Democrat 2020

[Montmorency]

A goodly chunk of those opposing abortion (most) do so because they believe that life begins at conception and that that life therefore should be accorded the same chance at "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" as any other life. The goal of protecting the unborn is deemed worthy of itself and is not being used as a tool to worsen the lives of women. The thinking among them would freely acknowledge that such a restriction would be burdensome to some women and that some degree of harm would occur -- they simply view the value of human life in its totality as being of more importance than the deleterious impact on the woman who is bearing that child.

Thank you for taking time to comment, but ultimately I don't think this is meaningfully true. There is an implicit bridge that you aren't mentioning, a bridge between a personal distaste for abortion and the demand that state power of police and judiciary and civil service be wielded to suppress abortion (and contraception, and...). This bridge does not exist unless one extravagantly devalues the woman compared to the fetus. It does not exist when one does weigh the evidence and considers what legislative course of action actually serves children and reduces the frequency of abortion. It is incompatible with many freedoms from government conservatives are alleged to defend.

And yet, we know these Republicans do not value either fetuses or born children. An example of the former would be legislators of the Alabama bill (Or was it the Georgia bill? I don't care to check) admitting up front that fertilized embryos are not to be considered persons until the point where they have been implanted in the gestator. An example of the latter would be outright rejections of any social welfare spending on children in general, and the rejection of any social welfare spending on children who would otherwise have been aborted pre-ban. These examples are instantiated in the same theme in so many places over decades that it becomes a strong pattern. There's too much of the pattern to fully elucidate in a sitting, such as the ongoing criminalization of even miscarriage - something women have already been subjected to.

Restriction and subordination of women, callousness toward women and to their born and unborn children. What this logically adds up to is not a value of "protecting the unborn", but a pretext to control and punish women according to a restrictive set of sexual and gender mores. It does not begin or end with abortion. This, I would say, is the true majority of the banners. And yes, let me be the first to admit that many or most of this demographic, dominated by religious fundamentalists as it is, would often prefer not to apply such standards to themselves or their kin - they're not the fallen women, it's those other trollops. Rationing censure for outsiders is merely hypocrisy and special pleading, not a testament to less-disagreeable latent attitude.

"Conservative" might imply that banners want to return to the legal status quo ante Roe; they professedly want to go much further... These people don't care when life does or doesn't begin, they want to enslave women. Moreover, they don't care whether or not the median Republican voter is fully-committed to their maximalism, or only partially, tentatively, with qualification. A 'good Republican' counts all the same, certainly not less than a passive "moderate" or a passive liberal who unexaminedly thinks the Roe precedent insoluble forever.

And though I just alluded to it, let me say it straight for your benefit that most Republican voters (as opposed to the activists and politicians) are not maximalists on abortion - but they are overwhelmingly indifferent to or mildly supportive of maximalism.

I personally think such a view is idiotic, but there is no enforceable law against stupidity.

The venerable Constitution hopefully still counts, if we are to have equal protection of the law. Let's ratify the Equal Rights Amendment while we're at it, to make sure.

The more I think about it the more it seems we should act quickly to appropriate this phrase "you threaten my people with slavery and death" and its source material from the right, because it's so widely applicable as a retort to reactionary politics.

To give them their due, the Alabamans have passed a relatively straightforward and reasonably uncomplicated law on the issue. Saves parsing the nuances a bit and lets the courts address the issue at the core of the dispute. Nor were its proponents shy about noting that it was so designed in order to force the courts to take up the Roe Wade issue.

Of course, SCOTUS could simply let a lower court's overturning of the law stand and refuse to take up the issue. Not all efforts to force the SCOTUS to address an issue have ended the way the persons bringing the issue up had hoped.

That would be our hope, but it's a dim hope given that the Roberts court has progressively undermined the jurisprudential standard against abortion restrictions, and is a particularly activist court in the overturning of precedent (see previous post).

But forget about these abortion bans, there is a good bet that Roe is a dead letter within a year due to another case. Would you like me to explain? Spoilered:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

You might recall some years back a Texas law that aimed to close down abortion clinics by imposing arbitrary architectural and medical licensing requirements on them ("arbitrary" in the sense that the Herculean labors were arbitrary). In 2016 the Supreme Court struck the law down in Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt in a 5-3 decision, because arbitrary obstacles impose an undue burden. NB this was not long after Scalia's death. Fast forward to late 2018, and a substantially-similar Louisiana law was upheld in federal appeals court in clear contravention of the just-established Supreme Court precedent. The case is June Medical Services v. Gee.

Roberts decided to grant an emergency stay against the appelate decision. But this is probably because Roberts is defending his own authority, not because he's afraid of licensing the sub silentio demolition of abortion protections. How do we know? Because the stay is temporary, and will expire upon the court's decision to take or not take the case. Letting the stay lapse leaves the SCOTUS-flouting appelate decision in place and declares open season against abortion for all reactionary jurists.

But wait! - I thought Roberts valued the authority of his court? Probably - that's why he'll personally overrule 2016's Whole Woman's Health.

But wait! - maybe he'll be centrist and uphold the precedent? Lol nah, he voted with the minority to uphold Texas' law in Whole Woman's Health. Why would he suddenly vote to reject a near-carbon copy?

Roberts, Alito, Thomas were the 3 dissenters in the 5-3 in Whole Woman's Health in 2016. They are now joined on the bench by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted rejecting the stay in June Medical in 2018.

The Supreme Court must now decide whether or not it will hear the case. If they don't hear the case, the stay lapses and the law goes into effect. If they hear the case, then a majority of the justices have previously voted to uphold this kind of law. If the law is upheld by SCOTUS, then states are licensed to shut down every single operating abortion clinic and they're guaranteed to push that envelope with a receptive majority on the Supreme Court.

Heh. Hee hee.

HA HA HA HA HA HA H-

@ACIN
@Strike

Read the spoiler. The court either hear this case or let the stay expire by the end of the session in June 2020, a year from now. Those are the only two options. Does reading this increase your confidence in a forthcoming mortal blow, one way or another, to Constitutional abortion rights?

[Strike For The South]

Read the spoiler. The court either hear this case or let the stay expire by the end of the session in June 2020, a year from now. Those are the only two options. Does reading this increase your confidence in a forthcoming mortal blow, one way or another, to Constitutional abortion rights?

Or They simply state Hellerstedt is still law. Which they can do. The appeals court said the Louisiana case was factually different than the Texas one. In reality, its a bald face attempt to force something to change because they perceive to have the numbers now.

Or summary reversal, as laid out here. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/s...rily-reversed/

I mean this pretty much pits the institution against the politics(which has always been a struggle, but this is very blatant). We will have to see which one of us is right.

[Montmorency]

Or They simply state Hellerstedt is still law. Which they can do. The appeals court said the Louisiana case was factually different than the Texas one. In reality, its a bald face attempt to force something to change because they perceive to have the numbers now.

Or summary reversal, as laid out here. https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/s...rily-reversed/

I mean this pretty much pits the institution against the politics(which has always been a struggle, but this is very blatant). We will have to see which one of us is right.

I mark your procedural note, but when you say "they simply state Hellerstedt is law," you mean Roberts and the liberals, right? The rest have made their positions clear, such as with Kavanaugh dissenting from the stay decision arguing notably that one can't assess the impact of a law before allowing it to take effect.

But Roberts is on record defending the underlying law that was subject of WWH. Why would he reverse a ruling or hold to strike down a law that is ostensibly, but not truly, factually different from the law he wanted to uphold? Because he respects recently-established precedent? That's not proven a barrier in the past...

I would be surprised at this point. 60% the Louisiana law survives entirely, 30% Roberts finds compromise in preserving parts of the law, 10% WWH still controls. We sure will have to see. These are going to be a tense 500+ days.

[Strike For The South]

Typically, the court would say it controls. The court being one voice.

I will say this, if Roberts uses this to break precedent, I will be on board for whatever judicial shuffling you want lol.

[Montmorency]

Right. I'm not trying to like, dunk on y'all for swagger, it's just that my internal model of how the world works as developed up to this moment has very strong predictions to make on the input.

Humor break:

“I think that if you look, when I went to North Korea there were nuclear tests all the time, there were missiles going up all the time,” Trump said on “Fox News Sunday.” “But, they haven’t had any tests over the last two years — zero.”

North Korea fired off some small weapons, which disturbed some of my people, and others, but not me. I have confidence that Chairman Kim will keep his promise to me, & also smiled when he called Swampman Joe Bidan a low IQ individual, & worse. Perhaps that’s sending me a signal?

North Korea fires two rounds of missiles, 2nd launch in a week, South Korea says

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is just depressing. I'm supposed to be escaping the news in a national park this weekend.

I hope you are wrong Monty, but I would put my money on you.

[Husar]

I'm supposed to be escaping the news in a national park this weekend.

I guess you have to enjoy them before they're converted into drilling sites.

[Montmorency]

This is just depressing. I'm supposed to be escaping the news in a national park this weekend.

I hope you are wrong Monty, but I would put my money on you.

I'm sorry about that. I'm a bad person. I should be less of a manic dilettante exulting in the aesthetic quality of degrading anomie and spend more time identifying and amplifying the good news.

Like in spite of having its structure specified in the Constitution, the Senate by its nature is so inconsistent with the democratic rights of a polity that existing jurisprudence would consider it unconstitutional if a state government were to attempt to replicate the Senate at a lower level. Therefore - uh...

Wait

[Montmorency]

Shit, I just came to understand that there's no reason to believe Sanders' ideological preferences are much different from those of standard Democrats - not because they're further left than meets the eye, but because Sanders really is nothing more than a New Deal/Great Society liberal in both policy preferences and rhetoric.

Sanders offers no fundamental criticism of capitalism.

[Husar]

Shit, I just came to understand that there's no reason to believe Sanders' ideological preferences are much different from those of standard Democrats - not because they're further left than meets the eye, but because Sanders really is nothing more than a New Deal/Great Society liberal in both policy preferences and rhetoric.

Sanders offers no fundamental criticism of capitalism.

Well, first of all I think his preferences are in some cases more genuine than those of the other democrats.
And secondly, I don't necessarily want communism if I can have well-regulated capitalism. You don't get guarantees that it will always be good in either system.
There can be advantages to both, it's complicated.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I suspect that Churchill's comment on the democracy is apt here. Capitalism is the worst form of economic structuration...except for all the others.

[Montmorency]

I suspect that Churchill's comment on the democracy is apt here. Capitalism is the worst form of economic structuration...except for all the others.

I'll retort with Zhou Enlai's admonition that it's too soon to say.

If anyone's interested, here's an up-to-date timeline of Trump's trade policies.

[Shaka_Khan]

You can see the 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests starting at 1:50.



Edit: Sorry, I read the thread title as Democracy 2020.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Shit, I just came to understand that there's no reason to believe Sanders' ideological preferences are much different from those of standard Democrats - not because they're further left than meets the eye, but because Sanders really is nothing more than a New Deal/Great Society liberal in both policy preferences and rhetoric.

Sanders offers no fundamental criticism of capitalism.

Even our space operas and sci-fi stories can't imagine a future without capitalism (with exception of pre Deep Space Nine Star Trek).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Even our space operas and sci-fi stories can't imagine a future without capitalism (with exception of pre Deep Space Nine Star Trek).

Even in old Trek there were capitalists -- though Rodenberry's basic premise was that energy was so "cheap" that most things were at an extremely low unit cost and that day-to-day subsistence was without struggle.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Even in old Trek there were capitalists -- though Rodenberry's basic premise was that energy was so "cheap" that most things were at an extremely low unit cost and that day-to-day subsistence was without struggle.

You might be right, I just seem to recall a TNG episode where they unfreeze a venture capitalist who expresses frustration that there is nothing to buy or trade since the replicator provides to all. Picard tells him people work to improve themselves nowadays and that money is obsolete.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You might be right, I just seem to recall a TNG episode where they unfreeze a venture capitalist who expresses frustration that there is nothing to buy or trade since the replicator provides to all. Picard tells him people work to improve themselves nowadays and that money is obsolete.

An episode wherein they encounter the Ferengi, who do practice old-school capitalism. Again, the basic premise was that, with a replicator handling most things, the unit cost of the large majority of items made subsistence issues irrelevant. Only rare goods, power source (dilithium crystals) etc. were of marked value.

[Shaka_Khan]

Whoever owned the replicator must've been rich and powerful, unless he or she replicated the replicators.

[CrossLOPER]

Whoever owned the replicator must've been rich and powerful, unless he or she replicated the replicators.

It's probably really cheap and easy to manufacture, otherwise this might be the case. It could also be subsidized by the government.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Kamala and Pete off to a strong start in the first round of debates. That's the ticket of the future.

Biden is going to get hammered on his past.

[Montmorency]

Kamala and Pete off to a strong start in the first round of debates. That's the ticket of the future.

Biden is going to get hammered on his past.

You reading New York Times food critics? Well, I'll bite my tongue.

But it's confirmed that New York will not play a role in the selection, having set its primary date as April 28. Put a vote in for [redacted] for me on Super Tuesday.

(Did you know New York has sent 5 or 6 men to the White House in American history, but New York City only once?)

[a completely inoffensive name]

You reading New York Times food critics? Well, I'll bite my tongue.

But it's confirmed that New York will not play a role in the selection, having set its primary date as April 28. Put a vote in for [redacted] for me on Super Tuesday.

(Did you know New York has sent 5 or 6 men to the White House in American history, but New York City only once?)

I'm so confused. I follow the 538 live blog, not the NYT since 2016.

[Montmorency]

I'm so confused. I follow the 538 live blog, not the NYT since 2016.

I saw this article today in the NYT op eds, seemed serendipitous.

But the whole contemporary mass-media "debate" format just gets worse and worse, and reminds me why I've never bothered to watch political "debates". I wish one of the candidates would just stage a communist revolution on set and seize the means of communication from MSNBC to distribute among all the candidates. Whoever manages that presumably becomes frontrunner by default for their skillful display of leadership.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I saw this article today in the NYT op eds, seemed serendipitous.

But the whole contemporary mass-media "debate" format just gets worse and worse, and reminds me why I've never bothered to watch political "debates". I wish one of the candidates would just stage a communist revolution on set and seize the means of communication from MSNBC to distribute among all the candidates. Whoever manages that presumably becomes frontrunner by default for their skillful display of leadership.

It's a common reaction to the debate. They just handled themselves better than the rest. Don't blame Frank for saying the obvious. What Frank doesn't touch upon which is typical for NYT is that the age of Sanders and Biden doesn't show a "generational divide", it showed just how slow they are to respond and how quick they are to anger and evasive statements.

Bill Maher brings up "ageism" as being the last acceptable discrimination, yet, we are seeing the problems with older candidates such as Biden, Sanders, and Hilary. They are unable to emote, rely too much on canned statements, and double down on policies which were politically convenient in the past and morally outrageous today (e.g. Biden's opposition to Federal busing). These are character traits that are diametrically opposed to the values of young liberals and progressives who tout candidates that are blunt, empathetic, and carry a sense of authenticity. I think Bernie in the 2016 election did showcase two of the three values (his bluntness and authenticity), but unfortunately I think he lacks in the empathetic department which is now becoming an issue when other progressive candidates make Bernie's image go from revolutionary to angry neighbor.

As the sole progressive voice it was refreshing to hear him in 2016. Now that he opened the floodgates he should have done what Biden also should have done and acted as an elder statesman who could push the next generation to success. But as Biden said in the debate "I'm still holding the torch."

I'm voting for Williamson btw.

EDIT: To be clear, what I am getting at is that commentaries like the NYT make the point that I just did of emphasizing the characteristics that people like to see, but then dance around the 'why' with vague terminology.
Trump won because he was the oldest, the most unstable and struck in a backwards mentality reflective of the greater Republican psyche. For the Democrats it's the opposite, and at this point we should call it for what it is. Older people just can't deliver what Democrats want. And I say that as someone who was secretly waiting for Jerry Brown to announce his candidacy all last year. But now that I see things through this context, I'm glad he called his career over and went home.

[Husar]

I can't say I'm following the issue closely, but can you actually believe that the other candidates will follow "Bernie's" agenda as much as he would? You say the others are more authentic, but Bernie has basically had this agenda for over 20 years, if that is more authentic than someone who just has it now because the old guy showed that it can be trendy nowadays, then I don't know what makes authenticity anymore.
It's not wrong to change your mind, but the Democrats have always had the great ideas and delivered very little in the past decades. Perhaps in part because they couldn't, but somehow the Republicans often can do a lot more, or so it appears. I'm not sure I buy that they're all serious, plus they mostly seem to have picked one or two of his ideas to differentiate themselves instead of going with the whole package. You'd have to go through 3-4 presidencies to get all of it. (you might have to anyway of course)

I also suppose that if you've been saying the same things for over 20 years and hardly anyone ever listened, it's not surprising that they may sound memorized now or that you'd get tired of people saying "you should've come with that when you were younger!" because that's basically what you did, but they didn't want the ideas back then because they failed to realize their importance...basically "blaming" Bernie for his age is like externalizing the fault for not having seen the importance of his positions earlier.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I can't say I'm following the issue closely, but can you actually believe that the other candidates will follow "Bernie's" agenda as much as he would? You say the others are more authentic, but Bernie has basically had this agenda for over 20 years, if that is more authentic than someone who just has it now because the old guy showed that it can be trendy nowadays, then I don't know what makes authenticity anymore.
It's not wrong to change your mind, but the Democrats have always had the great ideas and delivered very little in the past decades. Perhaps in part because they couldn't, but somehow the Republicans often can do a lot more, or so it appears. I'm not sure I buy that they're all serious, plus they mostly seem to have picked one or two of his ideas to differentiate themselves instead of going with the whole package. You'd have to go through 3-4 presidencies to get all of it. (you might have to anyway of course)

I also suppose that if you've been saying the same things for over 20 years and hardly anyone ever listened, it's not surprising that they may sound memorized now or that you'd get tired of people saying "you should've come with that when you were younger!" because that's basically what you did, but they didn't want the ideas back then because they failed to realize their importance...basically "blaming" Bernie for his age is like externalizing the fault for not having seen the importance of his positions earlier.

I said the others were more empathetic than Bernie. Bernie is one of the most authentic candidates given he is the only one embracing the democratic socialist label.

When Bernie gets asked about race relations he pivots back to economics. You can call it avoiding Identity Politics, but it's not a good look to try to unite the workers of the world with color blind lenses.

Look, success in politics is always dependent on timing, as men who are ahead of their time are always by nature of being ahead, ignored in their own time. I can certainly blame his age in the now, because he chooses to ignore the bad timing and forces himself into the conversation when the time is ripe to act as an advisor not as the face of his cause.

2016 was his year and he certainly made the most of his legacy in that year. I think he is squandering that now.

[Montmorency]

I'm voting for Williamson btw.

Not sure if serious.

I can't say I'm following the issue closely, but can you actually believe that the other candidates will follow "Bernie's" agenda as much as he would? You say the others are more authentic, but Bernie has basically had this agenda for over 20 years, if that is more authentic than someone who just has it now because the old guy showed that it can be trendy nowadays, then I don't know what makes authenticity anymore.

What is the concept of authenticity as a particularly valuable trait compared to character, executive ability, and experience? You don't elect a leader merely for things they believe, or else you would maybe vote for me and that would be a silly idea. A lot of people think Trump is "authentic" too, and the way to make this coherent despite Trump being one of the most prodigious liars and eminence fronters in human history is if many of his supporters like the idea of someone letting loose and acting like a slovenly piece of shit with no repercussions. All that, and research finds that politicians usually try to effect the promises they make and positions they stake while campaigning; Trump has certainly done so, he knows his stakeholders. So what exactly is the independent value of "authenticity?"

I would say Warren has developed the ideas Sanders subscribes to more comprehensively than he has; while he keeps repeating the same lines about how billionaires and corporations have too much power, Warren identifies concrete social problems derived from that fact and offers a map to address them, while connecting them all to a comprehensive narrative of economic freedom.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Not really comprehensive in the sense that every major problem is identified and addressed in terms of the long-term world-historical transformation necessary to save humanity, but no politician has offered that scope, and Sanders is far from it.

It's not wrong to change your mind, but the Democrats have always had the great ideas and delivered very little in the past decades. Perhaps in part because they couldn't, but somehow the Republicans often can do a lot more, or so it appears. I'm not sure I buy that they're all serious, plus they mostly seem to have picked one or two of his ideas to differentiate themselves instead of going with the whole package. You'd have to go through 3-4 presidencies to get all of it. (you might have to anyway of course)

First we should revisit some history. To simplify, the Democratic mainstream was pushing many of these "democratic socialist" (admittedly New Deal liberal) ideas in the 1970s, and some of them, like universal healthcare and a job guarantee, appeared to be close to fruition (just like union militancy seemed to be reaching new heights in the 1970s). Democrats continued to maintain strong majorities in both chambers of Congress. This is why Nixon's record of signing progressive legislation can be confusing at first glance. You have to understand that these emerged from the Democratic Congress and Nixon only signed them because he felt he had little choice but to pay lip service to Keynesianism. Unfortunately this was a very bad moment for left-wing politics because economic stagflation, social upheaval (e.g. the reaction of white Americans to the civil rights movement), the beginnings of capital flight and globalization as we know it severely weakened the position of the radical left and of labor movements after Nixon. The Republicans pivoted to become the party of neoliberal business and social reaction. Because the Republicans won resounding victories throughout the 1980s in the White House and states, the Democratic establishment moved right to a degree and also accepted neoliberalism. This paid off to some extent with the Clintonian Third Way victories of the 1990s, but it also meant that a lot of the major legislation they managed to pass under Clinton had a poisonous element of being too assimilated to Republican principles (e.g. welfare reform, repeal of Glass-Steagall). The fruit of this was in 2000 when the 5 Republican justices awarded Bush Jr. the presidency even though the Dem candidate Gore probably won Florida narrowly. As you know Bush Jr. proceeded to have a Top 3 Worst Presidency, and while the Congressional Republicans still struggled to achieve their goals of undermining Medicare and Social Security, the Democratic politicians elected by now tended to be conservative in the sense of very cautious and there was little appetite to stick out their collective necks in advancing bold new programs. (Though some good ones, like CHIP, did maintain the party's pro-worker agenda on the margins).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Another layer of American politics you should keep in mind is that between 1945 and 1980+ the two parties hadn't really sorted yet (e.g. there were segregationists or post-segregationists in the Dem caucus even up to the Obama admin), so there was considerable cross-party voting throughout the mid-20th century that hasn't existed for many years.

The short story of the Obama admin is that, while he was mistaken in trying so hard to appeal to Republicans, and he was too influenced by neoliberal advice on topics like stimulating economic recovery, retraining, and school choice, his record of left legislation is the most extensive and dramatic since the 1960s, the ACA being only one of his accomplishments. What you have to understand is that the Congressional Dems didn't have the numbers (e.g. 60+ solid Senators) to pass more sweeping changes, and after 2010 of course we saw increasing Republican majorities that foreclosed any possibility of progress. Just to use the ACA as an example, the window of time where there were 60 Senators to pass it lasted a couple of months, and conservative Senators like Joe Lieberman (who was retiring anyway) held it hostage until it shed major provisions like the public option; Obama couldn't do anything about the intransigence of conservative Dems or Independents. To speak directly then, the Congress was the limiting factor on Democratic ideas and policies.

Now, part of the reason the Democrats lost the House and so many state offices during the Obama admin is that Democratic voters themselves tend to place too much emphasis on the Presidency at the expense of all other offices, including legislative offices generally. This is a serious weakness in mindset because the history I told should impress on you the lesson of how important an active legislature is to policy success. (As an aside I would remind you that the legislature possesses all the regulatory powers the executive lacks; though Trump seems to be very active in using what executive power he does have, he uses it mostly to wreck and sabotage, which is of course easier than building something.) The Republican base has more discipline IMO.

Though I skipped over Jimmy Carter, you should mark the legislative-executive relationship between his and Nixon's terms. Despite having a somewhat stronger Dem Congress than there was under Nixon, Carter was a muddled executive who did not understand how to prioritize policy and work with Congress to get it passed. That's why he personally couldn't get progress on his legislative wishlist (though Congress was still legislating its own priorities, including where they overlapped). Some accused Carter of being so enamored of his good ideas that he thought he could simply dictate them and they would just become reality. A lesson with respect to Sanders and his weak record as a Rep/Senator, or his murky record as a manager, I would say. Though of course a Republican president would never cooperate with a Democratic Congress today, the derived principle remains that a strong Dem Congress with an active left flank (e.g. AOC) combined even with a conservative Democratic President like Joe Biden is worth more than a weak Democratic or even a Republican Congress combined with a radical President who makes Sanders look like Margaret Thatcher. If a progressive Congress wants to pass progressive legislation, it will get it done - all the President needs to do is sign it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not sure if serious.

love will drive out Trump's hate. Then we will call New Zealand.

[Montmorency]

love will drive out Trump's hate. Then we will call New Zealand.

But at the top of every mountain is another, taller, mountain. And there are no mountains in New Zealand.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But at the top of every mountain is another, taller, mountain. And there are no mountains in New Zealand.

Just to nit pick your premise about a strong congress > strong president. You can't get a strong congress without a strong president precisely because of the Democratic mentality you pointed out. The game is to have a strong presidential candidate to carry all the down ticket choices.

I do have some hope that we are changing that mentality by focusing on the Congressional leaders, in particular we need to shine more attention on Mitch McConnell and less on Donald Trump.