United Farm Workers endorses Biden, says he's an 'authentic champion' for workers and their families
apnews.com
The United Farm Workers on Tuesday announced its endorsement of President Joe Biden for reelection, saying that the Democrat has proven throughout his life to be an “authentic champion” for workers and their families, regardless of race or national origin.
The farm workers’ union was co-founded by Cesar Chavez, the late grandfather of Julie Chavez Rodriguez, who Biden named as his 2024 campaign manager. Her father, Arturo Rodriquez, is a past UFW president.
Julie Rodriguez and “special guests” were expected to formally announce the endorsement later Tuesday at Muranaka Farms in the city of Moorpark in southern California.
You are viewing a single comment
Yup. She sure let us know what Democrats are all about when she did that. When do you think Democrats will try to raise the minimum wage again?
"Sinema represents all Democrats" is the most braindead take I've read all day, but it's still early.
I said she demonstrated what Democrats are all about and I meant it. When Democrats have a chance to do something for poor people that they don't want to do, they find an excuse and find enough votes to go along with that excuse.
There were eight Democrats who voted that workers in this country aren't worth one penny more than $7.25/hr. So let's say some Republican who agrees with those 8 filibusters. In order to get to the 60 needed for cloture, Democrats would need 68 seats in the Senate. Do you think "shut up, be happy, vote harder" is gonna get us to 68?
And let's say by some fucking miracle we increase the majority by a whopping 18 senators. Only one of them needs to be a Sinema-style centrist to vote against workers and we'll be back to "Oh well, Guess we didn't have enough senators lol. Now let's throw half a trillion at the military to celebrate!"
Democrats will not increase the minimum wage. Too few of them want to.
She's not even a Democrat anymore. I personally think democrats need to just tank the filibuster at some point. Some democrats fear what would happen at some future hypothetical Republican senate without a filibuster, but I personally think that's silly, as Republicans will probably just get rid of it whenever they feel it's advantageous to them.
Democrats are clearly better than the alternative party (and the third party candidates haven't exactly been stellar), but we also need to be active in the primary elections and keep getting more progressives in there and boot people like Sinema out.
They should have done so already. They won't. They love their procedural excuse for inaction.
I don't buy that one bit. Politicians want to be re elected, and it's far easier to run on a record of having done something. A lot of people voting hardly even know what a filibuster is or why it would have prevented something from happening. In one Monmouth survey linked below, only 19% of people called themselves very familiar with a filibuster. It's not exactly going to help them to get re elected by failing to do anything then appealing to a vague parliamentary procedure most people are hardly aware of. Do you seriously see campaign ads going, oh look at the good things I was going to do but didn't but it's okay cause parliamentary procedure made it hard, vote for me again. Theory makes no sense.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/12/politics/filibuster-polls-analysis/index.html
And again if you want the filibuster elimated, you're best bet is on the democrats. They almost managed it for the voting rights bill, with 48 democrats for making a filibuster exception, only 2 against, and every single republican against.
No, I see them being like "our opponents are fascists and you have no choice" with heavy overtones of "shut up and be happy, peasant."
If they get control of the house and retain the senate next election, as well as Biden winning again. Unfortunately Republicans are dead set against any minimum wage increas so not gonna be possible without a Democrat trifecta most likely.
At least Sinema kicked herself out of the democratic party so they didn't have to bother primarying her out. Hopefully someone more progressive will be able to replace her now.
If she had stayed in the party, the party would not primary her. The party protects incumbents from primary challengers.
The party doesn't primary her, another candidate does, and then we all vote on it. I'm not disagreeing with you here, and of course a party generally protects incumbents, they're easier to get re elected. Doesn't mean people still can't vote against them in the primary anyways and defeat a party admin preferred incumbent. I would also argue that Sinema leaving was an admission even the party admin was going to say, no fuck you. But again it's the primary election that decides, so go support progressives in the primary so you have a good candidate to vote for in the general.
The party supported an anti-choice candidate over a progressive and used incumbency as an excuse. If they have no standards at all beyond "support incumbent" then that's what I will continue expecting them to do.
The deck is already stacked against the challenger because incumbents have advantage. The party doesn't need to weigh in, but challengers tend to be progressive.
Did you laugh like an atheist in a Jack Chick tract after typing that?