"Remind me how the things you want actually happen in our system? Do you really think manchin or Sinema were going to green light your ideas? I do not."
When things can't or won't move at the federal level, this is where the state and city level come in. You get a task forc…
"Remind me how the things you want actually happen in our system? Do you really think manchin or Sinema were going to green light your ideas? I do not."
When things can't or won't move at the federal level, this is where the state and city level come in. You get a task force of governors and mayors together to get shit done at the state level when things won't move through congress. Then you put those efforts on display and call out GOP foot-dragging in congress to show that because congress can't get its act together, governors and mayors are stepping up to act where congress won't. I consider executive orders a selective means of last resort. There is nothing "dictatorial" about getting governors and mayors to act where congress won't.
Chips act, but American, infrastructure act, Medicare negotiation that drastically decreased pricing on 15 drugs, child tax credit, waving debt, raising taxes on people making more than 400k, etc.
Ahhh the do it at the state level. Ok so we are moving the goalposts. We were talking about Biden and populism not random governors and mayors and populism. And here again, you have to get it through their legislators and dive into their politics to see what can be accomplished. Once again, I’m asking what Biden should have done that is populist that could be accomplished?
I know what you want the government to do broadly. I’m asking you honestly to explain to me how you ACTUALLY make it happen.
The CHIPS Act was not populist, neither was the infrastructure act, and neither was student debt (the majority of the country are not diploma-holders with college debt, student debt was a "blue meat" for the progressive base issue). The Child Tax Credit and Medicare negotiations were populist issues, so I'll give him credit there--especially on insulin price caps.
We're not moving the goalposts by talking about governors and mayors, because Biden is the only one within the party who has the power to single-handily unify these mayors/governors with a WH round-table. Getting that round-table to happen is something he *could* have accomplished, but instead chose not to. This is exactly how you make it happen. Yes there are state legislatures, but within blue states with large populations like CA, IL, NY, etc. that's not exactly a huge lift when the party owns the governance structures there. Even in the states where they don't have outright majorities in the legislature, it's easier to micro-target GOP reps within those legislatures at the state level than it is to get movement from GOP reps at the state level where there's more pressure around partisanship and party unity on issues.
You can’t really believe that Biden can dictate to a governor and his legislators what legislation they should pass. You can’t honestly believe that. You also can’t honestly believe that even if this were possible, which it is not, it could only happen in deeply blue states. How the fuck does that help him?!?!? He already wins those states. Come on Travis. This is so dumb I don’t even know what to say about it.
I'm not telling him to "dictate," I'm talking about a roundtable meeting designating a task force to tackle an issue, all of which would have different methods of getting that done within each stakeholder's own territories, but you can certainly establish goals and crowd-source ideas that way and get movement at *some* level since you can't get it nationally. And then when that method breeds out some successes you sell it to the broader public. "Look what we're doing in state/city ____, we could be getting this done at the national level if it weren't for GOP resistance" etc., etc. You hold the GOP's feet to the fire on the "politics of no" by showing the national voting public what can be done at the national level in the absence of stone-walling. Isn't that what the states being "the laboratories of democracy" supposed to be?
Again, I'll point to the GOP on abortion restrictions. Not every state has the same restrictions as if they were "dictated" by Trump or whoever, but you have the party acting in a form of unison at the state level there when a national ban isn't going to happen. The same could be done by blue governors/mayors on housing through a roundtable organized by the Biden WH (or Harris WH if she wins).
First you have to explain how this helps him. You keep pretending that if some blue states do something on some issue that somehow leads to political benefit to Biden. Please somehow connect those 2 thoughts.
Second, when has process ever been viewed as a political benefit? Having some meetings somewhere leads to what?
Third, if what you want is so popular why isn’t it already being done?
Fourth, your using abortion? How has this made republicans more popular? It’s literally the exact opposite of popularism.
Fifth, abortion is a national issue. You know this. It’s been a national issue because of the Supreme Court in the 70s. It has been ever since. Please show me this popular issue that has been at the national level that states could do?
I know of only one issue that even gets close. Gun control. Even that doesn’t get done locally because the sc keeps rejecting laws of blue states and republicans actively oppose it.
1st) It demonstrates leadership. It shows initiative in the face of a crisis. You have the press covering him listening and asking questions among a circle of couches or a large roundtable in the WH with governors and mayors seated there giving inputs, etc. You have him doing press briefings talking about the issues and the solutions that will be forthcoming at the state level. It shows the public that Biden--and the party more broadly--are taking the issue seriously and doing something about in the face of a congress that refuses to act. This is a lot like when Gov Abbott started taking the Texas border into his own hands when the federal government did too little on border security, but instead you have a president leading this initiative and a whole lot more than just one governor involved.
2nd) Operation Warp Speed was a process that had political benefit, and it's to this day credited as one of the only productive things that came out of the Trump admin.
3rd) Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean others have thought of it or acted on it.
4th) I'm using the *example* of abortion as a unified state-level issue in absence of federal potential, I didn't say it was a popular example. You can do popular things using a model that was previously used to do unpopular things. If you want the inverse example then look at blue states passing abortion protection legislature that's ongoing as we speak. Look at the state-level marriage equality acts that were passed before the Obergfeld decision came down (in fact, these state-level passages forced that SCOTUS to take on the issue nationally in the absence of congress passing a national marriage equality bill).
5th) Some issues are national but cannot be passed as such, and in the absence of national possibilities states act. Again, see examples like marriage equality, slavery/abolition, segregation/desegregation, abortion access/restriction, etc. A lot of the time stuff has to happen at the state level en masse before it is forced to be addressed nationally.
1. That is some of the stupidest shit I have read and you know it. You’re just waving your hand that some council meeting makes him look like a leader. Come on Travis. You’re digging this grave deeper.
2. Operation warp speed? That wasn’t a fucking process. That was a program that passed in Congress that allocated 10b dollars to make a vaccine. Come on Travis just say you were wrong. Operation warp speed was a fucking federal legislation. You know, went through the congress and signed by the president. It’s literally the exact opposite of what you are arguing.
3. Also just a completely stupid argument. I actually have no idea what you are talking about. Now all of a sudden Biden is not the president but the governor of washington? Come on man. You are wrong. If your ideas were popular they would happen. It’s so fucking annoying. People don’t raise taxes like you want not because “oh I never thought about that” it’s because it isn’t popular. What you want Travis doesn’t happen because it’s the exact fucking opposite of popular.
4. Ahh an example that is exact oppositie of popularism to make a point of popularism. Got it. Makes a ton of sense.
I find a ton of what you write really interesting. I find that you do have a lot of good ideas. However this exchange off the rocker dumb. You just won’t admit which is maddening. You just keep moving goalposts.
Finally Travis the reason the things you want done are not done is because what you want isn’t popular. I’m sorry what you want isn’t popularism. I don’t get how you haven’t realized it yet.
I don't begrudge Biden for eschewing Populist rhetoric. Not at all. In my opinion, populism tends to be popular, but highly pernicious in most (? all) cases. One of the last things we need is the two major political parties subscribing to dangerous dogma.
The primary failure of Biden's Presidency was his inability to use the Bully Pulpit to dispell hideous disinformation from the opposition. He needed to be the Explainer in Chief. Never lie, but explain - loudly - how hollow (and dangerous) Trump's rhetoric and convictions were. He should have been on TV and social media 2-3 times per week shaming the R's who consented to Trump's sabotage of the immigration plan back in the Spring. That was a dispicable politcal calculation that regular, non-college voters could've grasped, if beat over the head with it. He never did. I suspect this was largely a product of senescence of the body, as opposed to opting for timidity, but whatever the case, it was routinely an issue.
The Obama folks have publicly said that (1) the bully pulpit not only doesn’t work because the pulpit doesn’t have much reach anymore and (2) it’s counterproductive because it causes half the country to hate whatever you are pitching.
Your second argument requires Biden to grab media attention. This isn’t a him problem. This is a dem problem. Why? Because dems can’t compete with Trump and the gop on media attention because for a good reason they aren’t crazy. Think about how little Trump would be covered if he acted like Romney. The issue is he lights himself on fire hourly.
I’ll give you Biden isn’t a great communicator. But look at Harris. She is a great communicator now and never ever gets coverage. Why? Because she isn’t a lightning rod for controversy.
"First he embraced populism"
And evidence of this is where exactly?
"Remind me how the things you want actually happen in our system? Do you really think manchin or Sinema were going to green light your ideas? I do not."
When things can't or won't move at the federal level, this is where the state and city level come in. You get a task force of governors and mayors together to get shit done at the state level when things won't move through congress. Then you put those efforts on display and call out GOP foot-dragging in congress to show that because congress can't get its act together, governors and mayors are stepping up to act where congress won't. I consider executive orders a selective means of last resort. There is nothing "dictatorial" about getting governors and mayors to act where congress won't.
“And evidence of this is where exactly?”
Chips act, but American, infrastructure act, Medicare negotiation that drastically decreased pricing on 15 drugs, child tax credit, waving debt, raising taxes on people making more than 400k, etc.
Ahhh the do it at the state level. Ok so we are moving the goalposts. We were talking about Biden and populism not random governors and mayors and populism. And here again, you have to get it through their legislators and dive into their politics to see what can be accomplished. Once again, I’m asking what Biden should have done that is populist that could be accomplished?
I know what you want the government to do broadly. I’m asking you honestly to explain to me how you ACTUALLY make it happen.
The CHIPS Act was not populist, neither was the infrastructure act, and neither was student debt (the majority of the country are not diploma-holders with college debt, student debt was a "blue meat" for the progressive base issue). The Child Tax Credit and Medicare negotiations were populist issues, so I'll give him credit there--especially on insulin price caps.
We're not moving the goalposts by talking about governors and mayors, because Biden is the only one within the party who has the power to single-handily unify these mayors/governors with a WH round-table. Getting that round-table to happen is something he *could* have accomplished, but instead chose not to. This is exactly how you make it happen. Yes there are state legislatures, but within blue states with large populations like CA, IL, NY, etc. that's not exactly a huge lift when the party owns the governance structures there. Even in the states where they don't have outright majorities in the legislature, it's easier to micro-target GOP reps within those legislatures at the state level than it is to get movement from GOP reps at the state level where there's more pressure around partisanship and party unity on issues.
You can’t really believe that Biden can dictate to a governor and his legislators what legislation they should pass. You can’t honestly believe that. You also can’t honestly believe that even if this were possible, which it is not, it could only happen in deeply blue states. How the fuck does that help him?!?!? He already wins those states. Come on Travis. This is so dumb I don’t even know what to say about it.
I'm not telling him to "dictate," I'm talking about a roundtable meeting designating a task force to tackle an issue, all of which would have different methods of getting that done within each stakeholder's own territories, but you can certainly establish goals and crowd-source ideas that way and get movement at *some* level since you can't get it nationally. And then when that method breeds out some successes you sell it to the broader public. "Look what we're doing in state/city ____, we could be getting this done at the national level if it weren't for GOP resistance" etc., etc. You hold the GOP's feet to the fire on the "politics of no" by showing the national voting public what can be done at the national level in the absence of stone-walling. Isn't that what the states being "the laboratories of democracy" supposed to be?
Again, I'll point to the GOP on abortion restrictions. Not every state has the same restrictions as if they were "dictated" by Trump or whoever, but you have the party acting in a form of unison at the state level there when a national ban isn't going to happen. The same could be done by blue governors/mayors on housing through a roundtable organized by the Biden WH (or Harris WH if she wins).
First you have to explain how this helps him. You keep pretending that if some blue states do something on some issue that somehow leads to political benefit to Biden. Please somehow connect those 2 thoughts.
Second, when has process ever been viewed as a political benefit? Having some meetings somewhere leads to what?
Third, if what you want is so popular why isn’t it already being done?
Fourth, your using abortion? How has this made republicans more popular? It’s literally the exact opposite of popularism.
Fifth, abortion is a national issue. You know this. It’s been a national issue because of the Supreme Court in the 70s. It has been ever since. Please show me this popular issue that has been at the national level that states could do?
I know of only one issue that even gets close. Gun control. Even that doesn’t get done locally because the sc keeps rejecting laws of blue states and republicans actively oppose it.
1st) It demonstrates leadership. It shows initiative in the face of a crisis. You have the press covering him listening and asking questions among a circle of couches or a large roundtable in the WH with governors and mayors seated there giving inputs, etc. You have him doing press briefings talking about the issues and the solutions that will be forthcoming at the state level. It shows the public that Biden--and the party more broadly--are taking the issue seriously and doing something about in the face of a congress that refuses to act. This is a lot like when Gov Abbott started taking the Texas border into his own hands when the federal government did too little on border security, but instead you have a president leading this initiative and a whole lot more than just one governor involved.
2nd) Operation Warp Speed was a process that had political benefit, and it's to this day credited as one of the only productive things that came out of the Trump admin.
3rd) Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean others have thought of it or acted on it.
4th) I'm using the *example* of abortion as a unified state-level issue in absence of federal potential, I didn't say it was a popular example. You can do popular things using a model that was previously used to do unpopular things. If you want the inverse example then look at blue states passing abortion protection legislature that's ongoing as we speak. Look at the state-level marriage equality acts that were passed before the Obergfeld decision came down (in fact, these state-level passages forced that SCOTUS to take on the issue nationally in the absence of congress passing a national marriage equality bill).
5th) Some issues are national but cannot be passed as such, and in the absence of national possibilities states act. Again, see examples like marriage equality, slavery/abolition, segregation/desegregation, abortion access/restriction, etc. A lot of the time stuff has to happen at the state level en masse before it is forced to be addressed nationally.
1. That is some of the stupidest shit I have read and you know it. You’re just waving your hand that some council meeting makes him look like a leader. Come on Travis. You’re digging this grave deeper.
2. Operation warp speed? That wasn’t a fucking process. That was a program that passed in Congress that allocated 10b dollars to make a vaccine. Come on Travis just say you were wrong. Operation warp speed was a fucking federal legislation. You know, went through the congress and signed by the president. It’s literally the exact opposite of what you are arguing.
3. Also just a completely stupid argument. I actually have no idea what you are talking about. Now all of a sudden Biden is not the president but the governor of washington? Come on man. You are wrong. If your ideas were popular they would happen. It’s so fucking annoying. People don’t raise taxes like you want not because “oh I never thought about that” it’s because it isn’t popular. What you want Travis doesn’t happen because it’s the exact fucking opposite of popular.
4. Ahh an example that is exact oppositie of popularism to make a point of popularism. Got it. Makes a ton of sense.
I find a ton of what you write really interesting. I find that you do have a lot of good ideas. However this exchange off the rocker dumb. You just won’t admit which is maddening. You just keep moving goalposts.
Finally Travis the reason the things you want done are not done is because what you want isn’t popular. I’m sorry what you want isn’t popularism. I don’t get how you haven’t realized it yet.
I don't begrudge Biden for eschewing Populist rhetoric. Not at all. In my opinion, populism tends to be popular, but highly pernicious in most (? all) cases. One of the last things we need is the two major political parties subscribing to dangerous dogma.
The primary failure of Biden's Presidency was his inability to use the Bully Pulpit to dispell hideous disinformation from the opposition. He needed to be the Explainer in Chief. Never lie, but explain - loudly - how hollow (and dangerous) Trump's rhetoric and convictions were. He should have been on TV and social media 2-3 times per week shaming the R's who consented to Trump's sabotage of the immigration plan back in the Spring. That was a dispicable politcal calculation that regular, non-college voters could've grasped, if beat over the head with it. He never did. I suspect this was largely a product of senescence of the body, as opposed to opting for timidity, but whatever the case, it was routinely an issue.
The Obama folks have publicly said that (1) the bully pulpit not only doesn’t work because the pulpit doesn’t have much reach anymore and (2) it’s counterproductive because it causes half the country to hate whatever you are pitching.
Your second argument requires Biden to grab media attention. This isn’t a him problem. This is a dem problem. Why? Because dems can’t compete with Trump and the gop on media attention because for a good reason they aren’t crazy. Think about how little Trump would be covered if he acted like Romney. The issue is he lights himself on fire hourly.
I’ll give you Biden isn’t a great communicator. But look at Harris. She is a great communicator now and never ever gets coverage. Why? Because she isn’t a lightning rod for controversy.
I agree In theory But I’m not certain in this social media world, (everybody lives in a silo) If it would’ve worked.
Yep. The pod save America guys talked about this actually. Obama used the “bully pulpit” 3 times in his first term. He stopped using it because his
Campaign team found (1) it was ineffective and (2) actually would backfire because it made something he wanted polarizing.