|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:sure but like the same "the ACA is terrible" crowd crowing about a plan that has absolutely no out-of-pocket caps at all unless (horror of horrors) you pay money to a insurance company might have something to do with the relative popularity of Medicare vs. Obamacare? Not to mention limited networks. Deductibles are low, but like you get cancer and need a $30k a month treatment, you're on the hook for $6k a month until treatment is over vs. a capped $7k if you've got non-Medicare health insurance. I get that and agree completely, but most people have no idea what you're talking about. Again, nobody is arguing for scaling up Medicare with zero changes to the way it works. At the very least, it's a non starter without out-of-pocket caps, a vast network expansion and a ground-up rework of Part D that at the very least lets us negotiate pricing. Honestly, we have to do those things anyway, right now Medicare barely passes the requirements for an ACA network plan and is on track to consume half the GDP. In fact, if we're talking about improving Medicare for existing beneficiaries, it's much easier to get support for implementing it as a single payer option. I'd put good money down that the cranky old fucks who bus to the polls from their Florida retirement communities would think hard about voting straight ticket R if the other option means they get to live another 10 years without bankrupting their estate.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:This really underscores the situation we have right now. The fact that there was a non-zero section of the population who supported both Trump and Sanders indicates that populism and rejection of the status quo isn't about party politics as we understand it. Both parties had the same opportunity to ride that wave, and Clinton chose to dismiss it with condescension rather than embrace it. The game now is not about policy. More than ever, it's about throwing easily digested concessions to the frothing crowds, and the left has a lot of that to offer if we can package it properly. To be 100% fair, I don't think there's anything Clinton could have done to really take advantage of that populism, since her image in that regard was already tarnished (thanks to a combination of her actual history and Republican smearing). It would have required a different candidate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:To be 100% fair, I don't think there's anything Clinton could have done to really take advantage of that populism, since her image in that regard was already tarnished (thanks to a combination of her actual history and Republican smearing). It would have required a different candidate. She should've made a real alliance with sanders instead of trying to bring everyone together in an impossible coalition: wall st and occupy wall st, lgbt and saudi arabia money, cold warriors like Rumsfeld or Dick and human rights organizations, welfare state and investment bankers, etc you get the point. She thougt she could just ride Obama's rare popurality, forgetting with what tone and message he actually got elected.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Would Sanders as VP pick have done any good?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Would Sanders as VP pick have done any good? IMO if she did that, not necessarily VP, but figured out an agreement for some important cabinet, and adopted a couple of his more iconic positions like single payer and a plan on student loans, it would've made a world of difference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
What would the best cabinet position for Bernie have been? Labor?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Medicare Part E - for "Everyone" i dont understand why CNN thinks this will draw ratings or matter at all unless a candidate does something incredibly stupid
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:What would the best cabinet position for Bernie have been? Labor? Yeah, that and get Warren on Treasury, it would've signaled a huge change against her 'elitist' background.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Would Sanders as VP pick have done any good? probably not, sanders as VP alone probably wouldn't have been enough to overcome the disaster that was hillary's general campaign
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:This really underscores the situation we have right now. The fact that there was a non-zero section of the population who supported both Trump and Sanders indicates that populism and rejection of the status quo isn't about party politics as we understand it. Both parties had the same opportunity to ride that wave, and Clinton chose to dismiss it with condescension rather than embrace it. The game now is not about policy. More than ever, it's about throwing easily digested concessions to the frothing crowds, and the left has a lot of that to offer if we can package it properly. If the public won't accept a whiff of compromise, then they'd better give one party seventy-plus seats in the Senate and a hefty House majority because that's the only way poo poo gets done without compromise. And that one party is almost certainly going to be the Republicans, because "kick out all the browns and give their jobs to Americans" is a hard proposal to beat with just easily-digestible soundbites.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Fados posted:IMO if she did that, not necessarily VP, but figured out an agreement for some important cabinet, and adopted a couple of his more iconic positions like single payer and a plan on student loans, it would've made a world of difference. She had a plan on student loans that was better than his, and he didn't want a VP or cabinet position. His single-payer proposal is bad. Fados posted:Yeah, that and get Warren on Treasury, it would've signaled a huge change against her 'elitist' background. Warren isn't the kind of person who'd want to run treasury. Dr. Fishopolis posted:I get that and agree completely, but most people have no idea what you're talking about. Again, nobody is arguing for scaling up Medicare with zero changes to the way it works. At the very least, it's a non starter without out-of-pocket caps, a vast network expansion and a ground-up rework of Part D that at the very least lets us negotiate pricing. Honestly, we have to do those things anyway, right now Medicare barely passes the requirements for an ACA network plan and is on track to consume half the GDP. You keep saying this, but that was almost exactly what the plan you linked from Bernie was going to do! BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
I think there's a good chance she would have won if her whole campaign rhetoric - not just her written policy plans - weren't just "Look at this motherfucker I'm running against"
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:I think there's a good chance she would have won if her whole campaign rhetoric - not just her written policy plans - weren't just "Look at this motherfucker I'm running against" I mean, it wasn't all that -- but it's 20/20. Given that every piece of evidence campaigns have to rely on told them they were winning, it's pretty easy to imagine why they thought "he's loving nazi" was good enough to win. Like, it's obvious it wasn't, but this isn't really the best way to address the post-mortem or figure out what we do going forward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
like she was up what, double digits in October?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:She had a plan on student loans that was better than his, and he didn't want a VP or cabinet position. His single-payer proposal is bad. I'm not a huge expert the ins and outs of the specific politics on cabinets or policy, the overarching point I'm making is that I think she felt she could move to the center to win after the primaries and she failed. She needed to move to instead to left or at the very least stay put and make a point to talk over and over again about a few policies where she could be strong instead of maily trying to game on her opponents faults and trying to appear as the 'adult in the room'. That backfired because that actually was her worst weakness: she posited herself as the establishment in a time of populist rage. She did not understand this and still a lot of people disagree that we're living in times that desperately need radical change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Would Sanders as VP pick have done any good? You know what, in a weird way, it would, because the Sanders people could point to her health issues and hope for the best, in a morbid kinda way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Fados posted:Ok then, if it her plan on student loans really was so much better it would be easy to find a compromise and just pay lip service that it was a joint effort. About Sanders or Warren's political aspirations I can't really understand how you are so sure about them, politicians do prime themselves at presenting a front and at the end of the day what they most desire is power, in whatever form it they get to exercise it. I don't think she thought this at all dude. They handed the entire platform process over to Bernie and adopted a lot of the poo poo he wanted. They gave Bernie's people unparalleled control over the policy process. She literally moved something to the left for the General. Her overtures to Republicans weren't "we can work together on policy," it was "we might not agree on policy, but we should be ablt to agree this guy is an rear end in a top hat." She talked about policy, a lot. She proposed two giant new entitlement programs -- universal childcare and free education. She made a speech proposing a huge expansion of the Americorps program. I could go on and on about how the policies she proposed in the General were absolutely not centrists. I am really skeptical you understand any of this based on your recent posts. Like Clinton did not run to the center in the General. That's fiction. 100%. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If the public won't accept a whiff of compromise, then they'd better give one party seventy-plus seats in the Senate and a hefty House majority because that's the only way poo poo gets done without compromise. And that one party is almost certainly going to be the Republicans, because "kick out all the browns and give their jobs to Americans" is a hard proposal to beat with just easily-digestible soundbites. If the public can believe that, for example, universal healthcare, prison reform and and end to the drug war are short term, achievable goals, then I think we can easily beat that proposal. The problem is that the Democratic establishment has lost all credibility for being able to act on these policies, which is why an outsider like Sanders was so compelling. We need a better message, but we also need candidates that aren't tainted by the last 20 years of talking a big game for your campaign, accomplishing nothing and offering free blowies to the MIC instead. And yes, if the left can take the Democratic party we better get seventy plus seats. We have a lot of poo poo to unfuck before the Republicans are even allowed back in the room.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't think she thought this at all dude. They handed the entire platform process over to Bernie and adopted a lot of the poo poo he wanted. They gave Bernie's people unparalleled control over the policy process. She literally moved something to the left for the General. Her overtures to Republicans weren't "we can work together on policy," it was "we might not agree on policy, but we should be ablt to agree this guy is an rear end in a top hat." She talked about policy, a lot. She proposed two giant new entitlement programs -- universal childcare and free education. I did watch all of the debates, both in the primaries and in the general and browsed through her website, and I actually thought she would win because Trump looked like such a child. The things I remember most vividly from her campaign was some comments that Alex Jones was a friend of Trump, that single payer 'will never ever happen' and that cartoon frogs are used by nazies. Maybe it's my problem, maybe not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Fados posted:I did watch all of the debates, both in the primaries and in the general and browsed through her website, and I actually thought she would win because Trump looked like such a child. The things I remember most vividly from her campaign was some comments that Alex Jones was a friend of Trump, that single payer 'will never ever happen' and that cartoon frogs are used by nazies. Maybe it's my problem, maybe not. She said Bernie's plan would never happen, in loving January. Jesus loving christ. Like your base claim is wrong. She didn't run as a centrist. She didn't run on a centrist platform. She *embraced* the progressive platform. That is, full stop, a separate issue from the decision to make the race about Trump's basic fitness for office. The sooner y'all realize that, the sooner we can move the gently caress on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't think she thought this at all dude. They handed the entire platform process over to Bernie and adopted a lot of the poo poo he wanted. They gave Bernie's people unparalleled control over the policy process. Can people stop acting like the platform concessions actually matter? The platform is a joke, it's a platonic "what if" ideal, it's not even close to a blueprint to how an administration will govern.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Can people stop acting like the platform concessions actually matter? The platform is a joke, it's a platonic "what if" ideal, it's not even close to a blueprint to how an administration will govern. Uh , it is? Like look at the platforms of winning presidents throughout history. It does serve as a blueprint for where their legislative priorities are going to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:If the public can believe that, for example, universal healthcare, prison reform and and end to the drug war are short term, achievable goals, then I think we can easily beat that proposal. The problem is that the Democratic establishment has lost all credibility for being able to act on these policies, which is why an outsider like Sanders was so compelling. We need a better message, but we also need candidates that aren't tainted by the last 20 years of talking a big game for your campaign, accomplishing nothing and offering free blowies to the MIC instead. This describes Perez but not Ellison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:39
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This describes Perez but not Ellison. Perez has actually cleaned up not one but two very large organizations with huge problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Uh , it is? Like look at the platforms of winning presidents throughout history. It does serve as a blueprint for where their legislative priorities are going to be. The difference being that $15 went "in the platform" but I didn't hear Hillary talking about it other than "$12 and we'll fight for $15 where it makes sense."
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The difference being that $15 went "in the platform" but I didn't hear Hillary talking about it other than "$12 and we'll fight for $15 where it makes sense." That, doesn't mean she abandoned the left and "ran to the center." Also she actually did give up that ghost and was just saying fight for 15 by the end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:
Sorry for anoyingly trying to be all 'dialectic' on you, but I do truly think the crux of the question is that these two issues are not separate. She appeared to focus more on Trump because at the end of the day, the agreements that resulted in the democratic platform, (which was leftier I agree with you, and at which Bernie clung to as his desperate gains for bending the knee after a harsh primary) weren't seen as important enough for her team to distil into a couple of campaign flagship issues and repeat ad naseum at her stump speaches which would've signaled some change in the party ideology. Missing that she was perceived on her merits as a grey technocratic bureaucrat, the time for which seems to be over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Fados posted:Sorry for anoyingly trying to be all 'dialectic' on you, but I do truly think the crux of the question is that these two issues are not separate. She appeared to focus more on Trump because at the end of the day, the agreements that resulted in the democratic platform, (which was leftier I agree with you, and at which Bernie clung to as his desperate gains for bending the knee after a harsh primary) weren't seen as important enough for her team to distil into a couple of campaign flagship issues and repeat ad naseum at her stump speaches which would've signaled some change in the party ideology. Missing that she was perceived on her merits as a grey technocratic bureaucrat, the time for which seems to be over. they did do this but also: You're missing the larger point that based on literally every piece of conventional evidence they had, there wasn't any reason to change their strategy. Like every piece of conventional polling and modeling data told them they were going to win. Like I think the mistake the left here is making is thinking that people want "change" regardless. Trump ran on an outright platform of promising to return us to harrenvolk democracy. Whether at a conscious or subconscious level, people knew that and despite misgivings about him, voted for him anyway. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:
I do agree with you on this point. To me this does indicate, not just some miscalculation in the polling techniques, but that the system which we use to predict political results is no longer accurately describing reality. In some sense our (political) ground is changing, might Hillary's campaign have looked to Europe and she would've found multiple polling upsets in various parliamentary elections and other plebiscites in favor of populism: Brexit, Syriza in Greece and Podemos and Spain with meteoric rises at the cost of the fall of center-left liberal parties. The very fact that some obscure senator from Vermont ended being a significant challenge to her primary might've indicated that something was amiss.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:
To this I can only point you out that such a meteoric rise in the right wing insanity can only signal a failure of the leftist alternative. Not to get too off-topic but you can see how the fall of leftists movement in the middle east is strictly correlative with the rise of islamo-fascism. In America you have the example of Kansas, once a leftwing, and organized labor bastion, and now a heart of Christian fundamentalis, . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F is a great book on this (also 'Listen Liberal' from the same author)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
And sorry to be testy, I've just explained this a whole lot lately. Like I think there's a lot of value in looking back, really over the last eight years and seeing where the party made bad decisions, but we also have to honest and truthful about those decisions. Like I think the biggest reason we've failed is Obama couldn't shove DWS out and she was a terrible party chair. We abandoned the 50 state strategy (which, btw, means electing some assholes along the way) and we don't have infrastructure in place to help state and local races. We've got to start getting people elected in non-sexy positions like local councils, board of educations, etc etc. That's really where we need to go. Instead of spending all of our time arguing over duck-season/rabbit-season who's the real leftist poo poo, we need to rebuild the party physically. We need a paid staff that can help local parties. We need a full-time voting rights task force that can provide resources. We need to work with BLM and Fight for 15, Immigration rights groups, women's groups, the LGBT community to build grass-roots resistance -- let them take the lead, but provide support. Those are things we need to be doing, not arguing over "did Hillary hold her mouth right." BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 07:04
|
|
|
The so called 'hard-left' does love to wallow in how things went wrong after the fact and adore to lose themselves in sectarian, moralistic circular firing squads. It is sensible that this is something that the left would be hard pressed to avoid. But still we must understanding that things really are changing and the old ideas and tactics must be re-evaluated. Even though, or precisly because, this incipient leftist movement in the democratic party is small and seems a bit weak at the moment, it must be guided and well advised, but also given some space to operate and develop itself which can only come from having power and making mistakes. One can only hope they would make better mistakes than the previous ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Fados posted:islamo-fascism Excellent red text/post combo. Protip: don't unironically use Ann Coulter buzzwords and expect to be taken seriously, hth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:This really underscores the situation we have right now. The fact that there was a non-zero section of the population who supported both Trump and Sanders indicates that populism and rejection of the status quo isn't about party politics as we understand it. Both parties had the same opportunity to ride that wave, and Clinton chose to dismiss it with condescension rather than embrace it. The game now is not about policy. More than ever, it's about throwing easily digested concessions to the frothing crowds, and the left has a lot of that to offer if we can package it properly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:well I don't know if that's such a good idea and perhaps we should try to elect more people like manchin *fartz* I don't think anyone here is saying we need more Joe Manchins, dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Excellent red text/post combo. Right, I understand it is not a well represented term and that fascism is today mostly a buzzword. I apologize for that, I am simply on the side of someone like Irshad Manji and others who understand that the current right-wing hegemony over many Islamic countries is something which one should and can struggle to change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
Fados posted:Right, I understand it is not a well represented term and that fascism is today mostly a buzzword. I apologize for that, I am simply on the side of someone like Irshad Manji and others who understand that the current right-wing hegemony over many Islamic countries is something which one should and can struggle to change. Islamic fundamentalism and ultra-conservative regimes obviously exist in the Middle East and are an ongoing problem, but "islamo-fascism" is specifically a term created by the American right to justify why it was a great idea to invade and occupy Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/etc. and spread "civilization" to them, because clearly they couldn't manage it themselves, according to people like Ann Coulter, the originator of the term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Islamic fundamentalism and ultra-conservative regimes obviously exist in the Middle East and are an ongoing problem, but "islamo-fascism" is specifically a term created by the American right to justify why it was a great idea to invade and occupy Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/etc. and spread "civilization" to them, because clearly they couldn't manage it themselves, according to people like Ann Coulter, the originator of the term. Yeah, I've heard it elsewhere, and wasn't aware it had those connotations, although it seem a bit obvious, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
Acting like every establishment Democrat is Joe Manchin is a huge part of the pickle we're in now actually. Like Perez isn't Captain Full Communism Now but he's hardly some sort of vile "centrist" technocrat either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 22:02 |
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Acting like every establishment Democrat is Joe Manchin is a huge part of the pickle we're in now actually. Like Perez isn't Captain Full Communism Now but he's hardly some sort of vile "centrist" technocrat either. What have people like Reid, Pelosi, and Feinstein given us? I'm sick of being governed by ancient wrinkled Methuselahs (obviously Reid is gone, but I have a political memory longer than a goldfish's) who will scold us for not building sufficient political capital in the face of goddamn fascism. Where the hell are the Gen X, where the hell are the Millennial politicians who will actually fight to improve the lives of all Americans instead of burning endless political capital on incrementalism? Why are they being locked out of the party?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2017 07:46
|
|
