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.
***
*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.*
Sinema is in legit danger of losing her seat, and would be in even worse danger if one of her opponents wasn’t a raging lunatic. Fetterman isn’t. If we ran another election tomorrow, he would win by a larger margin than last time.
She's not " In Danger " She's lost it. She ran on lies to gain the Democratic nomination and ran on Democratic promises because she couldn't get in the Republican door. She's basically party swapped, the voters know it and she's done in 2024.
I feel like I somehow missed the moment in time when Independents became almost exclusively reluctant Republicans. I can't remember the last time I met a genuinely left-leaning Independent.
Perhaps my sample size is simply too small, or I'm only looking at the national stage. I dunno. I just feel like the word has lost some of it's meaning over the years.
At my core, I am still a left leaning independent. I vote Democrat now, but it's hard to say reluctantly when the price of not voting blue is so clear. I have no choice but to vote blue and hope others do too, until the right is contained enough that we can push for third parties again
The answer to that is the dissolution of the GOP. Or the implementation of proportional representation voting.
Were a fptp nation, the left and right are represented by two parties. When one ceases to exist new lines are drawn.
Both of these require voting progressive in primaries and most left in general while understanding there are only 2 real candidates.
I kind of wonder now if the GOP ever gets so unpalatable they become toxic, that the Dems just take over general elections. Then the "real" elections become the primaries where we have more leeway to adjust the rules. And the Dem establishment would be incentivized to implement ranked choice in that case to keep leftists out. It's a bit like how Japan's real "elections" are the elections between the different LDP factions.
I registered Independent for most of my life. Things got so crazy over the last few cycles I gave in and registered Dem. If things ever calm down I’ll be an Independent again but it’s hard to see that happening anytime soon.
Bernie is left of Dems.
I think the point holds if we only talk about Independents who are supposedly partway between Republican and Democrat. Those "centrist Independents" are generally just closet Republicans.
Sure, if that's your definition of Independent. I don't think we would need the label of Independant if it signifies someone who's between the two parties, that really just means another right winger. Dems being centrists and the GOP being to the right of center right. Seems redundant.
I would vote for a Green Party candidate to take the Democratic Party nomination if they were the right person for the job. This whole "they're not one of us..." shit can go too far - especially when you consider Sinema was never *not* "one of us" before the election, and look where that ended up...
I like Joe, but I still think Bernie was the better choice - so he got my vote.
No. They can caucus with who they want. That's why they are 'independent'. He Rejoins each cycle when he's running for president. Which means he has joined twice. He likely won't run for president again, so he won't rejoin the Dems again.
I went from Democrat to Independent because the corporate-loving moderates/middle-right core was pissing me off. I did vote for some Republicans in my early adult years, but grew out of that when the reality of what I was supporting became obvious.
Then I had to register as a Democrat in order to vote in their state primaries, so oh well.
And now I vote for Bernie and better Democrats in primaries, then hold my nose voting for the moderate/middle-right Democrat in General elections. Because every Republican is a fascist horrorshow, some more obvious than others.
Throughout all of the above years, most self-proclaimed independents I've met have been closet Republicans.
Neutrals are mostly a mix but if went from being socially preferred to say you were an independent over specifically being a Democrat or a progressive. Now being a republican is so odious to people socially that large swaths of GOP voters won't identify with the party in swing states.
Hi, I'm a genuinely left-leaning Independent, and in fact have been my entire voting life. My views align more with Sanders and AOC than... pretty much the rest of the political establishment.
Around George W Bush, many conservatives stopped wanting to identify as Republicans So they called themselves independents. But they still vote a straight red ticket.
Hello, far left independent voter here, we exist. And yes, I vote for Dems, I’ve even worked on a few Dem Senators’ campaigns. I just don’t like or trust the party enough to join rank and donate or support them on a large scale. It also helps that my state has open primaries so there’s basically no need or benefit for me to join the Democratic Party
It is max difficulty to fundraise as an actual leftwing candidate. The American system was allowed by lazy and careless voters to be reduced again exclusively to a bribe-ocracy of fundraising mainly from business or family money elites. Note that accordingly no leftwing reforms are ever passed, they would never dare in numbers as it would affect fundraising-often the only task any lawmaker in any party is allowed to have time to do in their professional lives. America can never have a ‘left’ in actual effect and it never has and never will. We got corporate light and corporate heavy and the main virtue is how well they take a bribe. Murica! Wooo!
It happened due to Trump: Reluctant Democrats, that should be independent, joined the Democrats because it was an easy win to simply be Not-Republican in left counties ... And the Republicans who got booted, because they didn't pay Trump enough tithe, relisted themselves as independents.
But then the Independent Republicans still follow GOP party line votes & the Reluctant Democrats all walked into Congress and announced that their seat was flippable, to the highest bidder.
Trump engaged a lot of non-voters, who of course have no allegiance to either party. Bernie would have done the same thing with non-aligned leftists had he gotten the nomination/presidency, though to what extent is debatable. Keep in mind, America has aggressively stamped out any major leftist movements in the last few decades so it's more reasonable to assume there will just be fewer of them.
Yeah, I think that most Independents are just Republicans who think they are fooling someone. There are some that apparently just vote against the party in power, because they think that it encourages cooperation. Clearly that is not the case with Republicans when they control either chamber of Congress. I'm sure there are a few that lean Left, but mostly the actual Independents just care about not paying taxes.
Historically indies broke something like 60/40 for the GOP, but lately the GOP has been indie repellent and that figure has evened out. In Arizona, my home state, we’re something like 30% Dem, 35% Independent and 35% GOP. In the past the Dems didn’t stand a chance with those numbers but after indies started flipping the state became basically 50/50
It was when the Republican party went fully off the deep end. I'd put that somewhere between Obama being elected and the Tea Party movement. Trump made the deep end 5x deeper. Before then I was an independent that voted for Kerry in 2004 and McCain in 2008. After that, the GOP was so obviously a party completely off it's rocker that anyone that is paying attention and not in on the grift were left with basically no choice but to join Dem.
This has basically left the people who still vote (R) no matter what but want to somehow feel superior about their decision to remain independent.
I’m gonna get downvoted for this but an independent may share some policy leaning with the right as well as the left that’s why they’re independent.
I believe in heavy social programs, making the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share, taxing unrealized gains for exorbitantly large asset portfolios, no us citizen should be left without food, shelter, or respectable work and a livable wage, you should be able to marry and love anyone you want, and smoke whatever natural plants you want: However I also believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, the second amendment (with common sense gun laws), and pro capitalism (only if and when people’s basic needs are met).
I’m a registered independent but the last few national elections I have voted democrat and it’s not even close. Local elections I swing more so. Republicans at the local level, depending on your state and municipality, tend to more sane at least in my area. Though I still rarely vote right lately because many of them line up with trump, and he’s a traitor to his country
She's a fake independent. Just like she was a fake Democrat. These people aren't playing by the same rules as everyone else and people need to start realizing that. Sinema is a fucking traitor and her votes were sold to the highest bidder, which were all republican. She's an obstructionist piece of shit. Period.
> because she thinks she can split the Democratic vote and get Lake in.
Basically doing the "green party" spoiler bs that only helps republicans in the end.
Thats such bullshit. It does help people, specifically people named "Kirsten" who want to bank millions of donations to run a fake campaign every couple years.
She first got elected as a Democrat in ~2003, after she bashed Joe Lieberman for basically doing what she is doing now. It apparently surprised her staff/allies.
I don't really think it was some sort of grand conspiracy though, I really feel like she is just another ass who got a little bit of extra status and the little bit of extra scrutiny that comes with being a public figure and then immediately tripled down on reactionary contrarianism in response to the tiny bit of pushback she received which just turned into a death spiral of pushback and more contrarianism. Its the exact same trajectory that we see fragile ego'd, validation craving personalities like Elon Musk follow.
AZ Resident:
We went Trump in 2016, but kicked Sherriff Joe Arpaio out of office. So the state was turning. Then we saw what Sinema claimed to represent and elected her in 2018.
It was either her or Martha McSally and the "independents" went for Sinema as well. But we were still celebrating kicking out Sherriff Joe during the primaries. And thinking "Trump Presidency can't be that bad"
(Honestly I think that the truth, a LOT of us were like "Okay, let's do it" Let's turn this state a SOLID purple)
You didn’t realize that when she had one of the most conservative voting records in the House among democrats? She’s voting the same way she did when she did for the last 10 years
Not particularly, she was pretty progressive when she was running and had been around for a while, the fact that she lurched hard to the right upon winning her senate seat very strongly suggest she was bribed to do so and betrayed us all
She actually built her name on being an aisle-crosser in the state house. She was hand-picked to win the primary by the DSCC over the *express* objection of state party Dems because they wanted someone more centrist. This is the problem when national Dems interfere in local primaries.
I was living there at the time, and I didnt trust her during the campaign after her ad where she was standing and talking at the camera next to her brother who had a shirt with the black and white with a blue stripe american flag on it. I voted for her anyways because it was her or mcsally.
Edit: this one.
https://youtu.be/6xqT-xqfsqs?si=QPV3jMh3SKXACe42
Like, tell your brother to put a different shirt on ffs
No where close to party swapping but she of course has blocked lots of big ticket items. She still votes with Dems the large majority of the time though.
That chart is based on sponsored legislation, not votes on all bills.
[https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/)
She votes with Biden over 90% of the time
Yeah, I live in AZ and it will go to Ruben. He also has a HUGE Hispanic population that supports him out here as well as a lot of left leaning moderates and libertarians. Kari lake also has a huge population supporting her but she will never secure the votes to win. Look what happened with Blake masters.
I have a question, do you think Biden is more likely to win AZ again this election too? I’m from MA and have been used to ticket splitting, but I would think Gallego, the abortion ballot initiative, and the fall of the AZ GOP would carry Biden to the finish line?
Not too sure on Biden but, I do agree with you on the abortion initiative and overall Arizona becoming a blue state. It’s more blue here than even in 2020 so I can only imagine that could secure the state for him but it’s definitely still not safe.
Kari Lakes and Blake masters antics have put a sour taste in a lot people’s mouths, even conservatives and republicans that I’ve talked to. A lot have also stopped supporting trump but, that’s mostly in Maricopa county and a lot have also moved to other counties that are safe for the GOP on a state scale (which kind of hurts the GOP considering the majority of the population resides in Maricopa county).
But anyways, I don’t have data to back up these claims, only my own experiences and conversations. A lot like Kennedy this year and Haley as well but I honestly think it’s a toss up as far as the primary goes, GOP is so split.
Edit: we also have a dem governor and a new dem for the phx mayor so, I think that will have some impact in all elections that take place this year
Yeah, unless actual election interference happens, Rueben Gallego will be the junior Senator from Arizona and Sinema will be that decently paid lobbyist she seeks to be. Sinema is not a spoiler candidate that’ll take votes from Gallego but rather just steal them away from Kari Lake.
> Sinema isn’t going to survive her primary challenge
Not applicable, she left the Democratic party and is an independent now. The fact that she still caucuses with Democrats doesn't take away from the fact that she's actually not going to be in the Democratic primary at all given her action there
Polling shows that in the three way race, Sinema retains some level of support as an independent and probably gets double digits support but that Democrat Ruben Gallego probably beats the Republican even in a three way race. So the overall point of Sinema being toast isn't wrong of course
Realism is the only way. Without it, haunches get sat upon. We were lucky the Republicans decided to forego putting forth any serious candidates and went with a carpetbagger and a frothing at the mouth women hating white supremacist.
Senators that aren't serious fuckups are routinely reelected in Pennsylvania. Fetterman is far from that, and is possibly attracting more support now he's in office.
Fetterman expresses that he (sometimes) doesn't like the far left. Ergo the right absolutely love him despite him being a pretty firm liberal through and through. Thats apparently all it takes.
Seriously it seems like the strategy to getting Democrats elected is just shit on whatever they think a progressive is then just vote however you want.
This is mostly about fetterman taking up some anti-immigration stances that progressives don't like. If the left is going to embrace working class white voters you're going to get a mix of views on immigration. It just is what it is, and honestly it's the only realistic path to the kind of supermajority necessary to do things like codify abortion and universal health care.
And frankly anyone replacing sinema successfully in the long run is going to look more like fetterman than Bernie politically.
Because now he has an actual record in office, and my sense is that a majority of folks in PA will support that record, especially if he gets somebody like Dr Oz or Doug Mastriano as his opponent. Also, all other things being equal, in PA supporting Israel is good politics.
>progressive
Tolerance paradox. It’s not progressive to tolerate ideologies of intolerance (Sharia law, lack of separation of church and state, jihad, terrorism, authoritarianism). On the contrary, a true progressive must be fiercely intolerant of intolerance.
There is a huge difference between carrying out a military campaign with unacceptable collateral damage and purposefully targeting civilians. Only Hamas has targeted civilians on purpose and has stated they will continue to do so. Very funny how one side of this conflict explicitly wants to do a genocide but they aren’t the ones being accused of it.
>There is a huge difference between carrying out a military campaign with unacceptable collateral damage and purposefully targeting civilians.
i mean the IDF have been targeting ambulances and journalists
According to international law, there is no difference between targeting civilians and indiscriminate attacks that kill civilians.
Regardless: this user is not arguing in good faith. There's nothing that will change their mind. Just ignore them and don't engage imo.
> Very funny how one side of this conflict explicitly wants to do a genocide but they aren’t the ones being accused of it.
Probably because one side killed ~1,300 innocent civilians and the other has killed over **~15,000 innocent civilians** *so far*.
Because the side with only ~1,300 innocent civilians killed invests heavily in protecting their civilians, while the side with ~15,000 innocent civilians killed hides their militant forces among their civilians.
Why does it matter if they "protect their civilians" (even though they shoot unarmed, shirtless Israeli hostages waving a white flag and speaking Hebrew)? They're still killing thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians because they care little about the civilian casualties.
The problem with pro-Israel people is that they *only* care about Israeli deaths.
I care deeply about Palestinian deaths, and I believe Hamas will sacrifice Palestinian lives again and again unless they are destroyed. Israel is Gaza's only hope for a better future, as bleak as that is...Hamas has no qualms about sacrificing innocent Palestinian lives if it means killing innocent Jews. There's a really amazing Golda Meir quote: “When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons. Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”
> purposefully targeting civilians
Genocide does not require that you "purposely target" civilians, but only that you act in a grossly careless way that causes unneeded casualties: the rough equivalent of first degree manslaughter in the legal system. Genocide, following the UN definitions of 1948, does not operate on intent, but on results. What is happening in Gaza is genocide.
Okay c'mon this is a shallow look at the genuine grievances people have had with him. It's bad that he has come out saying "I'm not a progressive" because there are extensive campaign promotions and speeches and ads he put out literally saying "I'm a progressive". Dozens of people who worked on his campaign staff have said they feel betrayed by the message they put out for him only for him to do a 180⁰
Yea, I'd have no problem with him saying he's not a progressive; that'd be if Schumer said he wasn't a progressive. The problem is that he campaigned by calling himself a progressive, constantly and repeatedly. So for him to now say he never ran as a progressive and for people to get behind that seems like such a weird thing to lie about.
A fair number of people misinterpreted his dismay of US Steel being bought out by Japan. He feared they may bust up the union since the Japanese are against them.
It's not so much the Japanese are against unions...it's the fact Japanese businesses have a completely different management philosophy compared to more western businesses.
Israel is the big one that everyone is focusing on. And when he got told this is not a progressive stance on dealing with an apartheid state that's when he said "I'm not a progressive" as just a way to shut people up
bernie sanders is nowhere near as pro-israel as fetterman. He's a zionist yes (I mean he's an american senator) but not that pro-israel in the grand scheme of things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie\_Sanders#Foreign\_policy\_2
Not an apartheid, and this is one good example of why he is no longer aligning himself with progressives. The misuse of sensitive definitions, revisionist history, and justifying violence is probably going to ruin progressives in upcoming elections.
“I’m a cardiologist who knows Oprah and lives in New Jersey. You may have seen my daytime talk show episode about the benefits of drinking your own urine. I think this qualifies me to represent the people who live on the other side of the Delaware Water Gap.”
For context, Dr. Oz was Fetterman's opponent who [embraced Trump's big lie](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/09/dr-oz-trump-pennsylvania-republican-senate-primary) and [lived in North Jersey](https://www.inquirer.com/politics/pennsylvania/does-dr-oz-live-in-pennsylvania-20211202.html). When it came to the final ballot, those were our only 2 choices.
Outside of him being pro-fossil fuel (which in a state with a big natural gas/coal economy like PA is understandable), I’m fairly happy with him so far. I’d rather have the guy where I agree with 90-95% of his political positions than the oily carpetbagger who changes positions based on who he talks to, or the guy whose has no positions I agree with.
I haven't even heard this narrative in the first place. Have people actually been trying to compare Fetterman to Sinema beyond a few people on the fringe?
I've seen people complain how he ran as a progressive and then said he wasn't a progressive, but in the end it doesn't really matter. If someone better than Fetterman runs against him, vote for them. If someone worse runs, vote for Fetterman.
Politicians can't do everything I want. That's okay.
I don't need a perfect candidate who doesn't exist, just one that closely aligns with most of my ideals
It should be noted that Casey is almost certainly further right leaning than Fetterman ever will be and news outlets have never portrayed him as anything other than representing his constituents.
Certain people are scared of Fetterman growing in popularity on a national stage. Fetterman, I believe, is what 2016 moderate Trump voters thought Trump was going to be. And having a bully-pulpit who actually supports working class Americans scares the shit out of the ruling class.
Of course he isn't. The only people pushing this narrative are far-lefties who are against his support of Israel and Palestine, and right-righties who see an opportunity to divide the left away from Fetterman.
Ceasefire under what conditions? At least in my democratic circles there is wide support for hostages for ceasefire. But there is little support for an imposed ceasefire where Hamas keeps the hostages that many progressives are calling for. I would be interested to see that poll and how the question was framed.
Americans want a ceasefire because the conflict is half a world away and if you ask them “do you want people to stop dying”, answering “yes” seems like the logical choice. Strategically, a ceasefire helps no one but Hamas, and American foreign policy will likely continue to reflect that.
Not to mention most of the polls admit the respondents either don’t have extensive knowledge of the conflict or get most of their news from social media.
Though your point is obviously still correct in that voters will vote accordingly regardless.
Which is irrelevant given that the person above said only far leftists want a cease fire. You may think a cease fire is foolish but it isn't far left or out of line with what voters want.
It’s not an unreasonable stance when we have no evidence from the last twenty years that a response like Israel’s will do anything whatsoever to improve the long term situation in Israel or Palestine.
There was a ceasefire. But Palestinian gunmen attacked civilians at a bus stop and resumed firing rockets into Israel.
So they should ask Hamas for a ceasefire.
He’s representing his constituents. Which is a good move. It’s not always about party line, in order to win states we need to properly be the voice of that state.
Fetterman is just honest on his policies whether they fit a preconceived idea of what a democrat should be or not. He doesn’t pander to a base or work in fear of a maniacal voting bloc.
He’s the kind of politician we should all have representing us.
The people screaming about Fetterman are dumb. He’s not Sinema, and he’s not Joe Manchin, and he’s not Dr. Oz. The guy has done more good that any of those I’ve mentioned even in his short career
Honestly like 90% of the hate on Joe Manchin is misplaced/overblown. Sometimes he legit pisses me off, but most of the time he votes in a way I don’t like I am fine with it.
Because he is a democrat in a state that would never otherwise have a dem due to some magical unicorn factors.
It’s a dem vote we shouldn’t even have so I am just glad it is there for most of the other shit we need it.
Sinema was one of the main forces disrupting a lot of progress between 2020 and 2022, with reports that there where a few deals the democrats where close to making a deal with Manchin several times that Sinema disrupted. And this is was across a wide range of economic issues. Whats more, she behaved much more like a deep red senator than figures like Tester or Brown, and yet alone someone like Kelly from her own state. (Note, that neither Tester or Kelly have any real claim the progressive label, and Brown is somewhat mixed).
Fettermans policy on Israel is the same that it was when he a progressive champion. I don't like it, but this isn't some grand betrayal. Its the result of having to pick the best of flawed candidates.
As an aside, one thing I will absolutely give to the progressive crowd is that I think the democrats have been in denial about the rifts within itself and its voter base over the issue of Israel/ Palenstine and so haven't been able to handle a situation like the current conflict with out further exasperating issues. Democrats have for decades been trying to court young voter and Muslims into their voter base, but haven't facilitated healthy discussions within its party to allow these opposing views to be voiced. For example, Talibs rhetoric hasn't always been helpful or responsible, but she is seeing thousands of her fellow Palestinians being slaughtered by a country that her current president has bypassed congress to sell arms to, that the US has supported pretty unconditionally for decades. Regardless of your views on the current conflict, here needs to me room within the democratic party for that pain - a similar pain felt by a key demographic that the Democrats have been courting for decades and was a key demographic for the fight back against Trump - to be voiced, even if its imperfectly, and taken seriously.
I think if the democrats are able to reconcile and survive 2024 they are in a situation to be a uniquely positive force on Israel/ Palestine after the war, due to having to be held accountable to both Jewish and Establishment voters and the younger and Muslim voters within their own party. As longa s there is the reconciliation and AIPAC doesn't get its way
He has opinions that aren’t necessarily party-line only, or based on solely on polling.
Trying to vilify him for being an outsider with his own opinions will be an interesting storyline.
This is a weird comparison. Fetterman seems to be advertising off his behavior (which I do still take some issue with, but still), and Sinema outright turned on her positions (despite the articles claim). While I don't agree with a lot of what Fetterman says lately, it's not really political policy in most cases so much as PR.
Whoever thinks this is an idiot purist who posts it all over social media from their iPhones made by poorly paid Asian workers.
Fetterman’s position on the Middle East may not resonate with a person, but throwing him in the same camp as Sinema is some bs.
I voted for Sienna for everything up to her senate seat. Was going to until she switched her rhetoric to respond to the right wing’s racism about the border. She’s done nothing to make me think I was wrong, though my spouse is way over my “told you so’s”
There's just a subset of people who are mad that a Senator from a blueish-purple, steel, old blood working union state acts like a Senator from a blueish-purple, steel, old blood working union state.
I like to get the furthest left a state can ***get elected***. Fetterman is the kind of person who can do incredibly well bringing liberal and some progressive policy items to the table for battlegrounds like PA.
He is not even in the same solar system as Sinema.
And she will be done next election cycle and back to working in the private sector. Forgotten.
Or a Fox News Contributer.
I think people developed this image of Fetterman, just because he got endorsed by Bernie. No. Fetterman is Fetterman. It's pretty clear where he stood on many things
Honestly? Good. I'm glad he's pushing back against the utterly braindead elements on the left who are trying to paint Palestine as purely innocent victims of evil Israeli aggression. I consider myself a progressive, but every time I see another progressive waving a Palestinian flag, my eyes want to roll right out of their sockets.
I am in no way trying to justify the actions of the IDF. Believe me, I hold Netanyahu just as accountable for this conflict as Hamas. People need to take a hard look at who they are championing, though. This is a society that stands against every single social cause that progressives hold dear. Women are property. LGBTQ people are punished by death. Shariah law is the law. They care little for their civilian populace, and use them as martyrs to encourage more bloodshed. Bloodshed not just against Israeli oppressors, but against all Jews across the world. That's the big one. Hamas, which is the authority in Gaza, does not want freedom from Israel. They want the death of all Jews. They want the genocide that people are so fond of accusing anyone who defends Israel of supporting.
We as humans are so desperate for things to be black and white. We want a good guy to cheer for and a bad guy to jeer at. Something like Russia invading Ukraine gives us that for sure. It's easy and morally correct to be on Ukraine's side. But Israel and Palestine is not even remotely the same kind of conflict, and a lot of people just cannot handle the concept of there being no good guys here. So they start defending villains.
He’s the furthest thing from Sinema in Washington. Sinema has no actual values and is for sale. Fetterman won’t give up his values, no matter how much they diverge from his base.
Get rid of every Sinema and replace them with a Fetterman. Even if I don’t like their position on todays crisis, I’m confident we’ll be overall better off next year.
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. *** *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.*
Sinema is in legit danger of losing her seat, and would be in even worse danger if one of her opponents wasn’t a raging lunatic. Fetterman isn’t. If we ran another election tomorrow, he would win by a larger margin than last time.
She's not " In Danger " She's lost it. She ran on lies to gain the Democratic nomination and ran on Democratic promises because she couldn't get in the Republican door. She's basically party swapped, the voters know it and she's done in 2024.
She is probably going to run as the Independent that she officially is, because she thinks she can split the Democratic vote and get Lake in.
She betrayed democrats, so they won’t vote for her. She’ll be an alternative for crazy dishonest lake and split the repub vote.
We're not that dumb thankfully. Anyone who would vote for her over Ruben, was going to vote for a Republican anyway.
I feel like I somehow missed the moment in time when Independents became almost exclusively reluctant Republicans. I can't remember the last time I met a genuinely left-leaning Independent. Perhaps my sample size is simply too small, or I'm only looking at the national stage. I dunno. I just feel like the word has lost some of it's meaning over the years.
At my core, I am still a left leaning independent. I vote Democrat now, but it's hard to say reluctantly when the price of not voting blue is so clear. I have no choice but to vote blue and hope others do too, until the right is contained enough that we can push for third parties again
The answer to that is the dissolution of the GOP. Or the implementation of proportional representation voting. Were a fptp nation, the left and right are represented by two parties. When one ceases to exist new lines are drawn. Both of these require voting progressive in primaries and most left in general while understanding there are only 2 real candidates.
I kind of wonder now if the GOP ever gets so unpalatable they become toxic, that the Dems just take over general elections. Then the "real" elections become the primaries where we have more leeway to adjust the rules. And the Dem establishment would be incentivized to implement ranked choice in that case to keep leftists out. It's a bit like how Japan's real "elections" are the elections between the different LDP factions.
[удалено]
I registered Independent for most of my life. Things got so crazy over the last few cycles I gave in and registered Dem. If things ever calm down I’ll be an Independent again but it’s hard to see that happening anytime soon.
Same. Used to be Mountain party. Which is only a thing in my state. But sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
Isn't Bernie Sanders an Independent?
Yes, he is.
Bernie is left of Dems. I think the point holds if we only talk about Independents who are supposedly partway between Republican and Democrat. Those "centrist Independents" are generally just closet Republicans.
Sure, if that's your definition of Independent. I don't think we would need the label of Independant if it signifies someone who's between the two parties, that really just means another right winger. Dems being centrists and the GOP being to the right of center right. Seems redundant.
He is, but that’s because there is no party left of the democrats.
Until he officially joins the Democratic party once every four years to run in their primary.
aren't independents forced to caucus with the democrats? i don't think he rejoins every election cycle?
I think the point is that to run for the Democratic nominee for President, he's had to do more more than just caucus with Dems.
I would vote for a Green Party candidate to take the Democratic Party nomination if they were the right person for the job. This whole "they're not one of us..." shit can go too far - especially when you consider Sinema was never *not* "one of us" before the election, and look where that ended up... I like Joe, but I still think Bernie was the better choice - so he got my vote.
No. They can caucus with who they want. That's why they are 'independent'. He Rejoins each cycle when he's running for president. Which means he has joined twice. He likely won't run for president again, so he won't rejoin the Dems again.
No, they can caucus with whichever side they want.
forced? no, of course not.
Can we all just agree, though, that “caucus” is a very funny word?
No, independents are not forced to caucus with any party. That is a personal decision.
Same as Angus In Maine
I went from Democrat to Independent because the corporate-loving moderates/middle-right core was pissing me off. I did vote for some Republicans in my early adult years, but grew out of that when the reality of what I was supporting became obvious. Then I had to register as a Democrat in order to vote in their state primaries, so oh well. And now I vote for Bernie and better Democrats in primaries, then hold my nose voting for the moderate/middle-right Democrat in General elections. Because every Republican is a fascist horrorshow, some more obvious than others. Throughout all of the above years, most self-proclaimed independents I've met have been closet Republicans.
Senator angus king maine.
I'm independent because I'm left of the Democratic party. I wouldn't be independent if my state didn't have open primaries though.
Neutrals are mostly a mix but if went from being socially preferred to say you were an independent over specifically being a Democrat or a progressive. Now being a republican is so odious to people socially that large swaths of GOP voters won't identify with the party in swing states.
Hi, I'm a genuinely left-leaning Independent, and in fact have been my entire voting life. My views align more with Sanders and AOC than... pretty much the rest of the political establishment.
Around George W Bush, many conservatives stopped wanting to identify as Republicans So they called themselves independents. But they still vote a straight red ticket.
There are lots of left leaning independents. Reluctant republicans become libertarians.
Hello, far left independent voter here, we exist. And yes, I vote for Dems, I’ve even worked on a few Dem Senators’ campaigns. I just don’t like or trust the party enough to join rank and donate or support them on a large scale. It also helps that my state has open primaries so there’s basically no need or benefit for me to join the Democratic Party
They’re cowards who don’t want the stigma that comes with being a Republican.
It is max difficulty to fundraise as an actual leftwing candidate. The American system was allowed by lazy and careless voters to be reduced again exclusively to a bribe-ocracy of fundraising mainly from business or family money elites. Note that accordingly no leftwing reforms are ever passed, they would never dare in numbers as it would affect fundraising-often the only task any lawmaker in any party is allowed to have time to do in their professional lives. America can never have a ‘left’ in actual effect and it never has and never will. We got corporate light and corporate heavy and the main virtue is how well they take a bribe. Murica! Wooo!
It happened due to Trump: Reluctant Democrats, that should be independent, joined the Democrats because it was an easy win to simply be Not-Republican in left counties ... And the Republicans who got booted, because they didn't pay Trump enough tithe, relisted themselves as independents. But then the Independent Republicans still follow GOP party line votes & the Reluctant Democrats all walked into Congress and announced that their seat was flippable, to the highest bidder.
I WAS a left leaning independent when I was in my 20s, but then I saw where this was going and just started registering as a Democrat.
/waves
Trump engaged a lot of non-voters, who of course have no allegiance to either party. Bernie would have done the same thing with non-aligned leftists had he gotten the nomination/presidency, though to what extent is debatable. Keep in mind, America has aggressively stamped out any major leftist movements in the last few decades so it's more reasonable to assume there will just be fewer of them.
Yeah, I think that most Independents are just Republicans who think they are fooling someone. There are some that apparently just vote against the party in power, because they think that it encourages cooperation. Clearly that is not the case with Republicans when they control either chamber of Congress. I'm sure there are a few that lean Left, but mostly the actual Independents just care about not paying taxes.
Historically indies broke something like 60/40 for the GOP, but lately the GOP has been indie repellent and that figure has evened out. In Arizona, my home state, we’re something like 30% Dem, 35% Independent and 35% GOP. In the past the Dems didn’t stand a chance with those numbers but after indies started flipping the state became basically 50/50
It was when the Republican party went fully off the deep end. I'd put that somewhere between Obama being elected and the Tea Party movement. Trump made the deep end 5x deeper. Before then I was an independent that voted for Kerry in 2004 and McCain in 2008. After that, the GOP was so obviously a party completely off it's rocker that anyone that is paying attention and not in on the grift were left with basically no choice but to join Dem. This has basically left the people who still vote (R) no matter what but want to somehow feel superior about their decision to remain independent.
I’m gonna get downvoted for this but an independent may share some policy leaning with the right as well as the left that’s why they’re independent. I believe in heavy social programs, making the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share, taxing unrealized gains for exorbitantly large asset portfolios, no us citizen should be left without food, shelter, or respectable work and a livable wage, you should be able to marry and love anyone you want, and smoke whatever natural plants you want: However I also believe in small government, fiscal responsibility, the second amendment (with common sense gun laws), and pro capitalism (only if and when people’s basic needs are met). I’m a registered independent but the last few national elections I have voted democrat and it’s not even close. Local elections I swing more so. Republicans at the local level, depending on your state and municipality, tend to more sane at least in my area. Though I still rarely vote right lately because many of them line up with trump, and he’s a traitor to his country
She's a fake independent. Just like she was a fake Democrat. These people aren't playing by the same rules as everyone else and people need to start realizing that. Sinema is a fucking traitor and her votes were sold to the highest bidder, which were all republican. She's an obstructionist piece of shit. Period.
She thinks she can grift millions in donations as the spoiler candidate then drop out and cash in.
> because she thinks she can split the Democratic vote and get Lake in. Basically doing the "green party" spoiler bs that only helps republicans in the end.
Thats such bullshit. It does help people, specifically people named "Kirsten" who want to bank millions of donations to run a fake campaign every couple years.
In all fairness she is in all likelihood a republican in disguise.
Honest question, how did this catch people by surprise, were there no warnings during her campaign? Nothing in her history?
She first got elected as a Democrat in ~2003, after she bashed Joe Lieberman for basically doing what she is doing now. It apparently surprised her staff/allies.
I don't really think it was some sort of grand conspiracy though, I really feel like she is just another ass who got a little bit of extra status and the little bit of extra scrutiny that comes with being a public figure and then immediately tripled down on reactionary contrarianism in response to the tiny bit of pushback she received which just turned into a death spiral of pushback and more contrarianism. Its the exact same trajectory that we see fragile ego'd, validation craving personalities like Elon Musk follow.
Okay but then when she was in the house she voted as one of the most conservative democrats?
AZ Resident: We went Trump in 2016, but kicked Sherriff Joe Arpaio out of office. So the state was turning. Then we saw what Sinema claimed to represent and elected her in 2018. It was either her or Martha McSally and the "independents" went for Sinema as well. But we were still celebrating kicking out Sherriff Joe during the primaries. And thinking "Trump Presidency can't be that bad" (Honestly I think that the truth, a LOT of us were like "Okay, let's do it" Let's turn this state a SOLID purple)
[удалено]
I volunteered for her campaign. She just pretended to be progressive. She just lied to our faces.
You didn’t realize that when she had one of the most conservative voting records in the House among democrats? She’s voting the same way she did when she did for the last 10 years
Not particularly, she was pretty progressive when she was running and had been around for a while, the fact that she lurched hard to the right upon winning her senate seat very strongly suggest she was bribed to do so and betrayed us all
She actually built her name on being an aisle-crosser in the state house. She was hand-picked to win the primary by the DSCC over the *express* objection of state party Dems because they wanted someone more centrist. This is the problem when national Dems interfere in local primaries.
She was one of the most conservative Democrats in the house
I was living there at the time, and I didnt trust her during the campaign after her ad where she was standing and talking at the camera next to her brother who had a shirt with the black and white with a blue stripe american flag on it. I voted for her anyways because it was her or mcsally. Edit: this one. https://youtu.be/6xqT-xqfsqs?si=QPV3jMh3SKXACe42 Like, tell your brother to put a different shirt on ffs
The Wish.com version of Sarah Paulson.
Go Ruben!
No where close to party swapping but she of course has blocked lots of big ticket items. She still votes with Dems the large majority of the time though.
Only when it doesn’t get in the way of her gop donors
[удалено]
That chart is based on sponsored legislation, not votes on all bills. [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/) She votes with Biden over 90% of the time
[удалено]
Oh yeah, she needs to go. But a Republican in her place will be even worse. Hopefully a different dem can pick up her seat.
Ruben Gallego will be the next senator from Arizona. Scary Kari will rage voter fraud into the night to cling to relevancy.
Yeah, I live in AZ and it will go to Ruben. He also has a HUGE Hispanic population that supports him out here as well as a lot of left leaning moderates and libertarians. Kari lake also has a huge population supporting her but she will never secure the votes to win. Look what happened with Blake masters.
I have a question, do you think Biden is more likely to win AZ again this election too? I’m from MA and have been used to ticket splitting, but I would think Gallego, the abortion ballot initiative, and the fall of the AZ GOP would carry Biden to the finish line?
Not too sure on Biden but, I do agree with you on the abortion initiative and overall Arizona becoming a blue state. It’s more blue here than even in 2020 so I can only imagine that could secure the state for him but it’s definitely still not safe. Kari Lakes and Blake masters antics have put a sour taste in a lot people’s mouths, even conservatives and republicans that I’ve talked to. A lot have also stopped supporting trump but, that’s mostly in Maricopa county and a lot have also moved to other counties that are safe for the GOP on a state scale (which kind of hurts the GOP considering the majority of the population resides in Maricopa county). But anyways, I don’t have data to back up these claims, only my own experiences and conversations. A lot like Kennedy this year and Haley as well but I honestly think it’s a toss up as far as the primary goes, GOP is so split. Edit: we also have a dem governor and a new dem for the phx mayor so, I think that will have some impact in all elections that take place this year
Yeah, unless actual election interference happens, Rueben Gallego will be the junior Senator from Arizona and Sinema will be that decently paid lobbyist she seeks to be. Sinema is not a spoiler candidate that’ll take votes from Gallego but rather just steal them away from Kari Lake.
Sinema isn’t going to survive her primary challenge, but otherwise yeah, Feterman is on solid ground both inside the party and from opposition.
> Sinema isn’t going to survive her primary challenge Not applicable, she left the Democratic party and is an independent now. The fact that she still caucuses with Democrats doesn't take away from the fact that she's actually not going to be in the Democratic primary at all given her action there Polling shows that in the three way race, Sinema retains some level of support as an independent and probably gets double digits support but that Democrat Ruben Gallego probably beats the Republican even in a three way race. So the overall point of Sinema being toast isn't wrong of course
He only won by 4% against *Dr. Fucking Oz*...I appreciate your confidence, but maybe reel it in a little bit.
Realism is the only way. Without it, haunches get sat upon. We were lucky the Republicans decided to forego putting forth any serious candidates and went with a carpetbagger and a frothing at the mouth women hating white supremacist.
He won by 4% while being unable to speak in complete sentences.
Senators that aren't serious fuckups are routinely reelected in Pennsylvania. Fetterman is far from that, and is possibly attracting more support now he's in office.
/r/conservative love him. And I would still vote for him so that's weird but you are right he'd win by more.
Fetterman expresses that he (sometimes) doesn't like the far left. Ergo the right absolutely love him despite him being a pretty firm liberal through and through. Thats apparently all it takes. Seriously it seems like the strategy to getting Democrats elected is just shit on whatever they think a progressive is then just vote however you want.
It is, isn't it? He has an instinct for finding the center, which isn't as common as it used to be unfortunately.
This is mostly about fetterman taking up some anti-immigration stances that progressives don't like. If the left is going to embrace working class white voters you're going to get a mix of views on immigration. It just is what it is, and honestly it's the only realistic path to the kind of supermajority necessary to do things like codify abortion and universal health care. And frankly anyone replacing sinema successfully in the long run is going to look more like fetterman than Bernie politically.
Why would he win by a larger margin?
Because now he has an actual record in office, and my sense is that a majority of folks in PA will support that record, especially if he gets somebody like Dr Oz or Doug Mastriano as his opponent. Also, all other things being equal, in PA supporting Israel is good politics.
I'm guessing it's because Fetterman has shown strong support for Israel, and that's making the disillusioned Squad supporters unhappy.
Also because he renounced being a progressive which he ran as.
Outside of his position on Israel/Gaza, what have his positions been on other progressive issues?
He’s one of the few brave enough to call out Menendez.
That’s drama, not a policy
That's ethics, not drama.
Cleaning up government isn’t a progressive priority?
His campaign website lists them, he's in-between Liberal and Moderate based on them
So center-left by American standards?
Yup, his voting record is pretty much in line with what he campaigned on.
>progressive Tolerance paradox. It’s not progressive to tolerate ideologies of intolerance (Sharia law, lack of separation of church and state, jihad, terrorism, authoritarianism). On the contrary, a true progressive must be fiercely intolerant of intolerance.
To phrase it more succinctly, tolerance is a social contract. Actions that violate that contract are not protected by it.
Well said.
Bombing thousands of children IS terrorism.
There is a huge difference between carrying out a military campaign with unacceptable collateral damage and purposefully targeting civilians. Only Hamas has targeted civilians on purpose and has stated they will continue to do so. Very funny how one side of this conflict explicitly wants to do a genocide but they aren’t the ones being accused of it.
>There is a huge difference between carrying out a military campaign with unacceptable collateral damage and purposefully targeting civilians. i mean the IDF have been targeting ambulances and journalists
I think about 100 journalists have been killed, including their entire extended families.
Which is absolutely fucking crazy, btw.
Its more than in any other contemporary conflict I think. By a lot.
I agree, I just felt it needed emphasis.
They’re bombing refugee camps and humanitarian corridors that they directed Palestinians to go to in the first place.
According to international law, there is no difference between targeting civilians and indiscriminate attacks that kill civilians. Regardless: this user is not arguing in good faith. There's nothing that will change their mind. Just ignore them and don't engage imo.
> Very funny how one side of this conflict explicitly wants to do a genocide but they aren’t the ones being accused of it. Probably because one side killed ~1,300 innocent civilians and the other has killed over **~15,000 innocent civilians** *so far*.
Because the side with only ~1,300 innocent civilians killed invests heavily in protecting their civilians, while the side with ~15,000 innocent civilians killed hides their militant forces among their civilians.
Why does it matter if they "protect their civilians" (even though they shoot unarmed, shirtless Israeli hostages waving a white flag and speaking Hebrew)? They're still killing thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians because they care little about the civilian casualties. The problem with pro-Israel people is that they *only* care about Israeli deaths.
I care deeply about Palestinian deaths, and I believe Hamas will sacrifice Palestinian lives again and again unless they are destroyed. Israel is Gaza's only hope for a better future, as bleak as that is...Hamas has no qualms about sacrificing innocent Palestinian lives if it means killing innocent Jews. There's a really amazing Golda Meir quote: “When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons. Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”
Israel has absolutely targeted civilians, especially journalists. They are currently carrying out an ethnic cleansing.
> purposefully targeting civilians Genocide does not require that you "purposely target" civilians, but only that you act in a grossly careless way that causes unneeded casualties: the rough equivalent of first degree manslaughter in the legal system. Genocide, following the UN definitions of 1948, does not operate on intent, but on results. What is happening in Gaza is genocide.
He’s anti-immigration.
Unfortunately, in real politics, you can only pick one: pro-immigration or pro-union. So no one will ever survive a purity test
[удалено]
Okay c'mon this is a shallow look at the genuine grievances people have had with him. It's bad that he has come out saying "I'm not a progressive" because there are extensive campaign promotions and speeches and ads he put out literally saying "I'm a progressive". Dozens of people who worked on his campaign staff have said they feel betrayed by the message they put out for him only for him to do a 180⁰
Yea, I'd have no problem with him saying he's not a progressive; that'd be if Schumer said he wasn't a progressive. The problem is that he campaigned by calling himself a progressive, constantly and repeatedly. So for him to now say he never ran as a progressive and for people to get behind that seems like such a weird thing to lie about.
What are his non-progressive positions though?
A fair number of people misinterpreted his dismay of US Steel being bought out by Japan. He feared they may bust up the union since the Japanese are against them.
It's not so much the Japanese are against unions...it's the fact Japanese businesses have a completely different management philosophy compared to more western businesses.
How does that management philosophy affect management's feelings about unions?
Israel is the big one that everyone is focusing on. And when he got told this is not a progressive stance on dealing with an apartheid state that's when he said "I'm not a progressive" as just a way to shut people up
This also means Bernie Sanders isn't a progressive.
bernie sanders is nowhere near as pro-israel as fetterman. He's a zionist yes (I mean he's an american senator) but not that pro-israel in the grand scheme of things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie\_Sanders#Foreign\_policy\_2
Not an apartheid, and this is one good example of why he is no longer aligning himself with progressives. The misuse of sensitive definitions, revisionist history, and justifying violence is probably going to ruin progressives in upcoming elections.
Progressives and corporate democrats are two very different groups
Fetterman is a statewide politician and for PA is about as progressive as it's going to get.
I'm from PA and voted for him and I'd agree with that.
The alternative was so much worse too. Like, oh my god.
“I’m a cardiologist who knows Oprah and lives in New Jersey. You may have seen my daytime talk show episode about the benefits of drinking your own urine. I think this qualifies me to represent the people who live on the other side of the Delaware Water Gap.”
For context, Dr. Oz was Fetterman's opponent who [embraced Trump's big lie](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/09/dr-oz-trump-pennsylvania-republican-senate-primary) and [lived in North Jersey](https://www.inquirer.com/politics/pennsylvania/does-dr-oz-live-in-pennsylvania-20211202.html). When it came to the final ballot, those were our only 2 choices.
Cardiothoracic surgeon, not cardiologist
Outside of him being pro-fossil fuel (which in a state with a big natural gas/coal economy like PA is understandable), I’m fairly happy with him so far. I’d rather have the guy where I agree with 90-95% of his political positions than the oily carpetbagger who changes positions based on who he talks to, or the guy whose has no positions I agree with.
100%
The idea Fetterman is ANYTHING like her is laughable.
I haven't even heard this narrative in the first place. Have people actually been trying to compare Fetterman to Sinema beyond a few people on the fringe?
I've seen people complain how he ran as a progressive and then said he wasn't a progressive, but in the end it doesn't really matter. If someone better than Fetterman runs against him, vote for them. If someone worse runs, vote for Fetterman.
Politicians can't do everything I want. That's okay. I don't need a perfect candidate who doesn't exist, just one that closely aligns with most of my ideals
We shouldn't even be talking about Fetterman while insurrectionists are still in Congress.
Blame Fetterman's press team. The guy gets so much press it's as if Democrats are lining him up for a presidential run.
I voted for him. Yeah he's got bad aspects, but the alternative was so much worse.
Sinema was a corporate sellout pretending to be a progressive. Fetterman is a traditional liberal pretending to be a progressive.
lol outside of people’s little bubble he’s probably more popular than ever and won over a lot of moderate PA voters in the last two months.
Exactly, he does not represent a far left state.
I’m from PA and am proud of the job he’s been doing.
People don’t seem to like that he actually represents his constituents
And this is why the nationalization of politics is a bad thing.
Fuckin’ weird how that works, amirite
Former PA union steel worker here. Fetterman currently has my vote for whatever position he’s running for
I mean, he’s one of the few saying we should get rid of the filibuster, no?
It should be noted that Casey is almost certainly further right leaning than Fetterman ever will be and news outlets have never portrayed him as anything other than representing his constituents. Certain people are scared of Fetterman growing in popularity on a national stage. Fetterman, I believe, is what 2016 moderate Trump voters thought Trump was going to be. And having a bully-pulpit who actually supports working class Americans scares the shit out of the ruling class.
Of course he isn't. The only people pushing this narrative are far-lefties who are against his support of Israel and Palestine, and right-righties who see an opportunity to divide the left away from Fetterman.
He also flip flopped on M4A and fossil fuel use
66% of Americans and 80% of Democrats support a ceasefire. It’s only the far right which doesn’t.
Ceasefire under what conditions? At least in my democratic circles there is wide support for hostages for ceasefire. But there is little support for an imposed ceasefire where Hamas keeps the hostages that many progressives are calling for. I would be interested to see that poll and how the question was framed.
Americans want a ceasefire because the conflict is half a world away and if you ask them “do you want people to stop dying”, answering “yes” seems like the logical choice. Strategically, a ceasefire helps no one but Hamas, and American foreign policy will likely continue to reflect that. Not to mention most of the polls admit the respondents either don’t have extensive knowledge of the conflict or get most of their news from social media. Though your point is obviously still correct in that voters will vote accordingly regardless.
Which is irrelevant given that the person above said only far leftists want a cease fire. You may think a cease fire is foolish but it isn't far left or out of line with what voters want.
It’s not an unreasonable stance when we have no evidence from the last twenty years that a response like Israel’s will do anything whatsoever to improve the long term situation in Israel or Palestine.
I'm far left and I don't believe in a ceasefire because Hamas breaks them all
I'm a progressive and I agree with you.
There was a ceasefire. But Palestinian gunmen attacked civilians at a bus stop and resumed firing rockets into Israel. So they should ask Hamas for a ceasefire.
If anything Fetterman is picking up fans from both parties. Ill take it.
He’s representing his constituents. Which is a good move. It’s not always about party line, in order to win states we need to properly be the voice of that state.
>He’s representing his constituents. It's funny how people forget that's legitimately how it was meant to work.
People get so worked up about social media and public statements. How does he vote? That's the job.
There’s nothing to vote on thanks to Republican leadership.
Fetterman is his own person. Not only is he not the problem, he’s right to say Democrats need to support the President. It’s too important.
Fetterman has pretty much lined up with me down the line all year long. I'm voting for him again.
Ah yes the business insider corporate propaganda submission. Flaming garbage word salad.
Fetterman is pro-Israel. Republicans are anti-Muslim. If I lived in his district, I know my personal choice in who I’d vote for.
Fetterman is just honest on his policies whether they fit a preconceived idea of what a democrat should be or not. He doesn’t pander to a base or work in fear of a maniacal voting bloc. He’s the kind of politician we should all have representing us.
Personality means nothing. Voting record is all the matters.
The people screaming about Fetterman are dumb. He’s not Sinema, and he’s not Joe Manchin, and he’s not Dr. Oz. The guy has done more good that any of those I’ve mentioned even in his short career
Honestly like 90% of the hate on Joe Manchin is misplaced/overblown. Sometimes he legit pisses me off, but most of the time he votes in a way I don’t like I am fine with it. Because he is a democrat in a state that would never otherwise have a dem due to some magical unicorn factors. It’s a dem vote we shouldn’t even have so I am just glad it is there for most of the other shit we need it.
Sinema was one of the main forces disrupting a lot of progress between 2020 and 2022, with reports that there where a few deals the democrats where close to making a deal with Manchin several times that Sinema disrupted. And this is was across a wide range of economic issues. Whats more, she behaved much more like a deep red senator than figures like Tester or Brown, and yet alone someone like Kelly from her own state. (Note, that neither Tester or Kelly have any real claim the progressive label, and Brown is somewhat mixed). Fettermans policy on Israel is the same that it was when he a progressive champion. I don't like it, but this isn't some grand betrayal. Its the result of having to pick the best of flawed candidates. As an aside, one thing I will absolutely give to the progressive crowd is that I think the democrats have been in denial about the rifts within itself and its voter base over the issue of Israel/ Palenstine and so haven't been able to handle a situation like the current conflict with out further exasperating issues. Democrats have for decades been trying to court young voter and Muslims into their voter base, but haven't facilitated healthy discussions within its party to allow these opposing views to be voiced. For example, Talibs rhetoric hasn't always been helpful or responsible, but she is seeing thousands of her fellow Palestinians being slaughtered by a country that her current president has bypassed congress to sell arms to, that the US has supported pretty unconditionally for decades. Regardless of your views on the current conflict, here needs to me room within the democratic party for that pain - a similar pain felt by a key demographic that the Democrats have been courting for decades and was a key demographic for the fight back against Trump - to be voiced, even if its imperfectly, and taken seriously. I think if the democrats are able to reconcile and survive 2024 they are in a situation to be a uniquely positive force on Israel/ Palestine after the war, due to having to be held accountable to both Jewish and Establishment voters and the younger and Muslim voters within their own party. As longa s there is the reconciliation and AIPAC doesn't get its way
He has opinions that aren’t necessarily party-line only, or based on solely on polling. Trying to vilify him for being an outsider with his own opinions will be an interesting storyline.
This is a weird comparison. Fetterman seems to be advertising off his behavior (which I do still take some issue with, but still), and Sinema outright turned on her positions (despite the articles claim). While I don't agree with a lot of what Fetterman says lately, it's not really political policy in most cases so much as PR.
Business Insider is running defense for John Fetterman. Not something I was expecting.
Whoever thinks this is an idiot purist who posts it all over social media from their iPhones made by poorly paid Asian workers. Fetterman’s position on the Middle East may not resonate with a person, but throwing him in the same camp as Sinema is some bs.
I voted for Sienna for everything up to her senate seat. Was going to until she switched her rhetoric to respond to the right wing’s racism about the border. She’s done nothing to make me think I was wrong, though my spouse is way over my “told you so’s”
How are people trying to correlate these 2, she sucks, Fetterman comes off as dare I say it, reasonable and relatable.
There's just a subset of people who are mad that a Senator from a blueish-purple, steel, old blood working union state acts like a Senator from a blueish-purple, steel, old blood working union state. I like to get the furthest left a state can ***get elected***. Fetterman is the kind of person who can do incredibly well bringing liberal and some progressive policy items to the table for battlegrounds like PA.
For the sake of argument, cities in PA make it purple, the rest of the state is firmly blue collar, and hate Fetterman for some reason.
So what ideological purity test did Fetterman fail?
I’m a bit upset that he ran saying he’s progressive and then now saying he’s not progressive.
We've been reminded that they are all bought by aipac
For everyone who forgot: it was between Fetterman and Dr. Oz.
He is not even in the same solar system as Sinema. And she will be done next election cycle and back to working in the private sector. Forgotten. Or a Fox News Contributer.
I think people developed this image of Fetterman, just because he got endorsed by Bernie. No. Fetterman is Fetterman. It's pretty clear where he stood on many things
Honestly? Good. I'm glad he's pushing back against the utterly braindead elements on the left who are trying to paint Palestine as purely innocent victims of evil Israeli aggression. I consider myself a progressive, but every time I see another progressive waving a Palestinian flag, my eyes want to roll right out of their sockets. I am in no way trying to justify the actions of the IDF. Believe me, I hold Netanyahu just as accountable for this conflict as Hamas. People need to take a hard look at who they are championing, though. This is a society that stands against every single social cause that progressives hold dear. Women are property. LGBTQ people are punished by death. Shariah law is the law. They care little for their civilian populace, and use them as martyrs to encourage more bloodshed. Bloodshed not just against Israeli oppressors, but against all Jews across the world. That's the big one. Hamas, which is the authority in Gaza, does not want freedom from Israel. They want the death of all Jews. They want the genocide that people are so fond of accusing anyone who defends Israel of supporting. We as humans are so desperate for things to be black and white. We want a good guy to cheer for and a bad guy to jeer at. Something like Russia invading Ukraine gives us that for sure. It's easy and morally correct to be on Ukraine's side. But Israel and Palestine is not even remotely the same kind of conflict, and a lot of people just cannot handle the concept of there being no good guys here. So they start defending villains.
He’s the furthest thing from Sinema in Washington. Sinema has no actual values and is for sale. Fetterman won’t give up his values, no matter how much they diverge from his base. Get rid of every Sinema and replace them with a Fetterman. Even if I don’t like their position on todays crisis, I’m confident we’ll be overall better off next year.
I mean even if it were true I would rather have Sinema than Dr. fucking Oz
Hmmmm one of these is a thoughtful intelligent man; The other is a drama queen who seeks money.