comment: >
  
  This. I’m always trying to explain to people that democrats operate as a hive mind and put the interest of the party before the interest of the individual congressman. Sure you have people like AOC that like to shake things up with the rhetoric, but when it comes time to vote, they fall always in line. Nancy Pelosi does an excellent job at controlling her caucus, and that’s why they are able to enact their agendas when they control both chambers and the presidency. Republicans, on the other hand, are all about individualism and are far less likely to compromise on personal principle. That’s why when they get into power, they can offer tax cuts and absolutely nothing else, because it’s the only issue across the party that isn’t controversial enough to produce in-fighting.
context: The Democratic Party of the early 2000s:
  -Opposed Gay marriage
  -Opposed legal weed
  -Had a decently sized Pro-Life faction
  -Was proudly tough on illegal immigration
  -Would not have tolerated socialists
  -Would not have tolerated advocates of 
  abolishing private health insurance
  -Would not have tolerated advocates of decriminalizing border security
  -Would not have tolerated advocates of defunding the police
  …..I could go on. The Democratic Party has changed a lot over the past 20 yrs. As has the Republican Party. >
  
  The Democratic party of the 2020's:
  
  
  Supports gay marriage with zero consideration for things like common-law marriages or civil unions.
  
  
  Doesn't oppose legal weed but has made very few concrete steps towards any sort of decriminalization and in fact has signaled pretty strongly that they won't.
  
  
  Still has a decent sized pro-life faction and has been very hesitant to make concrete moves towards protecting access to abortion.
  
  
  Is still quietly very tough on undocumented immigration but makes a ton of noise about being in favor of legal immigration.
  
  
  Still doesn't tolerate socialists.
  
  
  Will tolerate advocates of abolishing private health insurance but refuses to allow any of their ideas to be put into practice.
  
  
  Will tolerate advocates of decriminalizing border security but will generally make as little movement on the border issue as possible.
  
  
  Still won't tolerate advocates of defunding the police and where the public outcry for it is too loud, will allow it but then immediately restore it once the issue passes from close public scrutiny.
  
  
  The Democratic party has not radically changed a lot over the last 20 years. They've learned to be more low-key in an effort to stymie accusations by the Republicans, for all that that matters considering Republicans will make accusations that are entirely baseless with no hesitation. >
  
  The Democratic Party has allowed for GOP tax policy to stand. That is very right wing. >
  
  I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that's right wing but I would point out the thing that the people downvoting me are probably thinking - there's a difference between acting within what's possible versus trying to do everything. That's a valid point but it's worth remembering that many of the high power Democrats benefit from the GOP's tax policy as do many of the Democratic high roller donors so there's going to be less of an incentive to roll it back. 
  Especially considering tax policy is kind of a black box for most voters. >
  
  Taxing the rich is very popular and not a black box. 
  The democrats are corrupt. >
  
  What we saw last week was Republicans destroying this congress. No Democrat wants that and therefore they wouldn't pull this kind of stunt. >
  
  
  What we saw last week was Republicans destroying this congress.
  
  Could you please explain your rationale for this claim? >
  
  Kevin had to make so many concessions to the nutty ones that he will have almost no power to run the body. He gave them the ability to call a no-confidence vote on him at any time–even by just one member. They have him by the balls. He is reportedly giving them three seats on the House Rules Committee so they can basically veto anything they don't like from ever coming to the floor. Remembering who these people are, I'm betting on an extended government shutdown and some real ugliness on the debt ceiling. I wouldn't be shocked if they just plunged us into default and tank the global economy.
  Lauren Boebert, Matt Gates, and the rest of them aren't interested in governing. They want to tear the whole thing down. And Kevin has given them outsized power in the House with which to do it. >
  
  Would you be as offended if Progressives actually stood up for something? >
  
  Progressives want to pass laws and make changes to better society. Being obstructionist doesn't help with that and may actively hurt. The far right is perfectly happy being obstructionist. >
  
  
  Progressives want to pass laws and make changes to better society.
  
  Can you point to a single instance where they actually held the line for anything? >
  
  Held the line? Holding the line doesn't create change. Don't let perfect be the enemy of better. >
  
  Because they care more about a functioning country than dangerous political stunts. >
  
  Please, explain how the past week threatened a "functioning country"...
  Or how what occurred is "dangerous political stunts"... >
  
  The House was inoperable for multiple days. If there had been a terrorist event or war we’d have no legislative appropriations body. The GOP knew about this problem for months and decided to play chicken with a functioning government. >
  
  
  The House was inoperable for multiple days. If there had been a terrorist event or war we’d have no legislative appropriations body.
  
  Based on this, I have to assume that you have 0 understanding of how the US government works...
  The "concerns" you claim to have are entirely under the Executive branch...
  
  The GOP knew about this problem for months and decided to play chicken with a functioning government.
  
  The GOP decided to ignore the Freedom Caucus because they believed that they would win 2022 enough to render them powerless in the House.
  That didn't happen, so the Freedom Caucus ended up with more power than they expected. >
  
  Don’t condescend to people that know more than you. The House literally could not fulfill any of its legislative functions while Republicans fought Republicans. Fight the Freedom Caucus in primaries, not while the House is not and cannot go into session until a Speaker is elected. Go talk down to someone who isn’t more knowledgeable than you, thanks. >
  
  
  Don’t condescend to people that know more than you.
  
  I didn't...
  
  The House literally could not fulfill any of its legislative functions while Republicans fought Republicans
  
  What critical issue wasn't addressed...?
  
  Fight the Freedom Caucus in primaries, not while the House is not and cannot go into session until a Speaker is elected
  
  That's what the Progressives did in 2020, and they achieved nothing...
  
  Go talk down to someone who isn’t more knowledgeable than you, thanks.
  
  I haven't "talked down" to anyone, nor have you shown yourself to be "more knowledgeable" than me... >
  
  If the far-right does absolutely nothing, that is called "sticking it to the Dems."
  If the Democrats do nothing, they get held accountable and lose their next primary. >
  
  Can you provide an example for your claim...? >
  
  Look into the approval ratings for Congress over the past 20 years...
  ETA:  who won the most recent election for her seat...? >
  
  That is a 2 year time span. >
  
  For starters, I would argue that your cited groups haven't resulted in as tectonic a shift within the Republican party as you might think.
  There have been some people whose careers got made, true, but consider that the Tea Party is basically dead at the moment and their mascot candidate, Ron Paul, retired in 2013.
  America First has attracted such political luminaries as Nick Fuentes, Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and Paul Gossar - basically a nightmare blunt rotation of people that are too toxic to deal with on the mainstream conservative circuit.
  The Freedom Caucus has a membership list that could best be summarized as "Hey it's that one guy arrested for having sex with a minor and a bunch of other people I don't recognize from states that don't matter politically." 
  As to the actual question, the progressive wing of the Democratic party stands for things that are inimical to the values and goals that the power brokers in the rest of the party have. Progressive goals are to shift the status quo at a fundamental level and the people that hold power in the Democratic party are people who benefit (personally and ideologically) from that status quo. 
  Progressive policies also risk alienating the mega donors and systems of political connection and power that help support the party. They want to bite the hand that feeds them and the rest of the party doesn't want to see that happen for obvious reasons.
  Yielding to progressives also opens up avenues for the Republicans to attack the Democrats, painting them as "communists" and generally stirring up popular fears about progressives wanting to put taxes on hamburgers, ban all cars, and mandate forcefeming of all white men in schools or whatever the latest moral panic is. 
  Aside from that, it's a fairly simplistic political calculation. The Democrats want to remain appealing to potential swing voters and voters who may lean Democrat but aren't as liberal. Progressives are probably going to vote and if they do they're probably going to vote for a Democrat even if they're upset with the party. There's little risk of them defecting to the Republicans.
  With that in mind, it's smarter from a purely strategic move to appeal to the center and the undecided rather than listen to people who are probably going to vote for you anyways.
  It's part of why the "you need to vote" is so strong from the Democratic camp. They want people to feel like they should go out and vote (because they know those people are probably going to vote Democrat) even if they're not happy with the options on the table. >
  
  The money is to the right in both parties. If you're a red meat republican looking to primary a RINO there's a pile of libertarian billionaire money out there waiting to back you. If you're a progressive democrat looking to primary a DINO the DCCC would blacklist anyone who worked with you up until recently.  
  Makes it extremely easy to do this kind of shit from the right and nearly impossible to do from the left. >
  
  
  The money is to the right in both parties. If you're a red meat republican looking to primary a RINO there's a pile of libertarian billionaire money out there waiting to back you. If you're a progressive democrat looking to primary a DINO the DCCC would blacklist anyone who worked with you up until recently.
  
  Have you not paid attention to the past week...?
  Republicans have called the dissenting representatives terrorists on national television, and had their rhetoric repeated by the Washington Post (and many other outlets).
  
  Makes it extremely easy to do this kind of shit from the right and nearly impossible to do from the left.
  
  How can you claim this when the left has never even tried to put up a fight?
  Why is it "nearly impossible"...? >
  
  
  Republicans have called the dissenting representatives terrorists on national television
  
  That's not very meaningful in a political party that calls terrorism "legitimate political discourse" and has explicitly said, "We are all domestic terrorists now."
  They might as well as saying, "Damn, you're being so Republican!" >
  
  Embracing any kind of significant progressive or radical elements from the Left means ultimately endangering the croney capitalist power structures that the Democratic Party relies on.  No party will field candidates or advance legislation that destroys itself. >
  
  
  Embracing any kind of significant progressive or radical elements from the Left means ultimately endangering the croney capitalist power structures that the Democratic Party relies on. No party will field candidates or advance legislation that destroys itself.
  
  I agree, to an extent...
  However, to my original point...
  A minority of Republicans brought the "establishment" to it's knees.  Even with the majority of "news" working against them...
  There has never been an equivalent display from Democrats
  ETA:
  It's really interesting that every reply has insisted on existential destruction as the result... >
  
  
  A minority of Republicans brought the "establishment" to it's knees. Even with the majority of "news" working against them...
  There has never been an equivalent display from Democrats
  
  That's what I'm saying.  A profoundly ignorant minority managed, in the course of a slow spiral, to screw over their colleagues, allies, themselves, and everyone else, apparently in the name of some bizarre ideology.  There's nothing about that catastrophe that the Democrats want to emulate.  The most obvious time not to shoot yourself in the foot is when you're watching someone else hop around holding their bullet-riddled foot.  If they weren't already wedded to a troubling centrism, they sure will be now >
  
  Can you explain how this has been "detrimental"...? >
  
  A full week of headlines about Republicans in disarray, failing to lead, McCarthy being publicly humiliated, the White House having to reassure foreign governments that we're okay and our government is still functioning.
  And you ask, "How has this been detrimental?"
  Come on. Stop playing games here. >
  
  The vast majority of Democratic voters prefer moderate candidates. HOWEVER, I would also argue that people like Pelosi are far more progressive than people like AOC. Over her's, and other long term congressman's, tenures in congress they've gradually implemented the vast majority of progressive laws that we take for granted today. An individual who successfully takes small steps toward progress is much more progressive than idealists who push big ideas that will never get passed. In my book anyway. Instead of giving Moderates a hard time, young people need to spend more time understanding how achieving a progressive victory over 30-100 years is a great accomplishment and the people who led those fights are worthy of immense praise, instead of the constant nitpicking over their unwillingness to support radical changes over a short period of time. 
  And honestly, it makes a lot of sense because a lot of the 'progressive' ideas pushed by the most radical members of the Democrats aren't well thought out, don't usually have strong funding proposals, and would oftentimes do more harm than good. Student debt relief is a great example of that and does many times more damage to the poor and working class than the help it provides to a very tiny fraction of the middle class and upper class. 
  The most annoying part is that progressives will constantly conflate poll results on basic ideals of progressivism with public support for incredibly complex bills that would achieve some form of those ideals. They aren't the same and many Americans like ideas but aren't going to automatically rally around a bill that does 1,000 things, one of which is loosely tied to the basic idea that they were polled on.
  Edit: I also say this as someone who worked for both Bernie in 2016 and Warren in 2020, we constantly had to tip toe around the fact that many of the most progressive ideals that the activists and loudest supporters were pushing weren't even on the table. It was more about making people feel heard, but oftentimes their belief in what the candidate stood for wildly differed from what Bernie or Warren actually supported. But so many people these days form their beliefs around politics online and in echo chambers. >
  
  gonna be honest here i didnt bother past the second sentence >
  
  Why can’t Dems be as successful as the Nazis?
  Republicans have pulled so far to the extreme right, endorsing and covering for corruption and violence in attempts to establish a Republican autocracy.
  While you are worried about, say, single payer health care, the fight is actually to save democracy. >
  
  Progressives make up maybe 10% of the electorate.  Democracy is based on the most number of people getting their way. >
  
  
  Progressives make up maybe 10% of the electorate. Democracy is based on the most number of people getting their way.
  
  How much of the electorate does the Freedom Caucus represent...? >
  
  More then we should be comfortable with.   Trump still has around 30% support so somewhere in that region. >
  
  So you admit that MAGA is more popular than progressives...? >
  
  It depends on what you mean be "popular". In raw numbers of people, there are more democrats or people voting democrat. But there are more states that are republican strongholds. So in terms of electoral politics, MAGA is definitely probably more popular. In terms of individual people, there are probably more people who would identify as progressive. But democrats don't embrace progressives and in fact actively work against them, while Republicans embrace  or at minimum tolerate/ignore the MAGA faction. >
  
  I think it has to do with the temperaments of liberals and conservatives. Liberals are more likely to say what they have to in order to fit in and conservatives are less likely. I believe this principle also translates to Washington. The politicians in the Democratic Party feel that pressure from the top dogs to tow the line, and they follow suit out of fear, whereas some of the Republicans don’t care how badly their reputation is tarnished. >
  
  This is a rational perspective.
  However, it leads me to ask you which perspective is more representative of Americans? >
  
  I don’t understand what you mean. Can you clarify? >
  
  Are American citizens more likely to "fall in line", or be rebellious to the end? >
  
  Lately it seems like we’re more willing to fall in line. >
  
  And btw it is the Democratic party.  Republicans dont necessarily believe in democracy.  ie the electoral college. >
  
  Progressives serve their purpose for the DNC every major election cycle. BLM was the talk of the election then as soon as the election was over they were dropped like a sack of potatoes. Even Antifa get tossed into the mix and democrats make some claim that Antifa doesn't exist running cover until after the election. Then you get fake Progressives like AOC that are in it for clout and power more than anything. Mainstream progressives are progressives in name more than ideology, they do whatever the DNC wants but pretend they're the rebels.