that this kind of coalition probably isn't the best long-term bet due to the issue of higher taxes, but Democrats have to play with the hand they are dealt, not the one they want. We can't just decide we want to win "economically leftist" working class whites and then snap our fingers and make it happen. We'd have to change the entire perception of the national party, which includes de-emphasizing and/or dropping certain issues which will probably piss off other faction(s) that we need. It's a very complicated needle to thread and it takes decades to do it, not one or two election cycles.

Also, speaking in terms of pure electoral politics, white college grads are a reliable midterm voting bloc, so that is a bonus for Democrats. They need something to counter their unreasonably low-propensity voters.

Not necessarily, see how the black vote suddenly turned D in 1936 and never looked back, although I’ll admit said political coalition is going to need more help from external factors like another or a slightly worse Great Recession, than I’d like. What I will say is that our present political coalitions, and I’ve said on here to you and many others, created by the Culture Wars, is not sustainable long term. Is it possible (and arguably likely) that wealthy suburbanites will vote for the first or second time a transformative progressive is on the ballot? Yes, and only really because Donald Trump drove them away. But unless said suburbanites are disproportionately affected by an economic crash (and to be fair, I think this is an underrated possibility), said suburbanites will be go away from the Dems, much like how many elites turned against the Dems in 1938 due to a recession, as soon as something goes wrong for them (as the basis of our political coalitions have changed by then, our political polarization is lower and people are less inclined to alter their political views just to fit their tribe), and in order to one, help pull this coalition off, and second, prepare for the fact the suburban trend may not be permanent, Dems IMO need to make some sort of inroad with the working class somewhere in the country.

Tl;dr Democrats need to re-invent a modern version of the New Deal coalition regardless of present political trends.

[Virginiá]

I think in the context of political appeals and strategy, white and non-white voters probably need to be looked at differently. For instance, I've posted on here an article that observes that while white voters' political leanings can be shifted by economic pressures, non-white voters barely respond to those effects. They are staunchly Democratic through and through. I'm not saying nothing will change that, but it's just not the same as it is with white voters.

As for 1938, that situation seemed inevitable. Democrats had 330+ House seats and over 70 Senate seats. That was unsustainable, without a doubt. Especially when your party controls the White House for long enough. There were a lot of older voters and other demographics who were Republican-leaning but had spurned their party for a number of years due to the economic collapse. I'd really like to see some detailed voting data based on age from this era, but unfortunately it doesn't exist.

[IceSpear]

A Democratic coalition based on suburbanites, white college graduates and upper-class whites is not inherently bad. People are generally sheep and will twist and alter their political views to fit the "tribe" they identify with, so if those people basically become Democrats, then there is a lot of latitude, policy-wise.

People underrate this factor. Notice that Medicaid expansion is an extemely popular cause celebre in "neoliberal" enclaves like Loudoun County, but was only narrowly approved in "populist" ME-02. Why? ME-02's favorite racist Republican governor told them to vote against it.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

A Democratic coalition based on suburbanites, white college graduates and upper-class whites is not inherently bad. People are generally sheep and will twist and alter their political views to fit the "tribe" they identify with, so if those people basically become Democrats, then there is a lot of latitude, policy-wise. Further, it's not just flipping previously Republican voters. Millennials have always been strongly Democratic and once they fan out into the burbs, they will shift them into the D column. Ditto for POC who are diversifying districts as well.

I agree that this kind of coalition probably isn't the best long-term bet due to the issue of higher taxes, but Democrats have to play with the hand they are dealt, not the one they want. We can't just decide we want to win "economically leftist" working class whites and then snap our fingers and make it happen. We'd have to change the entire perception of the national party, which includes de-emphasizing and/or dropping certain issues which will probably piss off other faction(s) that we need. It's a very complicated needle to thread and it takes decades to do it, not one or two election cycles.

Also, speaking in terms of pure electoral politics, white college grads are a reliable midterm voting bloc, so that is a bonus for Democrats. They need something to counter their unreasonably low-propensity voters.

Not necessarily, see how the black vote suddenly turned D in 1936 and never looked back, although I’ll admit said political coalition is going to need more help from external factors like another or a slightly worse Great Recession, than I’d like. What I will say is that our present political coalitions, and I’ve said on here to you and many others, created by the Culture Wars, is not sustainable long term. Is it possible (and arguably likely) that wealthy suburbanites will vote for the first or second time a transformative progressive is on the ballot? Yes, and only really because Donald Trump drove them away. But unless said suburbanites are disproportionately affected by an economic crash (and to be fair, I think this is an underrated possibility), said suburbanites will be go away from the Dems, much like how many elites turned against the Dems in 1938 due to a recession, as soon as something goes wrong for them (as the basis of our political coalitions have changed by then, our political polarization is lower and people are less inclined to alter their political views just to fit their tribe), and in order to one, help pull this coalition off, and second, prepare for the fact the suburban trend may not be permanent, Dems IMO need to make some sort of inroad with the working class somewhere in the country.

Tl;dr Democrats need to re-invent a modern version of the New Deal coalition regardless of present political trends.

I don't really disagree with any of what you said, but what do you mean by a new version of the New Deal coalition? Given the massive demographic (and social) changes since the '30s recreating the New Deal of a century ago or something even resembling it is politically infeasible. The modern equivalent of the New Deal coalition would have to be the Obama coalition, yes?

[Mechavada]

A Democratic coalition based on suburbanites, white college graduates and upper-class whites is not inherently bad. People are generally sheep and will twist and alter their political views to fit the "tribe" they identify with, so if those people basically become Democrats, then there is a lot of latitude, policy-wise. Further, it's not just flipping previously Republican voters. Millennials have always been strongly Democratic and once they fan out into the burbs, they will shift them into the D column. Ditto for POC who are diversifying districts as well.

I agree that this kind of coalition probably isn't the best long-term bet due to the issue of higher taxes, but Democrats have to play with the hand they are dealt, not the one they want. We can't just decide we want to win "economically leftist" working class whites and then snap our fingers and make it happen. We'd have to change the entire perception of the national party, which includes de-emphasizing and/or dropping certain issues which will probably piss off other faction(s) that we need. It's a very complicated needle to thread and it takes decades to do it, not one or two election cycles.

Also, speaking in terms of pure electoral politics, white college grads are a reliable midterm voting bloc, so that is a bonus for Democrats. They need something to counter their unreasonably low-propensity voters.

Not necessarily, see how the black vote suddenly turned D in 1936 and never looked back, although I’ll admit said political coalition is going to need more help from external factors like another or a slightly worse Great Recession, than I’d like. What I will say is that our present political coalitions, and I’ve said on here to you and many others, created by the Culture Wars, is not sustainable long term. Is it possible (and arguably likely) that wealthy suburbanites will vote for the first or second time a transformative progressive is on the ballot? Yes, and only really because Donald Trump drove them away. But unless said suburbanites are disproportionately affected by an economic crash (and to be fair, I think this is an underrated possibility), said suburbanites will be go away from the Dems, much like how many elites turned against the Dems in 1938 due to a recession, as soon as something goes wrong for them (as the basis of our political coalitions have changed by then, our political polarization is lower and people are less inclined to alter their political views just to fit their tribe), and in order to one, help pull this coalition off, and second, prepare for the fact the suburban trend may not be permanent, Dems IMO need to make some sort of inroad with the working class somewhere in the country.

Tl;dr Democrats need to re-invent a modern version of the New Deal coalition regardless of present political trends.

I don't really disagree with any of what you said, but what do you mean by a new version of the New Deal coalition? Given the massive demographic (and social) changes since the '30s recreating the New Deal of a century ago or something even resembling it is politically infeasible. The modern equivalent of the New Deal coalition would have to be the Obama coalition, yes?

Yeah by this point the "New Deal" is totally "the Old Deal".  It seems funny to bash Republicans for using a 40 year old platform when your suggestion is to use something that is older than most of our grandparents.  And anyway, it is funny that people think of FDR is the Jesus Christ of American Leftism when much of his platform was actually just moderate economic nationalism with a somewhat (emphasis) robust social welfare state, ambitious workfare projects, and the concentration of authority in not just of the federal government but of large scale industrial corporate interests, urban machinery, and other powerful boss like entities?

Yeah, that's very old school.  Enough with that.  Let's try NEW SCHOOL for once.  Democratic co-ops.  Power devolution to local boards.  Subsidized 3D Printing.  Guaranteed Income.  Etc.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Tl;dr Democrats need to re-invent a modern version of the New Deal coalition regardless of present political trends.

Don’t you want the most left wing coalition possible? I’m willing to bet white college graduate Democrats are not only far more left wing than white working class voters (that’s a given) but are even more left wing than black democrats.

[Mr. Smith]

David Tennant was not the greatest Doctor of all time in the Whoniverse (aka Doctor Who).

#Don'tSkipThe9th

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

A Democratic coalition based on suburbanites, white college graduates and upper-class whites is not inherently bad. People are generally sheep and will twist and alter their political views to fit the "tribe" they identify with, so if those people basically become Democrats, then there is a lot of latitude, policy-wise. Further, it's not just flipping previously Republican voters. Millennials have always been strongly Democratic and once they fan out into the burbs, they will shift them into the D column. Ditto for POC who are diversifying districts as well.

I agree that this kind of coalition probably isn't the best long-term bet due to the issue of higher taxes, but Democrats have to play with the hand they are dealt, not the one they want. We can't just decide we want to win "economically leftist" working class whites and then snap our fingers and make it happen. We'd have to change the entire perception of the national party, which includes de-emphasizing and/or dropping certain issues which will probably piss off other faction(s) that we need. It's a very complicated needle to thread and it takes decades to do it, not one or two election cycles.

Also, speaking in terms of pure electoral politics, white college grads are a reliable midterm voting bloc, so that is a bonus for Democrats. They need something to counter their unreasonably low-propensity voters.

Not necessarily, see how the black vote suddenly turned D in 1936 and never looked back, although I’ll admit said political coalition is going to need more help from external factors like another or a slightly worse Great Recession, than I’d like. What I will say is that our present political coalitions, and I’ve said on here to you and many others, created by the Culture Wars, is not sustainable long term. Is it possible (and arguably likely) that wealthy suburbanites will vote for the first or second time a transformative progressive is on the ballot? Yes, and only really because Donald Trump drove them away. But unless said suburbanites are disproportionately affected by an economic crash (and to be fair, I think this is an underrated possibility), said suburbanites will be go away from the Dems, much like how many elites turned against the Dems in 1938 due to a recession, as soon as something goes wrong for them (as the basis of our political coalitions have changed by then, our political polarization is lower and people are less inclined to alter their political views just to fit their tribe), and in order to one, help pull this coalition off, and second, prepare for the fact the suburban trend may not be permanent, Dems IMO need to make some sort of inroad with the working class somewhere in the country.

Tl;dr Democrats need to re-invent a modern version of the New Deal coalition regardless of present political trends.

I don't really disagree with any of what you said, but what do you mean by a new version of the New Deal coalition? Given the massive demographic (and social) changes since the '30s recreating the New Deal of a century ago or something even resembling it is politically infeasible. The modern equivalent of the New Deal coalition would have to be the Obama coalition, yes?

Yeah by this point the "New Deal" is totally "the Old Deal".  It seems funny to bash Republicans for using a 40 year old platform when your suggestion is to use something that is older than most of our grandparents.  And anyway, it is funny that people think of FDR is the Jesus Christ of American Leftism when much of his platform was actually just moderate economic nationalism with a somewhat (emphasis) robust social welfare state, ambitious workfare projects, and the concentration of authority in not just of the federal government but of large scale industrial corporate interests, urban machinery, and other powerful boss like entities?

Yeah, that's very old school.  Enough with that.  Let's try NEW SCHOOL for once.  Democratic co-ops.  Power devolution to local boards.  Subsidized 3D Printing.  Guaranteed Income.  Etc.

Yeah I'm glad you brought up FDR because I think we're underselling the role of personal magnetism in these coalitions. FDR's coalition had staying power because of his long tenure and the sheer transformative nature of his presidency, but it was built around the personality of FDR. Clinton's personality definitely carried WWC and Southern voters in a way that the party couldn't replicate after he left. Same with the Obama coalition -- it fell apart whenever he wasn't on the ballot. Trump's coalition will also splinter apart as soon as he's out of office (his constant campaign presence means the coalition will have more staying power in midterms but there will certainly be a drop off as soon as Trump leaves office).

[YE]

A Democratic coalition based on suburbanites, white college graduates and upper-class whites is not inherently bad. People are generally sheep and will twist and alter their political views to fit the "tribe" they identify with, so if those people basically become Democrats, then there is a lot of latitude, policy-wise. Further, it's not just flipping previously Republican voters. Millennials have always been strongly Democratic and once they fan out into the burbs, they will shift them into the D column. Ditto for POC who are diversifying districts as well.

I agree that this kind of coalition probably isn't the best long-term bet due to the issue of higher taxes, but Democrats have to play with the hand they are dealt, not the one they want. We can't just decide we want to win "economically leftist" working class whites and then snap our fingers and make it happen. We'd have to change the entire perception of the national party, which includes de-emphasizing and/or dropping certain issues which will probably piss off other faction(s) that we need. It's a very complicated needle to thread and it takes decades to do it, not one or two election cycles.

Also, speaking in terms of pure electoral politics, white college grads are a reliable midterm voting bloc, so that is a bonus for Democrats. They need something to counter their unreasonably low-propensity voters.

Not necessarily, see how the black vote suddenly turned D in 1936 and never looked back, although I’ll admit said political coalition is going to need more help from external factors like another or a slightly worse Great Recession, than I’d like. What I will say is that our present political coalitions, and I’ve said on here to you and many others, created by the Culture Wars, is not sustainable long term. Is it possible (and arguably likely) that wealthy suburbanites will vote for the first or second time a transformative progressive is on the ballot? Yes, and only really because Donald Trump drove them away. But unless said suburbanites are disproportionately affected by an economic crash (and to be fair, I think this is an underrated possibility), said suburbanites will be go away from the Dems, much like how many elites turned against the Dems in 1938 due to a recession, as soon as something goes wrong for them (as the basis of our political coalitions have changed by then, our political polarization is lower and people are less inclined to alter their political views just to fit their tribe), and in order to one, help pull this coalition off, and second, prepare for the fact the suburban trend may not be permanent, Dems IMO need to make some sort of inroad with the working class somewhere in the country.

Tl;dr Democrats need to re-invent a modern version of the New Deal coalition regardless of present political trends.

I don't really disagree with any of what you said, but what do you mean by a new version of the New Deal coalition? Given the massive demographic (and social) changes since the '30s recreating the New Deal of a century ago or something even resembling it is politically infeasible. The modern equivalent of the New Deal coalition would have to be the Obama coalition, yes?

A political coalition that results in the Democrats realigning the country in which class rather than the culture wars primarily define party lines emerges within a cycle or two. Yes, the Obama coalition is likely a foreshadowing of this.

[Mechavada]

FTR, in case my post wasn't very clear I see the next "Left Wing Coalition" being more centered around promoting semi-libertarian socialist concepts like workers taking control of the means of production.  Yeah I realize that sounds somewhat like Communism (at least in theory), but there are examples of this in the US (ie, "employee owned" companies).  The emphasis will likely move beyond the current debate of what the government should do to being more about how much direct authority over the economy the people themselves will have.  At this rate the concept of government as the grand guardian of the public welfare has been greatly damaged by basically most of American History in a way that it hasn't been damaged (at least not yet) in much of west and central Europe.  People aren't going to keep trusting the institution that killed millions of Native Americans, dehumanized millions of African Americans and didn't act on slavery until it literally threatened the existence of the American State, and continues to be in the hands of the billionaire class.  Sure, most people like the idea of getting things for cheap or for free but there is and always will be a grand paternalism involved in which those with privilege will always be above those who are not.

Of course how we would transition to a more truly socialist arrangement is the real question.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

A political coalition that results in the Democrats realigning the country in which class rather than the culture wars primarily define party lines emerges within a cycle or two. Yes, the Obama coalition is likely a foreshadowing of this.

Both of those coalitions arose out of response to a massive economic catastrophe. Absent that, everybody will revert to supporting people that they identify with. That doesn't need to be related to the "culture wars" but social issues are a much more effective way of activating people's identities than economic issues are.

[Lord Admirale]

NJ could be a swing state under the right circumstances and become home to the GOP in the next few decades. People here are more elastic than you think.

[YE]

A political coalition that results in the Democrats realigning the country in which class rather than the culture wars primarily define party lines emerges within a cycle or two. Yes, the Obama coalition is likely a foreshadowing of this.

Both of those coalitions arose out of response to a massive economic catastrophe. Absent that, everybody will revert to supporting people that they identify with. That doesn't need to be related to the "culture wars" but social issues are a much more effective way of activating people's identities than economic issues are.

Yes, an economic crisis of some sorts (what/how it plays out is anyone’s guess) is needed to pull this off, but it’s the only way to end the Reagan era and make the Democrats to accomplish anything more than incremental change.

[The Dowager Mod]

David Tennant was not the greatest Doctor of all time in the Whoniverse (aka Doctor Who).

#Don'tSkipThe9th

I agree, I can name 4 or 5 better.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

DeSantis will win.

[Goldwater]

Life without parole doesn't make any sense to me. If you have decided that someone is too dangerous or has done something so bad that they can never be reformed and reintegrated into society, you might as well give them the death penalty.

[Virginiá]

Life without parole doesn't make any sense to me. If you have decided that someone is too dangerous or has done something so bad that they can never be reformed and reintegrated into society, you might as well give them the death penalty.

I never really understood why people get so bent out of shape about the death penalty but then seem content with LWOP. I meannnnn..... do they not realize that locking someone in a cage for their ENTIRE LIFE is worse for most people? Not to mention people who get shoved into solitary confinement for months or years at a time, and whose minds slowly unravel. That is torture.

I'm not really in favor of the death penalty either, but simply being anti-DP but pro-LWOP seems like an issue position more designed to make the advocate feel better than contribute meaningfully to the issue of criminal justice reform.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Life without parole doesn't make any sense to me. If you have decided that someone is too dangerous or has done something so bad that they can never be reformed and reintegrated into society, you might as well give them the death penalty.

I never really understood why people get so bent out of shape about the death penalty but then seem content with LWOP. I meannnnn..... do they not realize that locking someone in a cage for their ENTIRE LIFE is worse for most people? Not to mention people who get shoved into solitary confinement for months or years at a time, and whose minds slowly unravel. That is torture.

I'm not really in favor of the death penalty either, but simply being anti-DP but pro-LWOP seems like an issue position more designed to make the advocate feel better than contribute meaningfully to the issue of criminal justice reform.

LWOP is preferable for a lot of reasons.

Would an innocent person wrongly convicted of crimes rather be given an irreversible death sentence, or a LWOP sentence that can be revoked when more evidence shows up?

[Virginiá]

Sure, that's an issue to consider. I'm just saying that, at least to me, it's strange to see people get all emotional, riled up and crazy about ending the death penalty, only to be pacified at the thought of the same criminals instead rotting in a cell until they are thoroughly broken. It makes no sense to me. If the death penalty is barbaric, then life imprisonment should be worse. Where are the picket lines for juveniles and adults alike falling apart in solitary for months on end?

As far as I am concerned, this is like refusing to eat beef because it's cruel to cattle only to later gorge yourself on chicken.