NM Senate- Progressive challengers defeat five conservative Democrats

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Speaking of Kay Papen, who is the oldest sitting politician in the country? It wasn't an easily-googlable answer.

[lfromnj]

Speaking of Kay Papen, who is the oldest sitting politician in the country? It wasn't an easily-googlable answer.

Fred Riser Wisconsin.

[Hammy]

Looking at legislator's ACU ratings - it seems, that the word "conservative" must be used here in strictly relative sense (as all 5 have 20-30 ratings by ACU standards). Real conservatives in the past usually had 80+ from ACU... At least - 70. Former Democratic congressman from New Mexico Harold Runnels, for example, had lifetime ACU rating 79 (a couple percentages higher, then his Republican counterpart, btw..)

yeah, this is a disappointing sign of the Democrats' continued leftward lurch excluding moderates, not some toppling of conservative scions

It seems like New Mexico progressives had a major breakthrough. They (apparently) defeated five conservative Democratic senators who had formed an IDC-like coalition with Republicans that controlled the senate, despite it being nominally 26-16 Democratic.

When you make a deal to give the opposing party legislative control despite your party holding the majority, you need to go, period.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Mary Kay Papen is 88 years old. Ridiculous.

She's got nothing on Fred Risser, who's 93 and is still serving as a Wisconsin State Senator since 1962 (and before that as State Representative from 1957).

He's retiring this year, though

He'll hold the record as the longest-serving US legislator unless Chuck Grassley runs for another term.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

the Democratic Party should have a place for everyone, including pro-life people.

Well, no. I mean, if you want to vote for us, then great, but that is an absolute red line for me when it comes to elected Democrat officials. And this is coming from a guy most on Atlas would consider representative of moderate, pro-establishment Democrats. Certainly, I want Dems to be a party of good government which compromises and can build majority coalitions spanning multiple ideologies, but what good is a party if it doesn't have some philosophical cohesion? At the very least, we should expect absolute unity amongst elected officials on issues of human rights, which of course encompasses abortion.

Access to healthcare is also a human right, but plenty of pro-establishment Democrats either don't back a public option or deliberately push for ones that aren't universal. I'd unironically prefer JBE to many of the worst corporatists who happen to be pro-choice because his non-universal support of human rights still helps many more people than theirs.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

the Democratic Party should have a place for everyone, including pro-life people.

Well, no. I mean, if you want to vote for us, then great, but that is an absolute red line for me when it comes to elected Democrat officials. And this is coming from a guy most on Atlas would consider representative of moderate, pro-establishment Democrats. Certainly, I want Dems to be a party of good government which compromises and can build majority coalitions spanning multiple ideologies, but what good is a party if it doesn't have some philosophical cohesion? At the very least, we should expect absolute unity amongst elected officials on issues of human rights, which of course encompasses abortion.

Access to healthcare is also a human right, but plenty of pro-establishment Democrats either don't back a public option or deliberately push for ones that aren't universal. I'd unironically prefer JBE to many of the worst corporatists who happen to be pro-choice because his non-universal support of human rights still helps many more people than theirs.

Every Democrat backs Obamacare, which provides access to universal healthcare for almost everybody. I can't think of any Dem who doesn't support reforms to make  universal healthcare possible. Also, I do contest your characterization of healthcare as a human right. I support single payer healthcare because I think it's good policy, but characterizing social programs as human rights to me degrades the meaning of what human rights truly are. 

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

the Democratic Party should have a place for everyone, including pro-life people.

Well, no. I mean, if you want to vote for us, then great, but that is an absolute red line for me when it comes to elected Democrat officials. And this is coming from a guy most on Atlas would consider representative of moderate, pro-establishment Democrats. Certainly, I want Dems to be a party of good government which compromises and can build majority coalitions spanning multiple ideologies, but what good is a party if it doesn't have some philosophical cohesion? At the very least, we should expect absolute unity amongst elected officials on issues of human rights, which of course encompasses abortion.

Access to healthcare is also a human right, but plenty of pro-establishment Democrats either don't back a public option or deliberately push for ones that aren't universal. I'd unironically prefer JBE to many of the worst corporatists who happen to be pro-choice because his non-universal support of human rights still helps many more people than theirs.

Every Democrat backs Obamacare, which provides access to universal healthcare for almost everybody. I can't think of any Dem who doesn't support reforms to make  universal healthcare possible. Also, I do contest your characterization of healthcare as a human right. I support single payer healthcare because I think it's good policy, but characterizing social programs as human rights to me degrades the meaning of what human rights truly are. 

It isn't universal if it's "almost".

Why do you think it degrades the meaning of human rights? These can be positive freedoms as well as negative ones.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

the Democratic Party should have a place for everyone, including pro-life people.

Well, no. I mean, if you want to vote for us, then great, but that is an absolute red line for me when it comes to elected Democrat officials. And this is coming from a guy most on Atlas would consider representative of moderate, pro-establishment Democrats. Certainly, I want Dems to be a party of good government which compromises and can build majority coalitions spanning multiple ideologies, but what good is a party if it doesn't have some philosophical cohesion? At the very least, we should expect absolute unity amongst elected officials on issues of human rights, which of course encompasses abortion.

Access to healthcare is also a human right, but plenty of pro-establishment Democrats either don't back a public option or deliberately push for ones that aren't universal. I'd unironically prefer JBE to many of the worst corporatists who happen to be pro-choice because his non-universal support of human rights still helps many more people than theirs.

Every Democrat backs Obamacare, which provides access to universal healthcare for almost everybody. I can't think of any Dem who doesn't support reforms to make  universal healthcare possible. Also, I do contest your characterization of healthcare as a human right. I support single payer healthcare because I think it's good policy, but characterizing social programs as human rights to me degrades the meaning of what human rights truly are.  

It isn't universal if it's "almost".

Why do you think it degrades the meaning of human rights? These can be positive freedoms as well as negative ones.

I know, but basically every Dem supports reforming the healthcare system to make it absolutely universal. Policy proposals vary, but that fact remains the same.

Eh, I like to reserve the phrase human rights for what I believe are the absolute most fundamental and can be applied to any time period or social structure. This would include bodily autonomy, life, speech, religion, etc. I just think the phrase gets overused. That's just me being picky though and it doesn't really modify my political views.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

the Democratic Party should have a place for everyone, including pro-life people.

Well, no. I mean, if you want to vote for us, then great, but that is an absolute red line for me when it comes to elected Democrat officials. And this is coming from a guy most on Atlas would consider representative of moderate, pro-establishment Democrats. Certainly, I want Dems to be a party of good government which compromises and can build majority coalitions spanning multiple ideologies, but what good is a party if it doesn't have some philosophical cohesion? At the very least, we should expect absolute unity amongst elected officials on issues of human rights, which of course encompasses abortion.

Access to healthcare is also a human right, but plenty of pro-establishment Democrats either don't back a public option or deliberately push for ones that aren't universal. I'd unironically prefer JBE to many of the worst corporatists who happen to be pro-choice because his non-universal support of human rights still helps many more people than theirs.

Every Democrat backs Obamacare, which provides access to universal healthcare for almost everybody. I can't think of any Dem who doesn't support reforms to make  universal healthcare possible. Also, I do contest your characterization of healthcare as a human right. I support single payer healthcare because I think it's good policy, but characterizing social programs as human rights to me degrades the meaning of what human rights truly are.  

It isn't universal if it's "almost".

Why do you think it degrades the meaning of human rights? These can be positive freedoms as well as negative ones.

I know, but basically every Den supports reforming the healthcare system to make it absolutely universal. Policy proposals vary, but that fact remains the same.

No. Most of the public option proposals put about in the primary - and these are the optimistically progressive ideas fielded to a primary electorate rather than the bills that make it to onto the floor of Congress after the lobbies are through with their allies - have statistically meaningful explicit and implicit exceptions. That goes for all of the ones that were fleshed out apart from Harris' and O'Rourke's.

Eh, I like to reserve the phrase human rights for what I believe are the absolute most fundamental and can be applied to any time period or social structure. This would include bodily autonomy, life, speech, religion, etc. I just think the phrase gets overused. That's just me being picky though and it doesn't really modify my political views.

I think human rights can be universally applied to previous time periods even if they were universally rejected in previous time periods. We should acknowledge that past societal structures failed to uphold human rights in part because it would be impossible to support them all with retrograde technology/the tools of pre-industrial socieities.

I also support the 1st amendment, but not being killed by the greed of insurance companies is just as fundamental a human right to me. Of course there are philosophies that would lead one to a different viewpoint, but I'm not sure to which you were referring when you suggested that access to abortion for those who can afford it is a more fundamental human right than access to life-saving treatment for those who can't. Presumably, this philosophy would need to be well-articulated across the Democratic caucus if unity was to be built on the basis of it rather than a series of inconsistent purity tests.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

the Democratic Party should have a place for everyone, including pro-life people.

Well, no. I mean, if you want to vote for us, then great, but that is an absolute red line for me when it comes to elected Democrat officials. And this is coming from a guy most on Atlas would consider representative of moderate, pro-establishment Democrats. Certainly, I want Dems to be a party of good government which compromises and can build majority coalitions spanning multiple ideologies, but what good is a party if it doesn't have some philosophical cohesion? At the very least, we should expect absolute unity amongst elected officials on issues of human rights, which of course encompasses abortion.

Access to healthcare is also a human right, but plenty of pro-establishment Democrats either don't back a public option or deliberately push for ones that aren't universal. I'd unironically prefer JBE to many of the worst corporatists who happen to be pro-choice because his non-universal support of human rights still helps many more people than theirs.

Every Democrat backs Obamacare, which provides access to universal healthcare for almost everybody. I can't think of any Dem who doesn't support reforms to make  universal healthcare possible. Also, I do contest your characterization of healthcare as a human right. I support single payer healthcare because I think it's good policy, but characterizing social programs as human rights to me degrades the meaning of what human rights truly are.  

It isn't universal if it's "almost".

Why do you think it degrades the meaning of human rights? These can be positive freedoms as well as negative ones.

I know, but basically every Den supports reforming the healthcare system to make it absolutely universal. Policy proposals vary, but that fact remains the same.

No. Most of the public option proposals put about in the primary - and these are the optimistically progressive ideas fielded to a primary electorate rather than the bills that make it to onto the floor of Congress after the lobbies are through with their allies - have statistically meaningful explicit and implicit exceptions. That goes for all of the ones that were fleshed out apart from Harris' and O'Rourke's.

Eh, I like to reserve the phrase human rights for what I believe are the absolute most fundamental and can be applied to any time period or social structure. This would include bodily autonomy, life, speech, religion, etc. I just think the phrase gets overused. That's just me being picky though and it doesn't really modify my political views.

I think human rights can be universally applied to previous time periods even if they were universally rejected in previous time periods. We should acknowledge that past societal structures failed to uphold human rights in part because it would be impossible to support them all with retrograde technology/the tools of pre-industrial socieities.

I also support the 1st amendment, but not being killed by the greed of insurance companies is just as fundamental a human right to me. Of course there are philosophies that would lead one to a different viewpoint, but I'm not sure to which you were referring when you suggested that access to abortion for those who can afford it is a more fundamental human right than access to life-saving treatment for those who can't. Presumably, this philosophy would need to be well-articulated across the Democratic caucus if unity was to be built on the basis of it rather than a series of inconsistent purity tests.

You're right, but literally everybody's proposals increase the number of people with access to healthcare. To me, that indicates they viewed the task of getting everyone healthcare as too difficult to do rather than holding the position that healthcare shouldn't be absolutely universal.

I disagree on your position regarding human rights, just because I think they should be possible to uphold in any time period. If some right requires post-industrial revolution technology to the upheld, then I'm going to disagree with categorizing it as a human right, although it may remain very important to me. I think by keeping the phrase human rights limited, it becomes easier to identify and condemn the most egregious violations of human rights.

Regarding abortion, that's a bodily autonomy issue to me. While it is certainly more important that millions of people have access to general healthcare services than abortion services, I view laws which restrict what a woman can do with her body to be more clear-cut violations of human rights. Again, it's just terminology, but that's where I stand.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

the Democratic Party should have a place for everyone, including pro-life people.

Well, no. I mean, if you want to vote for us, then great, but that is an absolute red line for me when it comes to elected Democrat officials. And this is coming from a guy most on Atlas would consider representative of moderate, pro-establishment Democrats. Certainly, I want Dems to be a party of good government which compromises and can build majority coalitions spanning multiple ideologies, but what good is a party if it doesn't have some philosophical cohesion? At the very least, we should expect absolute unity amongst elected officials on issues of human rights, which of course encompasses abortion.

Access to healthcare is also a human right, but plenty of pro-establishment Democrats either don't back a public option or deliberately push for ones that aren't universal. I'd unironically prefer JBE to many of the worst corporatists who happen to be pro-choice because his non-universal support of human rights still helps many more people than theirs.

Every Democrat backs Obamacare, which provides access to universal healthcare for almost everybody. I can't think of any Dem who doesn't support reforms to make  universal healthcare possible. Also, I do contest your characterization of healthcare as a human right. I support single payer healthcare because I think it's good policy, but characterizing social programs as human rights to me degrades the meaning of what human rights truly are.  

It isn't universal if it's "almost".

Why do you think it degrades the meaning of human rights? These can be positive freedoms as well as negative ones.

I know, but basically every Den supports reforming the healthcare system to make it absolutely universal. Policy proposals vary, but that fact remains the same.

No. Most of the public option proposals put about in the primary - and these are the optimistically progressive ideas fielded to a primary electorate rather than the bills that make it to onto the floor of Congress after the lobbies are through with their allies - have statistically meaningful explicit and implicit exceptions. That goes for all of the ones that were fleshed out apart from Harris' and O'Rourke's.

Eh, I like to reserve the phrase human rights for what I believe are the absolute most fundamental and can be applied to any time period or social structure. This would include bodily autonomy, life, speech, religion, etc. I just think the phrase gets overused. That's just me being picky though and it doesn't really modify my political views.

I think human rights can be universally applied to previous time periods even if they were universally rejected in previous time periods. We should acknowledge that past societal structures failed to uphold human rights in part because it would be impossible to support them all with retrograde technology/the tools of pre-industrial socieities.

I also support the 1st amendment, but not being killed by the greed of insurance companies is just as fundamental a human right to me. Of course there are philosophies that would lead one to a different viewpoint, but I'm not sure to which you were referring when you suggested that access to abortion for those who can afford it is a more fundamental human right than access to life-saving treatment for those who can't. Presumably, this philosophy would need to be well-articulated across the Democratic caucus if unity was to be built on the basis of it rather than a series of inconsistent purity tests.

You're right, but literally everybody's proposals increase the number of people with access to healthcare. To me, that indicates they viewed the task of getting everyone healthcare as too difficult to do rather than holding the position that healthcare shouldn't be absolutely universal.

If the argument is 'must at least stand still or improve on an issue', this philosophy (which I'd subscribe to in the context of casting a GE vote) allows for acceptance pro-life types so long as they're not arguing for especially stronger restrictions to abortion than those which currently exist. If the argument is to make allowances where not doing so would lead to excessive expenditure of political capital ultimately resulting in greater harm in the long term, that is a vindication of JBE and (incidentally) why I consider him an FF.

I disagree on your position regarding human rights, just because I think they should be possible to uphold in any time period. If some right requires post-industrial revolution technology to the upheld, then I'm going to disagree with categorizing it as a human right, although it may remain very important to me. I think by keeping the phrase human rights limited, it becomes easier to identify and condemn the most egregious violations of human rights.

I think this sort of essentialism - basing human rights on whether basic needs could always be fulfilled rather than the existence of the needs themselves - leads to a dead end. Take, for instance, the right to a fair trial - this requires legal systems that simply weren't possible in much earlier societies.

A more extreme example would be someone drowning in a swimming pool. They should have been saved whether or not there was someone there to do it and the hypothetical existence of the capability to save them mandates an effort to ensure it is done.

Regarding abortion, that's a bodily autonomy issue to me. While it is certainly more important that millions of people have access to general healthcare services than abortion services, I view laws which restrict what a woman can do with her body to be more clear-cut violations of human rights. Again, it's just terminology, but that's where I stand.

If what you're getting at is the individualist prioritisation of negative freedoms over positive ones, it is a perfectly consistent philosophy.