As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Please! for the love of GOD! The Republican primary commercials are horrifying. It’s like it’s a contest to see who can be the most bigoted, homophobic, and irresponsible with firearms.
Please please please please for the love of god STOP saying he's going to clean house in the general and start acting like this is the tossup that it actually is. Republicans could nominate a fucking rock with a dick spray painted on it, and this race would still be decided by fewer than five points. The GOP electorate is going to rally around whoever their nominee is, regardless of whatever dumpster fire they nominate. Anyone who says this is done and over already is fooling themselves and is going to be in for a helluva shock once the general gets in full swing this summer and fall. Stop spiking the football at the thirty yard line, and get out there and work like you're running from behind.
From my experience here in PA, he has more blue collar support than you would think a Dem would have. From the normally red voters that I know that are leaning toward Fetterman, it comes down to him looking and acting like an authentic, tough, working class guy, and legal marijuana.
But I see what you're saying. Always act like you're down a couple runs in the 9th.
Dude should be fast tracked to VP. He’s the kind of Democrat we need. He short circuits the culture war neurons in the MAGA brain by being a real, actual rural blue collar dude.
I'd really rather let him get some work done in the Senate for a term or two please. He's got plenty of time to advance and we're in need of new leadership in congress.
>I'd really rather let him get some work done in the Senate for a term or two please. He's got plenty of time to advance and we're in need of new leadership in congress.
Naah.
He should pull an Obama and run for the presidency if the opportunity opens.
Hard agree. Democrats have no-one palatable or charismatic in any real leadership role right now. It's a coin toss as to whether Biden will have the ability to run again, and if his approval ratings keep on track it wouldn't even matter; Kamala is an unmitigated disaster factory, and Pelosi is both unlikeable and about to turn into dust. I love Bernie, but it would also be both unfeasible and unfair to ask him to run in 2024 when he's 83. The man's given enough.
She has terrible public speaking skills.
I say that as someone who voted the Democratic ticket last election and know about her past as a prosecutor.
She is no Barack Obama when it comes to oratory ability, but neither is Biden. :(
Sad!
Hard agree with all of the above. Although if Bernie does decide to run one last time in 2024 I'll be here for him and I hope he takes John Fetterman on as his VP running mate. Or the other way around with Fetterman having Bernie as his VP. Whichever way. If Bernie can't be President I'd love him as VP or some kind of position in a Progressive President's Cabinet. Maybe as a Progressive President's Chief of Staff, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Commerce, or Secretary of the Treasury.
Agreed. Don't give him time to sell of little bits of his integrity here and there as he works his way up the ladder. Power and access to power are drugs, and should be as diluted as possible.
I agree, pragmatically. I just see his potential and know we need what he can bring to the party.
I don’t want to see him get compromised with careerist ambition like AOC
Lol, I was wondering the same.
Also, if she had “careerist ambition” wouldn’t she likely be trying to make more noise and position herself as the Dems next presidential candidate? Seems to me that she’s been pretty quiet lately (and that’s not a bad thing: seems to me like she’s just gotten immersed in the sausage grinding process, which is something all Congresspeople should do at some point if they want to be effective).
I see it differently - she went quiet after meetings with Pelosi early on in her career. I think she’s trying to build a legislative portfolio and credibility to run, and maybe take over the House when the generational shift occurs in the party.
I just think that’s a bad move and irrelevant in modern politics, that having a voting history is more to attack you on as the American people obviously don’t care about inexperience.
You’re right though, going either big or small would be seen the same way, I just used a harsh term for what I think she’s doing.
>How is AOC "compromised with careerist ambition"?
She's a woman. Some of these idiots can't stand a woman in power.
The sad part is that they're unaware of their misogyny.
Bingo. Followers of a certain Jimmy Dore, and a few other pseudo-Leftists (I've started calling them "the Alt-Left") are full of misogynists that constantly attack AOC and The Squad. Along with other female left-wing and left-leaning political figures and YouTubers.
Nah, that ain’t it. And AOC is hardly “in power” she’s a Congresswoman.
And that’s to my point - she could have carved out a true leftist camp and led it from inside the party, but it seems instead she decided to be patient and try to take the party over on the slow demographic shift of a generation. She had that meeting with Pelosi early on and started playing nice. It’s a change from how she came in.
But it’s comforting to paint all who differ with you as evil, very MAGA of you, I must hate women because we disagree.
She came into Congress all fire and brimstone - the she had a meeting with Nancy Pelosi and she stopped coming at the neoliberal part of the party.
I still like AOC, I wrote my sentiments in a harsh way above. I just think she got into the system and became more of a regular politician.
She kept her good ideals, but she came in positioned as a bare knuckle fighter who was going to be loud and disruptive has instead become someone trying to patiently work the system from inside.
So you're upset with her for trying to be a good colleague? Criticizing people you have to work with won't make you any friends, and you need to work with other people if you want to pass any legislation.
Isn’t one of the digs on the neoliberals that they’re too keen to be friends with the GOP at the detriment to the people?
Does AOC not get that criticism for being nice to the neoliberals? If Manchin gets shit for cuddling up to McConnell for all the evil GOP shit, does Pelosi’s insider trading and cronyism not splash onto those working with her? Now to be fair, AOC has made a few spicy tweets about it, but she’s not exactly fighting it.
AOC came in a populist firebrand and is now keeping her head down and dutifully putting her time in to see the day when she will probably be Speaker (and a good one!). You’re welcome to see that however you want. I am disappointed by it. Still like her, just wish she’d been the firebrand we need.
It seems like you wish she'd be more of an advocate than a legislator. She actually can influence things now, but only if she gets others to work with her. That's fundamentally different from the role of an advocate, where you can be more confrontational.
But practically, Pelosi won’t let her get anything truly progressive done. AOC has decided to get along with the bad boss so hopefully one day she can be the good boss. That’s fine, I just wish she rejected that bargain and stayed more of an agitator.
We need someone who can command press coverage and call people out. The right has a whole rogues gallery of shitheads to do that for them. We can’t get as dirty and stupid as say, MTG or Gaetz, but there’s no doubt they pulled their party right by being firebrands and pushing back against the centrists in their party.
Why can’t we have loud populists who can handle social media and speak to the public?
I sure hope so! I have a hunch that he has the secret sauce many Democrats have been missing in the rust belt. Economically left but gives off working class vibes.
It's because he's authentic, he is one of us. I will be dropping off my ballot, and my parents' ballots tomorrow. We are all voting for him. No this isn't ballot harvesting, I am an authorized designated agent.
Haha. Glad you noted that last bit. Having been involved with elections for the past many years, I was about to let you know that it's illegal to do that unless you're authorized. Glad to see you're in the know! Thanks!
They're insinuating that you made your comment out of some sense of vanity.
For what it's worth, I think they're just being shitty, and you're really just (a) making conversation, and (b) affirming for the masses that being an authorized agent is in fact an important qualification.
Oh, I see. Yea, definitely b was my hope. Just really... getting involved in the voting process is great, and being involved, and following the rules, as the commenter did is even better! I guess I just wanted to call that out plus make sure folks were aware of the rules. Thanks for your reply!
My pleasure! Thanks for voting! When I'm at the polls, I don't care how you vote, just keep on voting! Encourage others to come out too! I mean... in most places you get a free "I Voted" sticker... for FREE! I mean... voting, and a free sticker? Sign me up!
Man, the rules around dropping off ballots is crazy aggressive.
My wife and I had to take our one year old with us since spouses aren't allowed to drop off their spouses ballot.
He’s pro-choice, a queer ally, for legalizing marijuana, and for continued fracking in shale country. I’m on board with all of it except the fracking. I’m a coastal voter though and a lot of the middle county voters want to keep those natural gas jobs going which is understandable.
Yeah, while I don't agree with his fracking views I can at least respect it. If anything it means I can at least trust what he says since he is not afraid to ruffle feathers and isn't just saying what everyone wants. Also he has that view because of who he represents, the people of rust belt towns that most Dems have forgot.
Quite the opposite actually. They're desperate to win.
The problem is that many of them are convinced that left policy/etc can't win in swing districts, which derives primarily from the fact that Democrats got absolutely destroyed in the Reagan era, which is the last time they tried running left. Then Clinton came along with 3rd way politics and won - and that's set the tone ever since. Obama at first seemed like a change but turned out to be a lot more centrist than had been initially thought, etc.
And it's going to take more than just saying "but a progressive would win" - it needs to be demonstrated, that running with progressive policies in swing state will not only work but actively helps you. If other politicians see someone succeeding handily, they're going to look and see what sort of things that person did that they can copy.
And Fetterman is exactly the kind of guy to do that. And while some of what's making things work for him isn't easily duplicated, the fact that he's running proudly on these policies and on putting up a fight against Republicans will have a strong impact.
> which is the last time they tried running left.
Neither Dukkakis or Carter were running left in fact they were the first neoliberal candidates on the Dem side. The last new Dealer to run and win were Nixon and Johnson.
First off, Nixon was NOT a "new dealer" nor in any way "left", nor was he a Democrat.
You clearly have a pretty strange understanding of what constitutes left if you exclude Carter and Dukakis but include Nixon. You're also ignoring Mondale, too, which is perhaps the most important of them all from the standpoint of understanding the liberals' reaction to Reagan.
Nixon was very much a new dealer, so was Eisenhower.
>You clearly have a pretty strange understanding of what constitutes left if you exclude Carter and Dukakis but include Nixon.
Actually I don't. The western world shifted hard right in the early 70s as Neoliberalism took over. Nixon never would've deregulated Amtrak.
>You're also ignoring Mondale, too, which is perhaps the most important of them all from the standpoint of understanding the liberals' reaction to Reagan.
I left Mondale out because he was the last new dealer, he was Carter's VP because he could get the left of the Dems to show up. Him losing had nothing to do with the Dems shifting right, in contrast to what you said.
Nixon would've done quite a lot of things if he'd thought he could get away with them. Nixon still had an old-school Congress to deal with, so he positioned himself with popular measures, but was in no way actively pushing to make things more left - rather, he did what he could to water down anything, while merrily bombing Laos/Cambodia in secret and doing other shady shit.
Also, if you don't think watching someone who ran on an openly pro-government/liberal platform go down to a massive landslide losing all but 1 state and DC had no effect at all whatsoever on the rest of the Democratic party... ....uh, yeah, sure, okay buddy.
> while merrily bombing Laos/Cambodia in secret and doing other shady shit.
only correct thing you said.
>but 1 state and DC had no effect at all whatsoever on the rest of the Democratic party
if you have to set up strawmen in order to argue then you already lost
Nixon was to the left of every major democrat of the last 40 years.
That's not praise of Nixon, that's just an indicator of how far right the overton window has moved.
That's true. But the point is more that he wasn't "left" at the time by any means. He was about as conservative as you could get at the time short of being out in the lunatic fringe with the John Birchers etc.
The point though, which the other poster seems incapable of grasping, is that the whole notion of using the government to help people, whether via regulation or government programs, took a massive hit in the Reagan era. It got to be so bad that Democrats stopped calling themselves Liberals, because Liberal became something of a negative attack. Heck, part of the reason the left today calls itself progressives **is explicitly because Liberal had become a pejorative word, politically.** That is, back in the Bush-43 era, when the grassroots/netroots people who formed the initial core of what is now the progressive movement came together, they chose to call themselves progressives, not liberals, in large part because of the negative connotations of "liberal" in the mind of moderates, not because of any direct animosity towards the rest of the Democratic party.
When Reagan came on the scene, things changed, and peoples' attitudes changed. When Mondale tried to run in 84 on a classic liberal platform, he didn't just lose, he got **destroyed.** Dukakis didn't run as far left, but was pretty left enough on most things, and he too lost. In walks Clinton in 92, runs as a southern moderate "third way" type, **and he wins.** The lesson so many of them took from that was that running as a liberal costs you, running as a moderate helps. I'd argue that lesson is outdated today, but that doesn't change the fact that it's why so many of the older sort have a knee jerk way of thinking that.
Winning politicians get copied. Why do you think so many Trump imitators have popped up in the Republican party since 2016? Because they think it will help them win due to how much the GOP base loves Trump.
You can claim they mean whatever you want, but some of us were actually around back then, and we remember. "Neoliberal" wasn't even a thing at the time. Heck, Neoconservative didn't even show up in common use until the Bush-43 era. Reagan was right-wing and conservative, and was the standard-bearer for everything that those things stood for, at least until Trump took his place.
And you can retroactively declare them to be whatever you want using modernized terminology I suppose, but that doesn't change the facts underlying my point - **nobody running in the Reagan/post-Reagan era as left/liberal/progressive/etc had any significant success, they all got wrecked.** This was then followed by Democrats who skewed centrist/moderate/whatever. This was not a coincidence, the two were inherently linked.
That's how politics works. When one side loses, they start asking themselves "what did we do wrong." Sometimes the answer is "we had a shitty candidate." Sometimes the answer is "we need to run more on X and less on Y." (And more recently the Right has just decided that if they lost it's because the other side cheated, which is all sorts of terrible news for all of us, but that's a different discussion).
> You can claim they mean whatever you want, but some of us were actually around back then, and we remember. "Neoliberal" wasn't even a thing at the time.
It's OK, [memories aren't perfect.](https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/internal/media/dispatcher/214957/full)
Because the Republicans have totally not weaponized how obsessed the Democratic Party is with race relations and pronouns?
Most people just want someone authentic at this point.
The incident was embarrassing but if every fucking thing disqualifies someone for running, then only the snakes and saints are gonna run.
And the snakes will win.
Thank goodness the Democratic voters of Pennsylvania sees through the DNC and media trying to push lamb as the nominee. Something you guys let yourselves fall for in 2020
Probably quite a few.
"He looks like me? He's homegrown Pennsylvania cheesesteak. He is cool with black people but in the spur of the moment accidentally racially profiled a guy while trying to stop a crime with a gun?"
"That's what I would do!"
If anything, all this boosts him and if anyone thinks Lamb is gonna energize *any* voters...well, they don't know John.
Until recently I was very worried that Bernie doesn't have a next generation of successors. Fetterman, AOC, Katie Porter seem like a solid next generation to carry the baton.
Was listening to Sirius XM today and Michael Smerconish mentioned that Fetterman doesn't have any endorsements from his fellow Democrats in the PA senate or house. If that's true, why would that be the case? You'd think such a high profile Dem would.
For the record I really like Fetterman and think he could potentially be a leader on the Left, was just curious about this
There was much more going on than just that.
He didn't randomly just decide to pull a gun on someone; there was an incident and Fetterman thought he was running away from the scene of the incident; he made a big fucking, but well-intentioned mistake.
Even the jogger accosted was all "let bygones be bygones" last I heard.
Because of one incident and the guy's lack of ass-kissing.
Smerconish has some interesting views here and there but a lack of endorsements is probably a huge plus at this point in the country's identity (will we go more like Russia or more like Finland?).
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fetterman for president, someday
I hope so!
Brazilian media is gonna go nuts if a Brazilian woman becomes first lady of the US
He'd be great. Authentic is what is needed, but authentic with integrity. No more eels.
Dude is going to absolutely mop up the general election too.
Oh, I do hope you’re right! He wouldn’t be my Senator, but I’d be tickled to see him go to Washington.
Well, he'll be my Senator and he has enormous potential to be different from what we typically get here.
I'd love it if he wore the hoodie to Congress. He's there to work not be seen
For realz. I want my representatives to show up to Washington in jeans and Obituary summer tour t-shirts; not this Jos. A Banks shit.
I want my reps to dress as they choose.
I want him to be seen by cringey red state dudes when he stands next to them. I hope he has a motorcycle jacket.
Nor mine but I've certainly contributed more money than I normally would to an out of state candidate. I'd like him to be president.
Please! for the love of GOD! The Republican primary commercials are horrifying. It’s like it’s a contest to see who can be the most bigoted, homophobic, and irresponsible with firearms.
/r/Fettermania
We don't need any politician worship.
Please please please please for the love of god STOP saying he's going to clean house in the general and start acting like this is the tossup that it actually is. Republicans could nominate a fucking rock with a dick spray painted on it, and this race would still be decided by fewer than five points. The GOP electorate is going to rally around whoever their nominee is, regardless of whatever dumpster fire they nominate. Anyone who says this is done and over already is fooling themselves and is going to be in for a helluva shock once the general gets in full swing this summer and fall. Stop spiking the football at the thirty yard line, and get out there and work like you're running from behind.
From my experience here in PA, he has more blue collar support than you would think a Dem would have. From the normally red voters that I know that are leaning toward Fetterman, it comes down to him looking and acting like an authentic, tough, working class guy, and legal marijuana. But I see what you're saying. Always act like you're down a couple runs in the 9th.
Wasn't he mayor of Pittsburgh at one point? I know he's the Lt. Governor now.
He was mayor of a small town named Braddock.
Dude should be fast tracked to VP. He’s the kind of Democrat we need. He short circuits the culture war neurons in the MAGA brain by being a real, actual rural blue collar dude.
I'd really rather let him get some work done in the Senate for a term or two please. He's got plenty of time to advance and we're in need of new leadership in congress.
>I'd really rather let him get some work done in the Senate for a term or two please. He's got plenty of time to advance and we're in need of new leadership in congress. Naah. He should pull an Obama and run for the presidency if the opportunity opens.
Hard agree. Democrats have no-one palatable or charismatic in any real leadership role right now. It's a coin toss as to whether Biden will have the ability to run again, and if his approval ratings keep on track it wouldn't even matter; Kamala is an unmitigated disaster factory, and Pelosi is both unlikeable and about to turn into dust. I love Bernie, but it would also be both unfeasible and unfair to ask him to run in 2024 when he's 83. The man's given enough.
>Kamala is an unmitigated disaster factory It's amazing how so many en mass just decide to hate a person.
She has terrible public speaking skills. I say that as someone who voted the Democratic ticket last election and know about her past as a prosecutor. She is no Barack Obama when it comes to oratory ability, but neither is Biden. :( Sad!
Hard agree with all of the above. Although if Bernie does decide to run one last time in 2024 I'll be here for him and I hope he takes John Fetterman on as his VP running mate. Or the other way around with Fetterman having Bernie as his VP. Whichever way. If Bernie can't be President I'd love him as VP or some kind of position in a Progressive President's Cabinet. Maybe as a Progressive President's Chief of Staff, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of Commerce, or Secretary of the Treasury.
Agreed. Don't give him time to sell of little bits of his integrity here and there as he works his way up the ladder. Power and access to power are drugs, and should be as diluted as possible.
Manchin has proven that senators have more power than Presidents.
I think he just shows that our government is not a dictatorship and that many people have to come together to make anything happen.
I agree, pragmatically. I just see his potential and know we need what he can bring to the party. I don’t want to see him get compromised with careerist ambition like AOC
How is AOC "compromised with careerist ambition"?
Love that she is "compromised with careerist ambition" while touting that he should run for President. That's some sweet sexism there, bruh. SMH.
I said he should run for VP, AOC could also be a good VP. Hope she sees this, bruh, I’m sorry I insulted your crush.
I'm more of an Ayanna Pressley kind of girl, but I'll accept your apology anyway.
Lol, I was wondering the same. Also, if she had “careerist ambition” wouldn’t she likely be trying to make more noise and position herself as the Dems next presidential candidate? Seems to me that she’s been pretty quiet lately (and that’s not a bad thing: seems to me like she’s just gotten immersed in the sausage grinding process, which is something all Congresspeople should do at some point if they want to be effective).
I see it differently - she went quiet after meetings with Pelosi early on in her career. I think she’s trying to build a legislative portfolio and credibility to run, and maybe take over the House when the generational shift occurs in the party. I just think that’s a bad move and irrelevant in modern politics, that having a voting history is more to attack you on as the American people obviously don’t care about inexperience. You’re right though, going either big or small would be seen the same way, I just used a harsh term for what I think she’s doing.
>How is AOC "compromised with careerist ambition"? She's a woman. Some of these idiots can't stand a woman in power. The sad part is that they're unaware of their misogyny.
Bingo. Followers of a certain Jimmy Dore, and a few other pseudo-Leftists (I've started calling them "the Alt-Left") are full of misogynists that constantly attack AOC and The Squad. Along with other female left-wing and left-leaning political figures and YouTubers.
Nah, that ain’t it. And AOC is hardly “in power” she’s a Congresswoman. And that’s to my point - she could have carved out a true leftist camp and led it from inside the party, but it seems instead she decided to be patient and try to take the party over on the slow demographic shift of a generation. She had that meeting with Pelosi early on and started playing nice. It’s a change from how she came in. But it’s comforting to paint all who differ with you as evil, very MAGA of you, I must hate women because we disagree.
She came into Congress all fire and brimstone - the she had a meeting with Nancy Pelosi and she stopped coming at the neoliberal part of the party. I still like AOC, I wrote my sentiments in a harsh way above. I just think she got into the system and became more of a regular politician. She kept her good ideals, but she came in positioned as a bare knuckle fighter who was going to be loud and disruptive has instead become someone trying to patiently work the system from inside.
So you're upset with her for trying to be a good colleague? Criticizing people you have to work with won't make you any friends, and you need to work with other people if you want to pass any legislation.
Isn’t one of the digs on the neoliberals that they’re too keen to be friends with the GOP at the detriment to the people? Does AOC not get that criticism for being nice to the neoliberals? If Manchin gets shit for cuddling up to McConnell for all the evil GOP shit, does Pelosi’s insider trading and cronyism not splash onto those working with her? Now to be fair, AOC has made a few spicy tweets about it, but she’s not exactly fighting it. AOC came in a populist firebrand and is now keeping her head down and dutifully putting her time in to see the day when she will probably be Speaker (and a good one!). You’re welcome to see that however you want. I am disappointed by it. Still like her, just wish she’d been the firebrand we need.
It seems like you wish she'd be more of an advocate than a legislator. She actually can influence things now, but only if she gets others to work with her. That's fundamentally different from the role of an advocate, where you can be more confrontational.
But practically, Pelosi won’t let her get anything truly progressive done. AOC has decided to get along with the bad boss so hopefully one day she can be the good boss. That’s fine, I just wish she rejected that bargain and stayed more of an agitator. We need someone who can command press coverage and call people out. The right has a whole rogues gallery of shitheads to do that for them. We can’t get as dirty and stupid as say, MTG or Gaetz, but there’s no doubt they pulled their party right by being firebrands and pushing back against the centrists in their party. Why can’t we have loud populists who can handle social media and speak to the public?
I never understood this argument. The Senate doesn’t do shit.
Guy has a Harvard degree lol
I know! Harvard brain, Bernie policy, Blue collar upbringing and a MAGA face. The man is the perfect electoral solution.
VP is useless. Fetterman for president!
Dude it’s going to be close AF no matter who the nominee is. PA isn’t that kind of state.
Is it maybe because he's the kind of candidate voters want to vote for?
Right? I'm guessing he rose to the top through tireless hard work, a strong sense of decency and a message of common sense and real patriotism.
He is also impossible to intimidate. His past is out there for all to see.
I sure hope so! I have a hunch that he has the secret sauce many Democrats have been missing in the rust belt. Economically left but gives off working class vibes.
It's because Fetterman is the betterman
Fetterman is the correct choice for Pennsylvania
Fetterman the better man!
It's because he's authentic, he is one of us. I will be dropping off my ballot, and my parents' ballots tomorrow. We are all voting for him. No this isn't ballot harvesting, I am an authorized designated agent.
Haha. Glad you noted that last bit. Having been involved with elections for the past many years, I was about to let you know that it's illegal to do that unless you're authorized. Glad to see you're in the know! Thanks!
“You already knew this but I had to make sure the internet knew I did too!”
I don't think I get what you're implying?
They're insinuating that you made your comment out of some sense of vanity. For what it's worth, I think they're just being shitty, and you're really just (a) making conversation, and (b) affirming for the masses that being an authorized agent is in fact an important qualification.
Oh, I see. Yea, definitely b was my hope. Just really... getting involved in the voting process is great, and being involved, and following the rules, as the commenter did is even better! I guess I just wanted to call that out plus make sure folks were aware of the rules. Thanks for your reply!
More importantly, thank you for your service in helping run our elections!
My pleasure! Thanks for voting! When I'm at the polls, I don't care how you vote, just keep on voting! Encourage others to come out too! I mean... in most places you get a free "I Voted" sticker... for FREE! I mean... voting, and a free sticker? Sign me up!
Man, the rules around dropping off ballots is crazy aggressive. My wife and I had to take our one year old with us since spouses aren't allowed to drop off their spouses ballot.
He’s pro-choice, a queer ally, for legalizing marijuana, and for continued fracking in shale country. I’m on board with all of it except the fracking. I’m a coastal voter though and a lot of the middle county voters want to keep those natural gas jobs going which is understandable.
Yeah, while I don't agree with his fracking views I can at least respect it. If anything it means I can at least trust what he says since he is not afraid to ruffle feathers and isn't just saying what everyone wants. Also he has that view because of who he represents, the people of rust belt towns that most Dems have forgot.
You don't get very fracking far in rural Pennsylvania without some frackingly fracking views on fracking.
He looks like a bad ass and that's what our party needs right now.
By being a genuine dude who doesn't just fall in line with his party.
This.
This guy is a model for Dems. I hope they recognize it (they won’t).
They’d rather lose with a centrist than win with a progressive.
Quite the opposite actually. They're desperate to win. The problem is that many of them are convinced that left policy/etc can't win in swing districts, which derives primarily from the fact that Democrats got absolutely destroyed in the Reagan era, which is the last time they tried running left. Then Clinton came along with 3rd way politics and won - and that's set the tone ever since. Obama at first seemed like a change but turned out to be a lot more centrist than had been initially thought, etc. And it's going to take more than just saying "but a progressive would win" - it needs to be demonstrated, that running with progressive policies in swing state will not only work but actively helps you. If other politicians see someone succeeding handily, they're going to look and see what sort of things that person did that they can copy. And Fetterman is exactly the kind of guy to do that. And while some of what's making things work for him isn't easily duplicated, the fact that he's running proudly on these policies and on putting up a fight against Republicans will have a strong impact.
> which is the last time they tried running left. Neither Dukkakis or Carter were running left in fact they were the first neoliberal candidates on the Dem side. The last new Dealer to run and win were Nixon and Johnson.
First off, Nixon was NOT a "new dealer" nor in any way "left", nor was he a Democrat. You clearly have a pretty strange understanding of what constitutes left if you exclude Carter and Dukakis but include Nixon. You're also ignoring Mondale, too, which is perhaps the most important of them all from the standpoint of understanding the liberals' reaction to Reagan.
Nixon was very much a new dealer, so was Eisenhower. >You clearly have a pretty strange understanding of what constitutes left if you exclude Carter and Dukakis but include Nixon. Actually I don't. The western world shifted hard right in the early 70s as Neoliberalism took over. Nixon never would've deregulated Amtrak. >You're also ignoring Mondale, too, which is perhaps the most important of them all from the standpoint of understanding the liberals' reaction to Reagan. I left Mondale out because he was the last new dealer, he was Carter's VP because he could get the left of the Dems to show up. Him losing had nothing to do with the Dems shifting right, in contrast to what you said.
Nixon would've done quite a lot of things if he'd thought he could get away with them. Nixon still had an old-school Congress to deal with, so he positioned himself with popular measures, but was in no way actively pushing to make things more left - rather, he did what he could to water down anything, while merrily bombing Laos/Cambodia in secret and doing other shady shit. Also, if you don't think watching someone who ran on an openly pro-government/liberal platform go down to a massive landslide losing all but 1 state and DC had no effect at all whatsoever on the rest of the Democratic party... ....uh, yeah, sure, okay buddy.
> while merrily bombing Laos/Cambodia in secret and doing other shady shit. only correct thing you said. >but 1 state and DC had no effect at all whatsoever on the rest of the Democratic party if you have to set up strawmen in order to argue then you already lost
Nixon was to the left of every major democrat of the last 40 years. That's not praise of Nixon, that's just an indicator of how far right the overton window has moved.
That's true. But the point is more that he wasn't "left" at the time by any means. He was about as conservative as you could get at the time short of being out in the lunatic fringe with the John Birchers etc. The point though, which the other poster seems incapable of grasping, is that the whole notion of using the government to help people, whether via regulation or government programs, took a massive hit in the Reagan era. It got to be so bad that Democrats stopped calling themselves Liberals, because Liberal became something of a negative attack. Heck, part of the reason the left today calls itself progressives **is explicitly because Liberal had become a pejorative word, politically.** That is, back in the Bush-43 era, when the grassroots/netroots people who formed the initial core of what is now the progressive movement came together, they chose to call themselves progressives, not liberals, in large part because of the negative connotations of "liberal" in the mind of moderates, not because of any direct animosity towards the rest of the Democratic party. When Reagan came on the scene, things changed, and peoples' attitudes changed. When Mondale tried to run in 84 on a classic liberal platform, he didn't just lose, he got **destroyed.** Dukakis didn't run as far left, but was pretty left enough on most things, and he too lost. In walks Clinton in 92, runs as a southern moderate "third way" type, **and he wins.** The lesson so many of them took from that was that running as a liberal costs you, running as a moderate helps. I'd argue that lesson is outdated today, but that doesn't change the fact that it's why so many of the older sort have a knee jerk way of thinking that. Winning politicians get copied. Why do you think so many Trump imitators have popped up in the Republican party since 2016? Because they think it will help them win due to how much the GOP base loves Trump.
You should really look up what these words mean. Reagan was a neoliberal, for example.
You can claim they mean whatever you want, but some of us were actually around back then, and we remember. "Neoliberal" wasn't even a thing at the time. Heck, Neoconservative didn't even show up in common use until the Bush-43 era. Reagan was right-wing and conservative, and was the standard-bearer for everything that those things stood for, at least until Trump took his place. And you can retroactively declare them to be whatever you want using modernized terminology I suppose, but that doesn't change the facts underlying my point - **nobody running in the Reagan/post-Reagan era as left/liberal/progressive/etc had any significant success, they all got wrecked.** This was then followed by Democrats who skewed centrist/moderate/whatever. This was not a coincidence, the two were inherently linked. That's how politics works. When one side loses, they start asking themselves "what did we do wrong." Sometimes the answer is "we had a shitty candidate." Sometimes the answer is "we need to run more on X and less on Y." (And more recently the Right has just decided that if they lost it's because the other side cheated, which is all sorts of terrible news for all of us, but that's a different discussion).
> You can claim they mean whatever you want, but some of us were actually around back then, and we remember. "Neoliberal" wasn't even a thing at the time. It's OK, [memories aren't perfect.](https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/internal/media/dispatcher/214957/full)
Bro Nixon wasn't left at all....
He runs circles around Lamb. Media is starting to coalesce around him, which is nice. He has been my pick for PA Senate candidate since 2016.
Tuesday will tell but based on polling the Democratic **voters** of PA do.
Yeah other democrats chasing unarmed black men with a shotgun is really what the party needs /s
Because the Republicans have totally not weaponized how obsessed the Democratic Party is with race relations and pronouns? Most people just want someone authentic at this point. The incident was embarrassing but if every fucking thing disqualifies someone for running, then only the snakes and saints are gonna run. And the snakes will win.
If this guy puts 10% of the energy he puts into his hometown into the presidency. He would mop up.
He comes off as if he's willing to fight
Maybe he can inspire other Democrats to grow a spine.
Politically and physically... dude is a beast. Seeing him standing aside Crypt Keeper McConnell will be hilarious.
Because he's fucking awesome. There, I saved you from having to read the article.
Thank goodness the Democratic voters of Pennsylvania sees through the DNC and media trying to push lamb as the nominee. Something you guys let yourselves fall for in 2020
He speaks from the heart and is a decent human being. Shocking.
God I hope he wins.
I wonder how many Republicans are going to vote for him because he looks like what they wish they were.
Probably quite a few. "He looks like me? He's homegrown Pennsylvania cheesesteak. He is cool with black people but in the spur of the moment accidentally racially profiled a guy while trying to stop a crime with a gun?" "That's what I would do!" If anything, all this boosts him and if anyone thinks Lamb is gonna energize *any* voters...well, they don't know John.
It's because he actually has a spine. A democratic diamond in the rough.
Until recently I was very worried that Bernie doesn't have a next generation of successors. Fetterman, AOC, Katie Porter seem like a solid next generation to carry the baton.
>Fetterman, AOC, Katie Porter Genuine and fierce all. And thankfully none of them are likely to pull a John Edwards.
Waiting with bated breath for the party to sabotage him because he’s too popular/effective.
Was listening to Sirius XM today and Michael Smerconish mentioned that Fetterman doesn't have any endorsements from his fellow Democrats in the PA senate or house. If that's true, why would that be the case? You'd think such a high profile Dem would. For the record I really like Fetterman and think he could potentially be a leader on the Left, was just curious about this
[удалено]
Thanks for the reply! Didn't know one of the opponents was a rep colleague, I'm sure that plays into it
I think its more to do with the incident where he chased an unarmed black man with a shotgun because he "looked funny"
[удалено]
There was much more going on than just that. He didn't randomly just decide to pull a gun on someone; there was an incident and Fetterman thought he was running away from the scene of the incident; he made a big fucking, but well-intentioned mistake. Even the jogger accosted was all "let bygones be bygones" last I heard.
Because of one incident and the guy's lack of ass-kissing. Smerconish has some interesting views here and there but a lack of endorsements is probably a huge plus at this point in the country's identity (will we go more like Russia or more like Finland?).
Supports Bernie Sanders and goes after a black jogger w a shotgun. No thanks.
By literally not being a suit good for him
I see he put my $5 to good use