Since her shock primary win in August, Nixon has complained about Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee recalcitrance to anyone who will listen. In September, she told MS NOW hosts Symone Sanders Townsend and Eugene Daniels that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was less than thrilled about her race.

“When I did speak with Sen. Schumer on the phone, it was basically a ‘we will see,’” she said. “He’s going to look into it. That’s what was said, that he’s going to look into it.”

Nixon went on to say that Democrats were wary of throwing in behind a Black woman in the South following Kamala Harris’ 2024 loss: “Folks are a little gun-shy because, unfortunately, Vice President Harris lost as a Black woman, and so people are being very hesitant in terms of funding Black women, especially in the South.”

[–] [S] 2 points 10 hours ago (1 child)

“Now, Democrats must deliver,” the progressive senator wrote, urging her party to push Trump to live up to his vow to work with Democrats in the new Congress. “We should force him to do that on the affordability and corruption issues that drove this election—or call his bluff.”

Warren is stating Democrats need to mandate the fuck up and pass the policies, that the American people want, send it on it's way to Trump and the Republicans and dare them to veto it.

The fact that Trump will veto it or that the Republicans won't vote for the override don't matter to Warren and what we progressives have been saying this entire time. Just do it, show you are delivering, and then tell the story loud and proud that you pass the law and Republicans told the American people no, stop giving a fuck about what Republicans will do and just do you.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 3 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

    First, you can't just add the percentages from two groups without knowing the raw numbers and call it the total percentage. That's not how percentages work.

    Second, my point isn't that corruption was the thing that was driving the vote, it's that it is also a major concern for the Independent voters too. You're looking at the whole group of polled Independent voters who answered 44% said economy, so yes, we agree that the major driver is the economy, no argument here. You also had 28% of them say democracy/corruption was their major driver.

    That's not a insignificant percentage.

    Source if you want to look at the breakdowns yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 9 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

    Per SRSS voter poll from the election:

    Yes, the economy is the biggest thing they had but also coming in second is the state of democracy and corruption was high on the list too.

    And as the author stated:

    There’s one story that does this better than any other: anti-corruption. To many voters, it is the explanation for why gas costs so much; why inflation endures; why education, housing, and health care have become so expensive; and especially why they feel like they can’t get ahead.

    Democratic leadership, if they were smart and effective, would be talking about the war in Iran, ending it, investigating it, hold Republicans responsible for the the war and the prices at the pump, effectively taking care of both issues of the economy and democracy in one go. That would have made those Independents and Demorcrats and Progressives happy.

    But no, we didn't get that at all from leadership.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] [S] 6 points 15 hours ago* (1 child)

    You'd think but then we have Shumer's low energy, self fellating victory speech and Jefferies milquetoast stating that no impeachment was on the table when he knows holding Republicans accountable for things like ICE/Iran war was a big deal for Democrats and Progressives. Hell with the Iran war, he could have simply stated they were going to stop it and investigate it and it would have killed two birds with one stone.

    But no, they're just tone deaf AF. I honestly don't understand it either, I think they're just too insulated by consultants, corrupted by money, and listening to their Baily's to understand things.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    For Arendt, facts and opinions, “though they must be kept apart, are not antagonistic to each other; they belong to the same realm.” A fact (her example is Germany’s invasion of Belgium in August 1914) “acquires political implications only by being put in an interpretative context.” Whoever reports what happened, she wrote, “always tells a story, and in this story the particular facts lose their contingency and acquire some humanly comprehensible meaning.”

    ...

    That is what Arendt meant when she argued that organizing people together to change the world—that is to say, doing politics—requires an approach that rejects outright lying while also avoiding a complacent expectation that “the truth” will reveal itself for voters to follow. The narrative wars have begun. If Democrats are smart, they’ll opt for storytelling instead.

    view more: next ›