The Democrats have been the party of the free trade and globalization, while also supporting the working class. There is a problem with this approach. Free trade and globalization means that goods are cheaper, the economy is more efficient, and the nation on the whole is wealthier. Unfortunately, a lot of these efficiencies come at the expense of many US based working class jobs. This is why the Democrats have been less union over the years, unless they are supporting teachers, police officers, or other government unions.

The war in Ukraine could slow down and reverse a lot of globalization. Supply chain issues that we've seen during the pandemic have also been particularly. Maybe we'll start making more things in America again and perhaps the Democrats will do a better job supporting working class Americans.

We are living in interesting times. I'll guess we'll see what happens.

What do you expect Dems to do at the federal level if they do not have the votes in the Senate?

The Democrats in democrat states have enacted paid parental leave, paid sick leave, higher minimum wages, banned non compete, and many other pro labor laws. At the federal level, the Dems got ACA pushed through also, even though they barely had the numbers and still had to compromise a lot due to just having 50 or 51 Senators, meaning the 1 or 2 Democrats in name only can hold legislation hostage to their will.

It just happened again last year with the Build Back Better bill.

I mean you're basically echoing my point - the Democratic party at the national level doesn't have the willpower to get pro-worker legislation through.

And it's not just because they suck at winning elections, but also because they actively welcome anti-labor candidates into their ranks and crush the more progressive primary challengers even in safe blue districts.

Not to mention that the executive branch has the power to go after labor law violators and for the most part just doesn't.

I do not think I echoed that. I said that Democrats have not had a majority by more than 1 for a long time. That is just numbers, it has nothing to do with willpower. You cannot realistically expect every single party member to toe the line, so effectively, as a party they have to compromise heavily just to get the things through that they have.

Surely not being able to expect every single party member to toe the line cuts both ways. If you need N and have N in your party, either get all of them, get a few from the other party, or content yourself to accomplish nothing.

There’s been a lot of door #3 being chosen.

It is obviously a matter of willpower.

The Republicans have no problem getting their moderate members to toe the line on their more extreme stuff.

"Moderate" Republican party members would make their statements about "this isn't the way things are done' every time Trump did something crazy, but every single one folded and fell in line, every single time.

If it was the priority of the Democratic national party leadership to get real, actual big legislation done that benefited workers over companies and investors, then they would. They do everything they can to block, blacklist, and crush campaigns of progressive primary challengers. They could do that to the "moderate" members who don't want to pass any legislation at all, if passing that legislation was really a priority.

It's just obviously not something they care about, and it's obvious why.

The party is run by obscenely wealthy members and donors, just like the Republicans are.

> If it was the priority of the Democratic national party leadership to get real, actual big legislation done that benefited workers over companies and investors, then they would.

Without 51 Senate votes, how?

I would rather not have politicians that “fall in line” for the party’s sake, and rather “fall in line” for the country’s sake.

>It's just obviously not something they care about, and it's obvious why.

>The party is run by obscenely wealthy members and donors, just like the Republicans are.

I think the fact that Democrat states exclusively have better worker protections and laws says a lot more about which party is run by who. Not to mention that federal Democrats actually propose things like universal pre K, expanding access to healthcare (note Republican states exclusively opted out of Medicaid expansion), and so on and so forth.

> "Moderate" Republican party members would make their statements about "this isn't the way things are done' every time Trump did something crazy, but every single one folded and fell in line, every single time.

The obvious counter-example to this is John McCain's vote to preserve Obamacare and sink the republication attempt to end it. Since then, despite a 2-year period where Republicans controlled house, senate and presidency under Trump, they still could not get a repeal bill passed, due largely to their moderate members.

That doesn't offset all the political sabotage and hostage taking the Republican party has been pulling off since 94.

What exactly is the "extreme stuff" Republican legislatures get through? They got the tax cut, but all of them agreed to that anyways.

Also, Manchin is from one of the reddest of red states, so the Democrats don't really have any leverage on him.

I think you're mistaking an electoral Catch-22 for "willpower" and desire.

Because the Republican party tends to line up with rural voters, they have a statistical advantage in both the Senate and the Electoral College; because of gerrymandering, they actually have a statistical advantage in most House races, too. (That last one is more complicated, but the short version is that when Democrats are in charge of redistricting they tend to favor putting nonpartisan committees in charge of drawing district lines, while when Republicans are in charge of redistricting they tend to favor drawing the lines themselves for partisan advantage.)

The upshot of that means that Republicans can and do win elections by appealing to their most partisan voters, but Democrats literally can't do that. Republicans can get rid of moderate Republicans and still win enough elections to maintain or even gain power; Democrats cannot get rid of moderate Democrats and get the same result.

So, actually, no, the Democrats can't "block, blacklist, and crush" campaigns of moderate members. They can do that to progressives in districts that are still swing districts, whose voters seem to be largely centrist. Maybe that's good, maybe that's bad, but statistically speaking, when centrist Democrats run in those swing districts they win more often than progressive Democrats do. Joe Manchin is not from a swing state; he's from a state that went for Trump by 35 points in 2020. He's a fluke, and if he loses his seat, he ain't gonna be replaced by someone who votes with Democrats nearly as often as he does -- which is, IIRC, about 70% of the time. This is something else that often gets lost: the truth is that the most conservative Democrat still votes with Democrats a majority of the time, just like the most liberal Republican still votes with Republicans a majority of the time.

Maybe this balance will change; maybe it'll change sooner rather than later. But there seems to be this pervasive idea on the Left that Democrats would be able to pass all the legislation they wanted if they just had enough strength or willpower or something, and that just isn't true, no matter how much we might wish otherwise. If you only have 51 people on your side, counting the VP, and a single one of them is determined to keep the filibuster, then you're going to keep the filibuster. There is no amount of pressure you can put on that person that's meaningful, because you will need them on your side for other battles, they know it, and you know it. And if you keep the filibuster and there is no way you will peel 10 people off from the other side no matter what the bill is, you're not going to pass anything that can't get around the filibuster. Period. Full stop.

> Because the Republican party tends to line up with rural voters, they have a statistical advantage in both the Senate and the Electoral College

Yep. And frankly it's something of a miracle that we ever have a Democrat in the White House, and a 50-50 Senate.

Many people (myself included, sometimes) complain about how Democrats seem to suck so hard at winning elections, but the system is so heavily stacked toward Republicans, it's pretty impressive that Democrats manage to hold majorities at the federal level at all.

> but statistically speaking, when centrist Democrats run in those swing districts they win more often than progressive Democrats do.

Turnout is abysmal in these races. I have volunteered in multiple progressive races and it is such an uphill battle to increase turnout by even a few points. Many districts are won by brand loyalty(ie. a politician has been running for decades and so he is a known figure).

>They do everything they can to block, blacklist, and crush campaigns of progressive primary challengers. They could do that to the "moderate" members who don't want to pass any legislation at all, if passing that legislation was really a priority.

Manchin's a senator from West Virginia, a state that went for Trump by 39 points. Crushing him would just have McConnell not bringing any legislation to a vote again.

Executive orders to get as much as they can rammed through. Then its on Republicans to repeal popular programs and suffer the consequences.

1) Reclassify Marijuana as a non schedule 1 drug. (Finally a bill got through the house today to get the ball rolling but Biden could have done this day 1)

2) Declare COVID a national emergency and use that criteria to extend Medicare temporary to the rest of the country. Lets see the Republicans try to repeal that and not get beaten down to nothing.

There are many more things he could have done but does not want to. I have typed up this list so many times that it is tiring because it has been discussed to death at this point. Biden's upcoming historic losses are completely his and his party's fault.

The current Republican strategy is to run on nothing and they are pulling ahead.

I think you're thinking too short term.

Support for deregulation (of workers rights), global free trade and an alignment with the financial class has been a bipartisan effort for a long time. Democratic policy hasn't been pro-labor in a long time. At best it's labor ambivalent but they support plenty of policies that hurt (American) labor as a direct and obvious byproduct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#United_States

The parties are symbiotic.

The big tent of the Democratic Party wouldn’t exist without the regimented command & control model of the Republicans.

Personally, I think that you’ll see party platforms shift as the current cohort of old people die off and their replacements are poorer and angrier. The parties of 1920, 1960, 2000 and 2040 are and will be different things.

The "few others" are a cadre of younger politicians. As millennials continue to win elections, the hope is that the tide will shift. Gen Z is even better because they have never had any illusion that this was a workable system.

Unfortunately the Boomers will cling on to power until their last dying breath. (ex. Nancy Pelosi running for re-election yet again).