|
Concerned Citizen posted:there has never been a democratic majority post-civil rights era that wasn't provided by winning conservative seats. strategies that write off those areas are doomed to permanent minority status. You can focus loving anywhere with your core message. Stop chasing to racists in the south and give black people a voice.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
Barry Convex posted:yeah, she actually did get a lot of the Romney voters she devoted so much effort to pursuing. there just either weren't enough of them, or they weren't in electorally relevant states first democrat to carry orange county since great depression, if only we could relocate orange county to pennsylvania we'd be doing great.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:well hillary did not actually try to win the votes of rural working class people, and she lost. had she done so, she probably would have won. so i think history is on my side here - you need those votes to win. I see.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:there has never been a democratic majority post-civil rights era that wasn't provided by winning conservative seats. strategies that write off those areas are doomed to permanent minority status. yes, the Dems gained a lot of seats in 2006 and 2008 by running conservative candidates in GOP-leaning states those conservative candidates spent most of their tenure obstructing and sabotaging Democratic initiatives, acting largely to obstruct the Democratic supermajority by voting with the GOP or threatening to do so. and then most of them lost their seats the very next election since an overwhelmingly unpopular GOP president wasn't dragging his entire party down with him. the blue dogs got decimated in 2010. and then again in 2012. and then again in 2014 huzzah. great victory. tremendous success the thing is, I don't actually care whether there are fifty Democrats in the Senate. I care whether there's fifty pro-choice votes in the Senate. I care whether there's fifty votes against segregation, racism, and police brutality in the Senate. I care whether there's fifty votes to maintain and expand our social safety nets in the Senate. I care whether there's fifty votes to regulate the financial industry, raise taxes, and clamp down on the rich. I care whether there's fifty votes against war and imperialism if it's literally impossible for anyone but an arch-conservative shithead to win a particular seat, then I don't care which letter that arch-conservative shithead has after their name, and I sure as hell don't want the national party diverting resources to them. if the price to pay for getting sixty votes in the Senate is killing single-payer, quietly dropping card check in committee, and putting Social Security "on the table", then what's the point of having sixty votes?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:first democrat to carry orange county since great depression finally, a politician who appeals to rich white people
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Citing states Hillary lost as evidence of the electoral success of bland centrism is the most galaxy-brain poo poo I've heard all week
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:the aca had significant regulations on insurance companies - a cap on profits from individual insurance plans no, it was a cap on insurers' profit percentages, and they have a vested interest (and huge role) in medical costs increasing rather than decreasing. eta: quote:the issue with the aca is not really insurance, because that isn't really the problem when it comes to healthcare - even non-profit insurance companies are not really better than for-profit ones. they are a middleman that add some cost to the system, but not that much. the problem is that actually providing care is too expensive, and the costs are driven by pharma and cost of delivery. this problem is relatively easy to solve, given the political will to take on hospitals, doctors, and big pharma by forcing them to provide cost transparency and empowering a board to set allowed prices for a wide array of procedures/drugs as EVERY OTHER COUNTRY with working healthcare does. deductibles & premiums will go down when hospitals charge a few hundred dollars to fix a broken leg instead of thousands of dollars, or when cancer-treatment drugs are $1000 per month instead of $100,000 per month. you look at a case like iowa, where the entire individual market blew up because a super-sick patient with a very rare disease costing $1 million per month to treat singlehandedly made the entire market unprofitable. in essence, the aca created price controls on insurance but didn't control the price of delivery, so medical inflation continues to exceed the general rate of inflation. since cost of delivery is directly correlated to price of insurance, but we don't pay for healthcare directly, it creates the illusion of insurance being the issue when it's not. lol. not allowing private insurers to make more money when healthcare costs become higher would be a good start. Willa Rogers has issued a correction as of 21:33 on Jul 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
i will run a bipartisan campaign of building a very large, tall platform which concerned citizen will be thrown off of
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
bad dems, circa 2009-10: "let's create a tax for employer-provided insurance when it's good enough to cover everything without deductibles. And to encourage buy-in from stupid voters, let's call it a 'cadillac tax' because having good insurance is the exact same thing as a welfare mama who drives one." bad dems, circa 2009-10: "let's not put a cap on insurance profits in dollars, but instead make it a percentage, so that profits won't actually be capped."
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:finally, a politician who appeals to rich white people Orange County is really horrible
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:yes, the Dems gained a lot of seats in 2006 and 2008 by running conservative candidates in GOP-leaning states first i think it's pretty clear that those conservative candidates in 2006 and 2008 allowed us to pass some good legislation that would be unthinkable with a gop majority, so i do reject the idea that there is no difference between the democrats and republicans in those seats. there's a big difference - sure, gov. john bel edwards is a tremendous dickhead who is perpetuates police abuse/violence & is vehemently anti-choice, but he also saved thousands of lives by unilaterally expanding medicaid over the objections of the gop legislature. in the short term, we need those votes to get a working majority in the house. that said, this goes back to the hobby horse i've been riding for ages - which is that we simply lack a large enough majority in this country for a progressive agenda. often the support for things like single payer are so skin deep that even when majorities are for it, it disappears at the first sign of organized opposition. too often progressives simply assume the people are with them, rather than actually working to increase support for those issues. we think "who could be against getting more government support" only to find that many people blame their struggles on government in the first place and don't think increasing the size of welfare programs or strengthening social security will actually lead to them getting more money. so i think focusing on which districts/voters to target, or whether to have a centrist agenda or a progressive agenda, a social agenda or an economic agenda - these debates just paper over the actual need to get a 217 majority that will vote the right way. and the easiest way to do that is to focus on broadening our outreach to change what people actually believe rather than who they vote for. we spend too much time trying to bring the water to the horse instead of the other way around, persuading weak center-right and conservative voters to be more progressive. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 21:40 on Jul 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:first democrat to carry orange county since great depression, if only we could relocate orange county to pennsylvania we'd be doing great. this is actually a bad thing
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
you need support for a progressive agenda no I wont support a progressive agenda because there's no support for a progressive agenda
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
I'm just chilling in Orange County
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:you need support for a progressive agenda the biggest issue with the democratic party is that is so data and poll-driven that candidates are afraid to support anything that doesn't have at least 51% support. there's a culture of trying to agree with everyone all the time because you don't want to lose votes. that needs to change, but we also need to eliminate the electoral incentives to abandon progressive policies by working to actually organize and shift people's beliefs leftward.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:first democrat to carry orange county since great depression This says a lot
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:the biggest issue with the democratic party is that is so data and poll-driven that candidates are afraid to support anything that doesn't have at least 51% support. there's a culture of trying to agree with everyone all the time because you don't want to lose votes. that needs to change, but we also need to eliminate the electoral incentives to abandon progressive policies by working to actually organize and shift people's beliefs leftward. i really hope bad things happen to you you people are so tiresome
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
here's a good story on how private insurers collaborate with pharma on drug-pricing, and how bad dems help them do so: In October, lawyers representing Cigna policyholders brought a class action case against the insurer, asserting that, through its deal with OptumRX, the company had illegally conspired to inflate the drug prices charged to thousands of its policyholders. Cigna, the complaint alleged, either independently or in conjunction with a PBM, required pharmacies to jack up the prices of their prescription drugs — sometimes to more than the full price of the drug. After the patients would pay the inflated fee, usually for generic medicines, the pharmacy would funnel the difference between the drug’s original price and its newly-elevated price, also referred to as the “clawback” or “spread,” to either the insurer or the PBM, according to the suit. The suit also alleged that the pharmacies were contractually prohibited from alerting patients of the practice or directing them to lower-priced options. In a February report, Bloomberg obtained contracts prohibiting pharmacists from publicly criticizing the PBMs or recommending less expensive ways to purchase the drugs, such as paying the pharmacy directly out of pocket. *** Nearly a fifth of the pharmacists who participated in the study reported “gag clauses” preventing them from telling patients about cheaper options more than 50 times a month, and 39 percent said it happened between 10 and 50 times.Those cheaper options mainly included paying out of pocket — meaning patients paid more for their drugs using their insurance than if they had simply paid the cost of the drug without involving their insurance provider.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:you need support for a progressive agenda look if you want progressive policies run progressive candidates. *party openly screws over progressive candidates by withholding funds* look if you want to change you have to win elections in the party *attempts to help party become more active by rebuilding it in a county where it's completlies atrophied* lmao what are you trying to accomplish???
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Citing states Hillary lost as evidence of the electoral success of bland centrism is the most galaxy-brain poo poo I've heard all week Ossoff did really well you guys!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:here's a good story on how private insurers collaborate with pharma on drug-pricing, and how bad dems help them do so: medical insurance companies and big pharma are so horrible, don't care about their customers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjSTQwamo8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQRwcI0-Nm4
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Citing states Hillary lost as evidence of the electoral success of bland centrism is the most galaxy-brain poo poo I've heard all week thug lessons, several posts ago: actually chasing moderate republicans didn't work, they still voted republican thus lessons, now: those ones don't count
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:Citing states Hillary lost as evidence of the electoral success of bland centrism is the most galaxy-brain poo poo I've heard all week Tell me more about how Bernie would have won PA and OH.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
any dem who put an economic message front and center would have won pa and ohio
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Tell me more about how Bernie would have won PA and OH. Bernie would have won PA and OH
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Is Orange county now a dem seat? Or did it just vote for Hillary
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
GalacticAcid posted:any dem who put an economic message front and center would have won pa and ohio any dem who didn't have an favorability rating in the 30s would have won mi, wi, and pa. ohio was probably lost
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
got any sevens posted:the dems dont actually want any of that tho lol ok gotcha
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:any dem who didn't have an favorability rating in the 30s would have won mi, wi, and pa. ohio was probably lost that's fair
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
So long as 37% off the electorate identifies as conservative while only 24% identifies as liberal, its going to be very hard for progressives to govern (and, no, that's not because tons of Americans are actually leftists who would never call themselves "liberal"). That's the number that needs to change. http://www.gallup.com/poll/188129/conservatives-hang-ideology-lead-thread.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:So long as 37% off the electorate identifies as conservative while only 24% identifies as liberal, its going to be very hard for progressives to govern (and, no, that's not because tons of Americans are actually leftists who would never call themselves "liberal"). That's the number that needs to change. considering what liberal has meant the past decade it's pretty easy to see why people would decide they're not liberal
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Tell me more about how Bernie would have won PA and OH. With his much greater than Hillary appeal with independent voters and his laser like focus on an economic message. I mean, unless centrist Democrats defected to the other side. But they wouldn't do that because they are just pragmatic progressives, not actually opposed to progressive policy so we don't need to worry about that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Tell me more about how Bernie would have won PA and OH. You already said all their is to say, really. That Bernie would have won PA and OH.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Liberalism in America is really only tied to social issues. Hell 'fiscal conservative' means dismantle the welfare state
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:With his much greater than Hillary appeal with independent voters and his laser like focus on an economic message. I mean, unless centrist Democrats defected to the other side. But they wouldn't do that because they are just pragmatic progressives, not actually opposed to progressive policy so we don't need to worry about that. didn't bloomberg say he would have run if bernie had won the nomination? wouldn't be surprised if he bled off enough centrists to prevent bernie from winning. i don't think progressives have a monopoly on voting against a nominee they don't like.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Bernie would have won PA and OH Ya, basically. Sanders polled real well with blue wall/ upper midwest independents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
zegermans posted:TB and TBS are my alt accounts actually queueing ban for evading yr probation, now
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:So long as 37% off the electorate identifies as conservative while only 24% identifies as liberal, its going to be very hard for progressives to govern (and, no, that's not because tons of Americans are actually leftists who would never call themselves "liberal"). That's the number that needs to change. Maybe its because the public perception of liberals outside of the Fox News crowd are people that are really crazy about their consolidated data centers
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:So long as 37% off the electorate identifies as conservative while only 24% identifies as liberal, its going to be very hard for progressives to govern (and, no, that's not because tons of Americans are actually leftists who would never call themselves "liberal"). That's the number that needs to change. There is not a huge hidden population of Secret Leftists in America, no, but leftist economic ideas will help them and they could be convinced of this fairly easily by a politician who actually believes it. and yeah +1 on the idea that "liberalism" doesn't mean terribly much to a lot of them and I don't blame them for not taking the mantle on already
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:39 |
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:didn't bloomberg say he would have run if bernie had won the nomination? wouldn't be surprised if he bled off enough centrists to prevent bernie from winning. i don't think progressives have a monopoly on voting against a nominee they don't like. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 21:58
|
|