Author Topic: The Squad  (Read 230 times)

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
The Squad
« on: August 12, 2020, 10:26:53 AM »
So all 4 members of The Squad easily won their primaries with huge margins. Even though there was large outside the district money supporting others running against them (most likely from conservative groups trying to get rid of them). Will the Squad get a few more members this fall.  Let's wait and see.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Squad
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2020, 10:51:25 AM »
I thought the conservative groups loved them (read loved to hate them). I see AOC used by conservative PAC's in my state's Senate race.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Squad
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2020, 12:21:08 PM »
Clearly it was massive voter fraud, especially vote by mail.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Squad
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2020, 12:37:04 PM »
Well they also have an obvious problem in that they did not win 100% of the vote. With out broad support (I mean who calls 2/3 to 3/4 of the votes broad support) how can they ever expect to claim that their election as legitimate?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Squad
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2020, 02:00:09 PM »
Not to mention the mass votes from illegal immigrants who came from the garbage countries that the squad comes from. Why won't they just go back where they came from?

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Squad
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2020, 03:56:50 PM »
The only valid point is that these extremists come from extremist districts that support them. They, themselves, are pretty bad, but what made their districts so extreme is the biggest thing to focus in on. Insanity is not supposed to be contagious, so something else must be involved.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Squad
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2020, 04:06:19 PM »
Probably something like a propaganda machine, like Fox News or Brietbart. ;)

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Squad
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2020, 04:06:49 PM »
What made their districts so extreme?  Poverty? Hunger? Homelessness? Being ignored by those in power?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Squad
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2020, 04:31:40 PM »
I think Lambert has a skewed idea of "extreme" unless he means "extremely different than what I think".

69% of voters support medicare for all
67% support a $15 minimum wage
85% support mandatory paid sick leave
51% think that police are too militarized
55% support decriminalizing drugs
77% support campaign finance reform and limits on campaign spending
70% support 100% renewable energy in the near future

The only item on her platform that I could find that didn't have widespread national support would be this.

25% support abolishing ICE

I'm not sure you could call that extreme, though it is unpopular. So I hate to break it to you, wm, but these are mainstream views. There's nothing magical about the districts.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Squad
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2020, 04:41:35 PM »
Doing the math, it sounds like about 66.7% of the population wants to be Canada.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Squad
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2020, 04:42:57 PM »
Doing the math, it sounds like about 66.7% of the population wants to be Canada.

Extreme role model, and extreme temperatures!

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Squad
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2020, 01:39:53 PM »
I think Lambert has a skewed idea of "extreme" unless he means "extremely different than what I think".

I did a big researched response to this the other day, but I forgot to post it.  The long and short is that Lambert is correct about these districts being atypical.  3 of the 4 are tiny districts wholly comprised of neighborhoods in a major city, the fourth (Pressley's) is slightly bigger in that it covers parts of Boston and parts of its sub-urb communities (like Cambridge).  AOC's was the one of the four most recently held by a Republican and that was in the early 90's (30 years back) and only then because AOC's district included different neighborhoods, for the other 3 you have to go back further or even WAY further to find the last time they weren't held by a Democrat (you have to go back 60 years for Omar's district, 70 years for  Tlaib's, and 98 years for Pressley's to find their last Republican representative).  They are the exact essence of "safe" Democratic districts with no diversity of political thought (they range from Progressive/Liberal to ultra Progressive/Socialist).   These are districts whose sense of leftist outrage and sense of unfairness in government is the direct result of decades, or even a century of being managed by Democrats.

Pressley's, at least, is openly the result of race based gerrymandering designed to increase minority representation in Congress - the only kind of race based gerrymandering allowed (and in fact it's required) under the voting rights laws.

There's nothing wrong with such districts existing, but they are not remotely mainstream.  They are fringe districts of highly concentrated voters with little to no diversity of political thought or ideas on how to accomplish things.

Quote
69% of voters support medicare for all

As a pie in the sky philosophy.  But only because they've been lied to about what it means.  They believe they will keep their private insurance and medicare "for all" is really for other people.

Majority opposes it when you make clear they would lose their current insurance.  Majority opposes it when you make it clear they have to pay for it (you can "flip" this result if you lie and claim their combined tax and premium load will be lower and they will get the same services).  Majority opposes it if you explain that it requires delays in testing or procedures (which all such systems include).

But sure, if you lie about what it is, you can get majority support for a "sounds nice" version.

Quote
67% support a $15 minimum wage

But have no qualms about not paying it to their babysitters and domestic help.  This one reflects a poor understanding of economics for the most part and falls apart when you explore specific cases.

Quote
85% support mandatory paid sick leave

Which is also supported by the Republican's and the Trump White House.  No one accepts that there don't need to be exceptions to certain employers being responsible for paid sick leave and there's not yet a majority of even democrats that are willing to put the state and federal government on the hook to make up the difference. 

As yourself, assuming you live in a progressive community, how many of you neighbors pay their baby sitter when the sitter is sick and can't take care of their kids?  How many will pay a contractor who can't show up on the job?

Quote
51% think that police are too militarized

Which is true, but is largely a bunch of buzzwords in their mind.  You can find larger margins that think the police take too long to respond, that the police should "do something" about violent crime, or for any number of things that involve violence by the police.

Quote
55% support decriminalizing drugs

I think this is a misstatement on your part.  Support to decriminalize addicts is not the same as support to decriminalize drugs, and I'm not aware that there is a majority supporting decriminalizing any drug other than possibly marijuana.  Or do you think there's 55% support to allow Herion sales?

Quote
77% support campaign finance reform and limits on campaign spending

Might as well make this 100%.  Even politicians and deep partisans "support" this, they just really support doing it in ways that impair their political opponents and not themselves.

Problem is that this is practically the test case for a situation where every solution is at least as bad as the problem, which means that claiming that any member of the squad is on the same side as the majority here is pretty much a lie.  The Squad supports hurting Republicans and helping themselves, they don't support real reform that doesn't benefit their own side disproportionately. They are literally as much of the problem as every other politician.

Quote
70% support 100% renewable energy in the near future

Might as well say 100%.  This is nothing but support of an aspiration.  That number drops below 10% rapidly, when you try to get them to pay electric bills that bear the unsubsidized costs of that 100% renewable power and give them options on which provider to select.   Let their power go into brown out mode because renewables don't - yet - provide consistent power flow when needed and you get riots.

Again, it's easy to get broad support for broad aspirations.  What percentage of people have supported the space program?  Or think we need to put a person on Mars?   It's really high, until you ask them if they support redirecting $2 trillion out of the budget to fund it.  Because reality is "supporting" an aspiration costs nothing about makes someone feel good.  We're all pro-recycling, but when you ask homeowners to do multi-stream recycling and separate different kinds of plastic compliance drops through the floor.  Because support is really just barely more than zero costs.

Quote
The only item on her platform that I could find that didn't have widespread national support would be this.

That was behind a pay wall.  I did look at her platform on her Congressional site, and there's a good bit on there that is not subject to broad support, particularly when you explain how it would be implemented. 

I mean look at masks.  There's too much politicization on this point, but there should be broad support for wearing masks.  You can see it in some other countries.  Will that mean there is broad support for Federal marshals (ie, federal storm troopers as the Dem's like to refer to them) showing up in every local community and arresting people who are not wearing them?  We already know the answer - it'll be political - if Trump sends them it's storm troopers and they'll be met with violence by radical leftist protestors.  If Biden sends them it will be a "common sense" necessity that doesn't violate anyone's rights even if they have to kill people on the right and bust their heads to enforce it.

Quote
I'm not sure you could call that extreme, though it is unpopular. So I hate to break it to you, wm, but these are mainstream views. There's nothing magical about the districts.

There's nothing "magical" about a district, but it's absolutely false to claim these are not extreme districts - they are that's just not magic.  Whether aspirations are main stream has zero to do with whether a persons policies to achieve those aspirations are main stream.  The Squad's policies are way off the scale on how they do everything, they are not mainstream.  Given the current state of mis-education in this country it's certainly possible that they will become mainstream.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Squad
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2020, 02:52:46 PM »
Oh sure, we all know about gerrymandering and safe districts. Those aren't extreme, they are common. And being a Democrat isn't extreme. You could find many such districts dominated by even the progressive wing of the party (whisper... what used to be the crazy Bernie progressive ideas are now mainstream, not extreme).

Regardless of how many policies people have really thought through, that they are wrong about, or that they support in name only - none of that bears on whether such ideas are extreme.

CATO report on poverty, wealth, and work

Quote
Decriminalizing drugs would reduce the number of people who have difficulty finding employment because of a nonviolent drug offense. A majority (55%) of Americans favor recategorizing drug offenses from felonies to civil offenses so that the offenses would be treated as minor traffic violations rather than crimes.

This is where AOC sits, not Heroin For All, wherever you got that from.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Squad
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2020, 03:15:10 PM »
Oh sure, we all know about gerrymandering and safe districts.   Those aren't extreme, they are common.

Apparently you don't.  Gerrymandering to create minority representation to satisfy the voting rights act is not the same thing as gerrymandering to create safe districts.  It's not common, but it's not extreme.

That has nothing to do with the fact that the composition of these four districts is in fact extreme.  There are plenty of Republican districts that are just as extreme, that you could list a dozen positions that are decidedly mainstream and popular there and with their reps.  None of that would make those districts "mainstream" either.

Quote
And being a Democrat isn't extreme. You could find many such districts dominated by even the progressive wing of the party (whisper... what used to be the crazy Bernie progressive ideas are now mainstream, not extreme).

I didn't say that being a Democrat is extreme.  I said these districts are extreme even for Democrats.  And any district that hasn't switch parties for 30 or more years is pretty much as a factual matter demonstrably off the mainstream.

Quote
Regardless of how many policies people have really thought through, that they are wrong about, or that they support in name only - none of that bears on whether such ideas are extreme.

The lack of ideological diversity really does speak to the lack of being in the mainstream.  You seem to be confusing "mainstream Democratic" with "mainstream" and ignoring that these districts are to the left of mainstream democratic.

Quote
Quote
Decriminalizing drugs would reduce the number of people who have difficulty finding employment because of a nonviolent drug offense. A majority (55%) of Americans favor recategorizing drug offenses from felonies to civil offenses so that the offenses would be treated as minor traffic violations rather than crimes.

This is where AOC sits, not Heroin For All, wherever you got that from.

Exactly what I said, decriminalizing addicts, not drugs.