2022 Midterms: Oh god, not again

[stilgar]

Why do conservatives always blame the democrats for high gas prices and republicans for low gas prices? Are they all really that fucking stupid? Do they no realize that high gas prices are caused by corporate greed? Are they so brainwashed that they can't even think about blaming corporations?

[Master-Debater131]

Probably has something to do with the fact that we've been told those lies before by the Obama admin when they told us we had reached "peak oil" and we "cant drill out way out of these gas prices" and we need to "transition out of oil" only to be proven laughably wrong.

We didn't reach peak oil, we absolutely drilled our way out of those prices, and we didn't need to be forced to transition out of oil.

We can, and will, do it again. Its just a matter if its during the Biden admin or during a GOP admin in 2024. Judging by the actions of the current admin it sure looks like it will be by a GOP admin in 2024, unless a GOP led congress forces Bidens hand.

[stilgar]

Got it, you conservatives are that brainwashed and stupid. Thanks for answering my post.

[scoobdog]

50 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Probably has something to do with the fact that we've been told those lies before by the Obama admin when they told us we had reached "peak oil" and we "cant drill out way out of these gas prices" and we need to "transition out of oil" only to be proven laughably wrong.

We didn't reach peak oil, we absolutely drilled our way out of those prices, and we didn't need to be forced to transition out of oil.

We can, and will, do it again. Its just a matter if its during the Biden admin or during a GOP admin in 2024. Judging by the actions of the current admin it sure looks like it will be by a GOP admin in 2024, unless a GOP led congress forces Bidens hand.

I keep seeing you guys say things like "we can drill our way out of oil shortages" or "we have yet to reach peak oil" and so forth.  What does it mean to reach "peak oil?"

[Master-Debater131]

8 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

I keep seeing you guys say things like "we can drill our way out of oil shortages" or "we have yet to reach peak oil" and so forth.  What does it mean to reach "peak oil?"

Thats the point at which it is not possible to increase oil production, or the point where we start to decrease oil production because we no longer have a demand for oil.  We've been hearing about it for years but we always find a way to increase production, usually through new technology or extraction methods, and there currently is no easily available, cheap, and accessible good alternative to oil.

 

It was a common talking point during the Obama admin when we were told we had reached peak oil and needed to transition away because there was no possible way to increase production and drive down prices. Then Fracking happened and prices came way down.

[scoobdog]

It was a common talking point because the "new technologies" in question were oil-sand extraction and fracking.  Are you suggesting that it's acceptable to do increase greenhouse emissions by a factor over current processing (oil sands) and doing immeasurable harm to our water supplies with an earthquake or two for good measure (fracking) just so we can extract as much oil as possible?

The problem, Ms @Master-Debater131, is that you seem to have a different idea of what achieving peak oil is than most experts on one side and residents impacted by oil extraction on the other.

[stilgar]

Look, as long as there is oil in the ground conservatives will act like we will never run out because that's a problem for the future because that are idiots that have been brainwashed. 

[Master-Debater131]

No, Im actually dead on for what the definition of Peak Oil is.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/peak_oil.asp

"Peak oil refers to the hypothetical point at which global crude oil production will hit its maximum rate, after which production will start to decline. This concept is derived from geophysicist Marion King Hubbert's "peak theory," which states that oil production follows a bell-shaped curve."

 

Increasing greenhouse gases has absolutely no impact on if we are at peak oil or not. If we can continue to increase extraction then we are not at peak. We absolutely have the means to increase oil extraction, and we will do so at some point thanks to political pressure. What the experts say has absolutely no bearing on the political pressure that the American public will put on our elected leaders to drive gas prices down. No politician is going to survive gas prices this high, and they really wont if we hit an average of $6. They will be voted out by the people and replaced by people yelling "drill baby drill!" and then we will see the production of oil increase.

 

If there is one thing that should be painfully obvious at this point its that no amount of experts talking about warnings and doomsday scenarios is going to do anything to meaningfully change the American publics mentality. Americans are demanding lower energy prices, and they will elect people who will make that happen. Climate change will have zero impact on that.

[Top Gun]

Because Americans are motherfucking idiots.

[Master-Debater131]

16 minutes ago, Top Gun said:

Because Americans are motherfucking idiots.

Yup. And thats why everything I said will happen.

If anyone thinks otherwise I dare them to argue that the American public will have some sort of altruistic realization and willingly pay more than $6 a gallon for gas to stop the expansion of greenhouse gases.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Master-Debater131

[stilgar]

31 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Yup. And thats why everything I said will happen.

If anyone thinks otherwise I dare them to argue that the American public will have some sort of altruistic realization and willingly pay more than $6 a gallon for gas to stop the expansion of greenhouse gases.

Gas being that price has nothing to do with the reduction of greenhouse gasses. It has everything to do with corporate greed.

[scoobdog]

3 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

No, Im actually dead on for what the definition of Peak Oil is.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/peak_oil.asp

"Peak oil refers to the hypothetical point at which global crude oil production will hit its maximum rate, after which production will start to decline. This concept is derived from geophysicist Marion King Hubbert's "peak theory," which states that oil production follows a bell-shaped curve."

 

Increasing greenhouse gases has absolutely no impact on if we are at peak oil or not. If we can continue to increase extraction then we are not at peak. We absolutely have the means to increase oil extraction, and we will do so at some point thanks to political pressure. What the experts say has absolutely no bearing on the political pressure that the American public will put on our elected leaders to drive gas prices down. No politician is going to survive gas prices this high, and they really wont if we hit an average of $6. They will be voted out by the people and replaced by people yelling "drill baby drill!" and then we will see the production of oil increase.

 

If there is one thing that should be painfully obvious at this point its that no amount of experts talking about warnings and doomsday scenarios is going to do anything to meaningfully change the American publics mentality. Americans are demanding lower energy prices, and they will elect people who will make that happen. Climate change will have zero impact on that.

Yeah..... not so much.

The problem is that the people that are most complaining about oil prices rarely connect it to the actual act of drilling.  Case in point... you can find a ton of Orange County (CA) residents complaining about oil prices, but you're not going to find any of the ones living in heavily conservative Huntington Beach who would gladly allow for more drilling offshore.  Similarly, the biggest point of contention with the Keystone XL was that the pipeline was traveling across reservations at several points and, not surprisingly, the people on those reservations had far less need for the gas than the fear they had of a major leak fouling up their local rivers.  Besides the fact that the term "peak oil" is entirely hypothetical, it assumes that no further reserves are viable which is its own subjective definition.  But we're getting into the weeds here.

Your contention is that we can increase oil production, and that is extremely problematic.  The fact is, we're at a point where the technology to more efficiently extract oil comes at an increasingly higher cost.  It's not longer just pumping oil, it's extracting oil.  The reality is that we probably can't extract much more oil because that would involve drilling or extracting oil in places where the methods are not very popular.  As far as we know, the Los Angeles Metropolitan region still holds some of the highest reserves of oil in the country, but there's no way you would ever convince the local residents, let alone the state itself, to ever allow additional wells.  The cost of first getting local governments to buy in, then build state-of-the-art wells with increasingly strict protections, then fighting off years of civil litigation makes increasing production less than viable.  That mean, by definition, we have reached peak oil in this area because the returns will be diminishing should someone pursue adding oil.  If you're going based off the current surge, that's misleading.  The price of crude oil on the open market doesn't reflect the cost of the manufacturing of gas or the cost of processed fuel on the open market.  You're not going to necessarily make more producing oil in a market where gas prices are astronomical.

So, in fact, nothing you said is actually going to happen like you said it would.  People screaming for lower gas prices in Colorado aren't going to make the people living off the California coast more inclined to allow for more drilling nor will the make people living on reservations in the Dakotas more inclined to allow toxic spills on their lands, nor will it make those who live in the fracking country comfortable with the prospect of 6.0 or even a 7.0 earthquake.  You're basing your opinion completely based on the people in your bubble.

[Seight]

https://news.yahoo.com/vengeful-madison-cawthorn-vows-dark-201759292.html

Just great, now we have to keep track of MAGA Only White and MAGA Lone Wolfpack.

(This joke's really just for me but its cool if somebody else somehow gets it lol)

[naraku360]

4 hours ago, Seight said:

https://news.yahoo.com/vengeful-madison-cawthorn-vows-dark-201759292.html

Just great, now we have to keep track of MAGA Only White and MAGA Lone Wolfpack.

(This joke's really just for me but its cool if somebody else somehow gets it lol)

"I will expose even more of the orgies that I only know about through the grapevine and did not ever participate in more than 10 times."

[Raptorpat]

now we got Maddie Cawthorn vowing the rise of "dark MAGA" and here I thought their mage robes were all white

[Master-Debater131]

Im not basing anything on a bubble, Im basing it on historic precedent from not that long ago. Hell, if we still had access to the old ASMB I guarantee we would find this exact same argument taking place where someone on the Left said we cant drill our way out of prices while mocking people saying "drill baby drill", and I would be making the exact same points that I am making right now. And, just like back then, I am going to be proven right when elections happen and people who are very much pro-drilling sweep into office.

 

What happens in CO will absolutely impact what happens in CA.  We have a Senator up for election this year. If Democrats tank then he could easily be replaced by a GOP Senator who will push pro-oil policies through the Senate for 6+ years. That goes for all Senate races. The House is already going to be much more pro-oil because its absolutely going to flip. Democrats only hope is holding the Senate, and that doesnt look so great.

 

We've been through this exact scenario not that long ago. And its going to play out the exact same way. Democrats will say that there is nothing we can do, that we just have to accept these higher prices, that we need to transition from oil, that its someone else s fault for the prices, and that there is no magic wand to drive down prices. Then the GOP will run against that message, win, and prove that they were lying the entire time. Its amazing how no one wants to learn from history on this issue. Its not new, its happened multiple times before. And its going to play out the exact same way.

[scoobdog]

2 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

Im not basing anything on a bubble, Im basing it on historic precedent from not that long ago. Hell, if we still had access to the old ASMB I guarantee we would find this exact same argument taking place where someone on the Left said we cant drill our way out of prices while mocking people saying "drill baby drill", and I would be making the exact same points that I am making right now. And, just like back then, I am going to be proven right when elections happen and people who are very much pro-drilling sweep into office.

 

What happens in CO will absolutely impact what happens in CA.  We have a Senator up for election this year. If Democrats tank then he could easily be replaced by a GOP Senator who will push pro-oil policies through the Senate for 6+ years. That goes for all Senate races. The House is already going to be much more pro-oil because its absolutely going to flip. Democrats only hope is holding the Senate, and that doesnt look so great.

 

We've been through this exact scenario not that long ago. And its going to play out the exact same way. Democrats will say that there is nothing we can do, that we just have to accept these higher prices, that we need to transition from oil, that its someone else s fault for the prices, and that there is no magic wand to drive down prices. Then the GOP will run against that message, win, and prove that they were lying the entire time. Its amazing how no one wants to learn from history on this issue. Its not new, its happened multiple times before. And its going to play out the exact same way.

If you were proven right, why aren’t we drilling more oil now instead of you making the same exact argument?

[Ginguy]

20 hours ago, scoobdog said:

Yeah..... not so much.

The problem is that the people that are most complaining about oil prices rarely connect it to the actual act of drilling.  Case in point... you can find a ton of Orange County (CA) residents complaining about oil prices, but you're not going to find any of the ones living in heavily conservative Huntington Beach who would gladly allow for more drilling offshore.  Similarly, the biggest point of contention with the Keystone XL was that the pipeline was traveling across reservations at several points and, not surprisingly, the people on those reservations had far less need for the gas than the fear they had of a major leak fouling up their local rivers.  Besides the fact that the term "peak oil" is entirely hypothetical, it assumes that no further reserves are viable which is its own subjective definition.  But we're getting into the weeds here.

Your contention is that we can increase oil production, and that is extremely problematic.  The fact is, we're at a point where the technology to more efficiently extract oil comes at an increasingly higher cost.  It's not longer just pumping oil, it's extracting oil.  The reality is that we probably can't extract much more oil because that would involve drilling or extracting oil in places where the methods are not very popular.  As far as we know, the Los Angeles Metropolitan region still holds some of the highest reserves of oil in the country, but there's no way you would ever convince the local residents, let alone the state itself, to ever allow additional wells.  The cost of first getting local governments to buy in, then build state-of-the-art wells with increasingly strict protections, then fighting off years of civil litigation makes increasing production less than viable.  That mean, by definition, we have reached peak oil in this area because the returns will be diminishing should someone pursue adding oil.  If you're going based off the current surge, that's misleading.  The price of crude oil on the open market doesn't reflect the cost of the manufacturing of gas or the cost of processed fuel on the open market.  You're not going to necessarily make more producing oil in a market where gas prices are astronomical.

So, in fact, nothing you said is actually going to happen like you said it would.  People screaming for lower gas prices in Colorado aren't going to make the people living off the California coast more inclined to allow for more drilling nor will the make people living on reservations in the Dakotas more inclined to allow toxic spills on their lands, nor will it make those who live in the fracking country comfortable with the prospect of 6.0 or even a 7.0 earthquake.  You're basing your opinion completely based on the people in your bubble.

I'm sure this word salad nonsense is why, and it has nothing to do with Biden regime appointees being grotesquely incompetent.

 

[PenguinBoss]

lol Hawley

[scoobdog]

2 minutes ago, Ginguy said:

I'm sure this word salad nonsense is why, and it has nothing to do with Biden regime appointees being grotesquely incompetent.

 

What does it have to do with my "word salad" post?

[stilgar]

Gas prices are caused by corporate greed jingo. So go fuck yourself.

[naraku360]

2 hours ago, Ginguy said:

I'm sure this word salad nonsense is why, and it has nothing to do with Biden regime appointees being grotesquely incompetent.

 

The irony of you mocking word salad and incompetence is astounding when your entire personality is fart huffing the GOP.

Not to mention your God Emperor hasn't formed a coherent sentence in at least a decade.

[Top Gun]

Jingo attempts epic win, immediately falls flat on face per usual.

[MasqueradeOverture]

All GOP just voted against producing baby formula and preventing gas price-gouging.

What in the league of supervillain shit...

[Nablonsky]

 

This is the only thing this party is ever going to be. Take all that outrage and anger you feel whenever someone states this obvious fact, and direct it toward the powerful people facilitating all of the evil things you hate. 

Stop voting for them. 

 

 

[naraku360]

2 hours ago, Nablonsky said:

Stop voting for them.

Then what?

[stilgar]

15 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

Then what?

Let the Republicans win. 

[1pooh4u]

Just now, stilgar said:

Let the Republicans win. 

Honestly does it even matter anymore when Republicans seemingly get their way regardless of their numbers?  They hold a majority they get their way. They are the minority, they get their way.  Ijdk anymore.  Does “voting blue no matter who” even matter when democrats are proving to have no spine to do what needs to be done? Seems that now is a perfect time to vote for the third party progressive candidates, just rip off the fuckin band aid because it doesn’t matter.  

[Nablonsky]

50 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

Then what?

Replace them with a people's party diligent against being corrupted by the warmongering capitalists who are in complete control of our broken political system 

[stilgar]

37 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Honestly does it even matter anymore when Republicans seemingly get their way regardless of their numbers?  They hold a majority they get their way. They are the minority, they get their way.  Ijdk anymore.  Does “voting blue no matter who” even matter when democrats are proving to have no spine to do what needs to be done? Seems that now is a perfect time to vote for the third party progressive candidates, just rip off the fuckin band aid because it doesn’t matter.  

What would you like, a slow decent into the 50s or a quick drop?

[Nablonsky]

1 minute ago, stilgar said:

What would you like, a slow decent into the 50s or a quick drop?

"Vote Blue" lmao

[1pooh4u]

9 minutes ago, stilgar said:

What would you like, a slow decent into the 50s or a quick drop?

I want neither however democrats are in control of key things and we’re having a quick drop in freedoms anyway.  
 

I just want to add that we can blame the lack of cohesion amongst Dems in the senate on Manchin and Sinema all day long, but when you have Pelosi and other democrats actively backing anti choice, pro nra democrat over a progressive candidate that’s pro choice and pro gun legislation, those excuses only go so far. 

Edited May 25, 2022 by 1pooh4u

[rpgamer]

1 hour ago, naraku360 said:

Then what?

I think the answer to that has historically been "revolution."

[Nablonsky]

20 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

I just want to add that we can blame the lack of cohesion amongst Dems in the senate on Manchin and Sinema all day long, but when you have Pelosi and other democrats actively backing anti choice, pro nra democrat over a progressive candidate that’s pro choice and pro gun legislation, those excuses only go so far. 

They fill their party with right wingers, back right wing candidates over left wing ones, and explicitly run on the premise that they can win by appealing to some narrow subset of moderate Republicans who arent fully comfortable with the glorious new depths the demons on the right have supposedly plunged to, but for that to work they can never do anything that most of the people who vote for them want, such as making abortion actually legal with legislation, or providing universal healthcare and expanding mental health services with the kind of fervor they have for funding war and the military's annual budget of literally a trillion dollars. 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Nablonsky

[1pooh4u]

3 minutes ago, Nablonsky said:

They fill their party with right wingers, back right wing candidates over left wing ones, and explicitly run on the premise that they can win by appealing to some narrow subset of moderate Republicans who arent fully comfortable with the glorious new depths the demons on the right have supposedly plunged to, but for that to work they can never do anything that most of the people who vote for them want, such as making abortion actually legal with legislation, or providing universal healthcare and expanding mental health services with the kind of fervor they have for funding war and the military's annual budget of literally a trillion dollars. 

It’s so frustrating that the majority are ignored just to appeal to registered Republicans that may or may not vote for them. I’m pretty sure there was at least two instances where Dems held a supermajority in the Senate and could have codified Roe v Wade, but they were too scared to do it. 

[naraku360]

53 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Honestly does it even matter anymore when Republicans seemingly get their way regardless of their numbers?  They hold a majority they get their way. They are the minority, they get their way.  Ijdk anymore.  Does “voting blue no matter who” even matter when democrats are proving to have no spine to do what needs to be done? Seems that now is a perfect time to vote for the third party progressive candidates, just rip off the fuckin band aid because it doesn’t matter.  

Would Roe v. Wade be on the table with a Clinton SCOTUS?

The difference is pretty simple:

You give Republicans power and they break shit because Democrats suck and let them

 

You remove Republicans from the equation by removing them from power, then fewer of them have the power to put those awful policies on the table in the first place.

Nabs' solution is just give up, let Republicans win, and have no follow up strategy.

[naraku360]

40 minutes ago, Nablonsky said:

Replace them with a people's party diligent against being corrupted by the warmongering capitalists who are in complete control of our broken political system 

How?

[1pooh4u]

Just now, naraku360 said:

Would Roe v. Wade be on the table with a Clinton SCOTUS?

The difference is pretty simple:

You give Republicans power and they break shit because Democrats suck and let them

 

You remove Republicans from the equation by removing them from power, then fewer of them have the power to put those awful policies on the table in the first place.

Nabs' solution is just give up, let Republicans win, and have no follow up strategy.

No it wouldn’t but he could have demanded Congress and senate codify roe v wade because there existed a supermajority and he never did it.  Fifty years the gop has been threatening to do exactly what has happened and democrats did nothing to stop it.  The system is broken and it needs to be fixed and no one wants to go through the pains of change. Am I worried that a strategy of voting third party would be devastating to many communities? Yeah, absolutely, but instead of pushing  shit off on other generations maybe the time is now.  Let us be the generation to suffer so future ones can have a real democracy. What we got now isn’t it.  The worst is already happening, and in some cases the worst is happening AGAIN.  They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, but that’s exactly what we’re doing 

[stilgar]

39 minutes ago, Nablonsky said:

"Vote Blue" lmao

Yeah no, I can't say how we should really vote. But you can get fucked nerd. 

[naraku360]

Just now, 1pooh4u said:

No it wouldn’t but he could have demanded Congress and senate codify roe v wade because there existed a supermajority and he never did it.  Fifty years the gop has been threatening to do exactly what has happened and democrats did nothing to stop it.  The system is broken and it needs to be fixed and no one wants to go through the pains of change. Am I worried that a strategy of voting third party would be devastating to many communities? Yeah, absolutely, but instead of pushing  shit off on other generations maybe the time is now.  Let us be the generation to suffer so future ones can have a real democracy. What we got now isn’t it.  The worst is already happening, and in some cases the worst is happening AGAIN.  They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, but that’s exactly what we’re doing 

I just don't get the idea of "The defense is impotent, therefore have no defense instead."

Like I ask what do you do after you quit voting and the answer is "get a new party," it's like, yeah no shit. But that's like saying "If you're poor, the solution is to not be poor any more." Great, thanks for the advice, very helpful.

Nabs isn't wrong about Dems being garbage. "Get not garbage people" is a goal. It's not a plan.

[stilgar]

10 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

How?

The power of friendship. 

[1pooh4u]

7 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

I just don't get the idea of "The defense is impotent, therefore have no defense instead."

Like I ask what do you do after you quit voting and the answer is "get a new party," it's like, yeah no shit. But that's like saying "If you're poor, the solution is to not be poor any more." Great, thanks for the advice, very helpful.

Nabs isn't wrong about Dems being garbage. "Get not garbage people" is a goal. It's not a plan.

I’m not saying not to vote, but I am saying voting for a third party candidate that meets your  check list in every way might be more beneficial than compromising on a candidate that meets some criteria. We can’t be afraid to go third party because that candidate doesn’t seem to have a chance.  I can almost guarantee that the better the third party candidate does, the more viable the candidates will seem in the future and eventually they will win. 

[stilgar]

9 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

I’m not saying not to vote, but I am saying voting for a third party candidate that meets your  check list in every way might be more beneficial than compromising on a candidate that meets some criteria. We can’t be afraid to go third party because that candidate doesn’t seem to have a chance.  I can almost guarantee that the better the third party candidate does, the more viable the candidates will seem in the future and eventually they will win. 

I would agree with this if the third party even tried to get elected.

[1pooh4u]

3 minutes ago, stilgar said:

I would agree with this if the third party even tried to get elected.

Look what they’re up against though, it’s hard to go up against all that $$$, and campaign power, while at the same time trying to avoid those same traps.   

[stilgar]

9 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Look what they’re up against though, it’s hard to go up against all that $$$, and campaign power, while at the same time trying to avoid those same traps.   

They only ever show up ever 4 years for the presidential elections. They gotta start seriously running in local and state elections and make themselves actually look like they can win before they can take the presidency. And even if they do win if the way our shit government is run isn't changed drastically the third parties will just become the new dems or repubs. 

[Raptorpat]

Even before that, there are things that should probably be done.

Voting reform for one. Not just rules for voting but how voting works. Folks in states with public ballot propositions that can bypass their bipartisan legislatures should circulate petitions for ranked choice voting or other voting format reforms. Whether it's the Maine model or the Alaska model, anything is an improvement.

That way the spoiler effect isn't a factor, the argument gets taken off the table entirely. 

There are also other issues, like the threshold for a party or candidate to get on the ballot, or what happens once a third party candidate is elected to a legislature (can they join a major party's conference, allowing them to participate in the process? or do they sit in the back by themselves and vote on the floor after the real process happens?). But I think voting reform is a good start.

[rpgamer]

It'd be nice to see, but, the people in charge of making that reform are the same ones that benefit from the system staying broken as is. Relying on a broken system to fix itself is like treating cancer with hopes and prayers.

(ok, slightly hyperbolic, bit too doom'n'gloom, there should be means to achieve meaningful change, but I'm not optimistic enough to think it'll happen without lighting a proverbial literal fire under their asses.)

[Raptorpat]

That's why I specified states with ballot petitions, which override the people who would otherwise make those decisions in those states.

The rest of us are riding the caboose though.

[MasqueradeOverture]

LOL I got suspended on Twitter for calling Marjorie Taylor Greene a bitch.

[scoobdog]

2 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

That's why I specified states with ballot petitions, which override the people who would otherwise make those decisions in those states.

The rest of us are riding the caboose though.

A lot of those states are already fairly liberal though.

I think what we're all dancing around is the choice to go winner-take-all or to be principled.  It's no secret that Republicans as a whole are unprincipled and generally craven, and for the most part the Democrats lose out because they're note willing to play.  Voting progressive doesn't  change that, and ultimately part of the reason Pelosi, Schumer and the Democrats push progressives to the side is because of the belief that saymaintain a relatively malleable center makes it easier to get an Democratic agenda through Congress not for any explicit disdain for progressive causes.  But, what that really says is that we as progressive voters don't seem particularly interested reason the same aggressive and craven approach to politics.

Say what you want about RAC_G, but her batshit craziness is more in line with current politics than even what most progressives propose for the simple fact she frames it as a true us versus eeveryone else at the voter level rather than a generic us versus "unreasonable" or "bigotted" or whatever socially undesirable people are hiding in plain sight.  This is the real dilemma for modern progressives and it poses a rather unpalatable answer to the question of "what do we need to do to change the system?".