The party’s progressives are diminished, but its moderates aren’t grabbing the wheel either.

This line doesn’t actually appear in the article, so I couldn’t find what sort of braindead analysis decided an election where a moderate candidate lost on 100% pure grade bipartisan moderation meant that progressives were diminished.

Yet unlike the progressive ascendance of eight years ago, it’s not clear who is leading the charge.

This is one of their two mentions of “progressive”, which itself is baffling. There was a progressive ascendance eight years ago?

Progressives like Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren became national figures and top-tier presidential candidates while opposing Trump’s policies and nominees,

Ohhh, did the author think these people only became national figures by opposing Trump? Like… What? If that’s the case, Warren’s still out there spitting fire. It didn’t make the moderates then accept her as an ideological leader 8 years ago though, so why would you expect it now.

This isn’t a news story until they actually get released, and then only if there’s something interesting inside.

lemmy.xxx

Risky click.

Edit: It’s unregistered. Which I view as a total failure of the Lemmy community.

It’s such a weirdly unserious email address too. Like apart from the .gov aspect, this sounds like a blog username, not a actual government process. Theoretically if this was just boring government policy now, you don’t need some special email address, you’d just email your supervisor or some sort of general oversight email address like any other violation of policy.

Got a source that “confusion” from having too many positions was the source of criticisms? Because I’ve seen other polls and they all had pretty specific reasons that weren’t about messaging.

The defectors the article is talking about are Republican senators. The author links to the piece about the trap:

When I followed up, asking whether Republican senators had voiced any qualms about Patel, he said they had “at first” but that he hadn’t followed up because he’s being “very careful” in a “delicate period of time.”

This is the trap Democrats keep falling into. They don’t want to come out against a Trump nominee too aggressively, out of fear of alienating Republican fence-sitters. But in the same breath, they’ll tell you that Republicans aren’t actually open to listening to what they say, as they’re determined to pass Trump’s fealty tests. So Democrats land in a place where they can neither mount an aggressive campaign, perhaps at least incurring some cost to the Republicans senators and the Trump administration, nor have any hope of swaying their GOP colleagues to their side.

Instead of worrying about the sensitivities of their colleagues, go all out against the nominee so they think confirming the nominee is an electoral risk. It’s a play to their voters.

Or they’re doing the same thing to the Democrats they’re counseling that they do to Republicans. They’re not going to change because people say “Democrats and Republicans are just play fighting so don’t bother”, they do it when they’re being attacked for inaction.

He blocked the 2,000 lb. bombs and the 500 lb. bombs. Then he lifted the restriction on the 500 lb. bombs.

I’ve definitely seen some boomer friends jump from Facebook to Bluesky after the hard right turn. I think there could be the potential to capture the lost causes as corporate social networks contort themselves into more explicit vessels for rightwing ideology.

I still don’t like facebook. Even without the other stuff, I’m just not the type to document and share my life.

…

It’s there to solve a very real problem, that nobody is asking to fix.

“I’m not the type to comment and review books, and the people I do know who do that are old, so BookWyrm is solving a problem nobody asked to fix.”

Maybe there are people, younger and more ideologically devoted to non-corporate services than your mom, who do like to share their lives with a limited set of friends and would like a service without all the evil stuff.

Not in that new-old-fashioned one, but the Book of Mormon’s got them covered.

What you mean by that is they affect you. There are Palestinians in the United States, Jewish people who want to quash the wave of antisemitism this will trigger, and other Americans who would like to not ignite another wave of anti-Americanism is the Arab world.

You don’t have to prioritize the anti-war movement over the issues that are closest to your own life and safety, but you don’t get to demand that they sideline the issues that are closest to their lives for you. Solidarity goes both ways.

This is just such a minimal impact it’s hard to get worked up about it. It’s wrong and it’s bad and it’s worse, but we have not lost a force for good in losing Bidenism. Bidenism with respect to Israel was evil. And Trump is eviler, but on this issue, there’s really not much worse it can get. On many many other issues Trump is incomparably worse, but no one should pretend Biden was in any way a bulwark against genocide and occupation.

This very story demonstrates it. In a raft of reversing Biden policies, the only things he could do for Israel was unrestricting a single bomb and removing some token sanctions. That’s the sum of Biden’s efforts to restrain Israel.

And Biden actually pushed for ceasefire and got one.

A naive genocide apologist, what a shock. Israeli commentary on the right is that there’s not much reason to still be there as they’ve pretty much destroyed everything already. The time to push for a ceasefire was this time last year, and then to actually do something to bring it about. And it’s not even a real cease fire! They’re still killing people! They’re a vast distance between the things politicians say and the things that actually happen.

“Genocide” as “a little bad” is quite the fucking choice.

Those sanctions didn’t actually do anything about the occupation. It’d be like sanctioning some random ultra-Z Russians rather than their leadership or institutions and acting like it’s curbing the occupation of Crimea. A few specific Israelis couldn’t bank with the United States, but they can just route through American-Israelis in their ranks instead. Them specifically banking wasn’t in any way important to the occupation.

Lifting the sanctions by Trump is bad, but more on the symbolism than the impact.

He literally pardoned a Proud Boy leader with a 20 year prison sentence. Of course they’re going to see it as a go ahead to be more active and overt. Be loyal and the law can’t touch you.

The occupiers are the state of Israel. Biden had some very limited sanctions against specific extremists who weren’t also Americans, but no one in their right mind thought that was somehow stopping the occupation.

No, there isn’t. They just want to blame the left for centrism failing. Arabs and anti-war sentiment are convenient and evergreen “bad guys” in centrist politics and one that has been actively reinforced by the media since the genocide began. It’s a convenient scapegoat for an across the board failure of a centrist campaign.

And if this was actually the linchpin, then it wasn’t exactly a big surprise. The whole movement was trying to raise the issue and was repeatedly ignored.

Kamala called for a ceasefire.

So did Biden. She also said she couldn’t think of anything Biden had done that she’d have done differently. There’s a good reason people were skeptical about her being any different from what’s already happening.