LogFAQs > #955675528

I think that's putting the cart before the horse. Or you're arguing what Dems should do once they get into power while Inviso is arguing how they have to get to power.

I agree with you that once Dems achieve power they should absolutely push for sweeping legislation to help people even if it means they'll suffer electorally in the short-term. This is what happened with the ACA - Pelosi got the House in line to vote for it even when both she and some of her members knew they'd be ending their political career by voting for it. Of course, the problem was that thanks to Lieberman and the like in the Senate the ACA they ultimately signed and paid that price for was extremely watered down and nowhere near what it could or should have been.

As has been touched on, much of the problem is that the GOP is far more monolithic. It has wholly embraced identity politics and then had Trump's cult of personality thrown on top of that too. The Democrats are basically a coalition of a number of different groups that have at times differing and even opposing views so even when they have the majority as a whole, the internal conflict within can mean it doesn't have an effective majority on a given issue. If the majority were large enough you might be able to navigate that without too much trouble, but given it's not - and the electoral structure of government further disadvantages them from ever getting one like that - it becomes a clusterfuck.

Even still, it's immensely disappointing that the one thing I thought could unify them - voting rights - is apparently not important enough in the minds of a handful of them and thereby likely tanks the entire thing. I had discarded hopes for most big, necessary changes even after Georgia because a 50+1 majority is so fragile but it's failed to meet even my pessimistic bar.

---

xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?