|
Lightning Knight posted:I'm not sure I follow. I am not being sarcastic, I am genuinely confused. Caucuses have tended to favor renegade candidates, as Obama was perceived in 2008 and as Bernie was in 2016. When the Unity Reform Commission arose after the 2016 primaries, the main ask for reformists was getting rid of superdelegates and the main ask for establishment Dems was getting rid of caucuses (broadly speaking). But since individual states determine their primary processes, the DNC can only "encourage" states to make caucuses more democratic by allowing people to vote for primary candidates even if they can't physically attend the caucuses. And that's leaving aside the Iowa caucuses (the primacy of which is enshrined in the state's constitution, just as NH's being the first primary election is enshrined in that state's constitution) and the circuses & out-of-state money that accompany them.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:also in hindsight they should have blown up the filibuster but we hadn't had six years of total obstructionism yet *peers quietly at the Clinton administration and Newton "Newt" Gingrich"*
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
Stexils posted:yeah you can make the argument that obama pushed what he could and that he wasn't able to push more leftist policy because he didn't have the votes but the fact that obama showed himself a corporate dem in lots of other ways (passing a bunch of tax cuts in the stimulus plan as a sop to republicans who then didn't vote for it, bailing out the banks string-free) leaves the overall impression that either the bill was exactly the kind of result he wanted from the start or that we could have gotten something way better if someone who was a better negotiator had been pushing for it If that's the case why did he let house and HELP committees pass a bill with a public option in it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Pakled posted:I mean the fact that they didn't have the votes for it seems like a pretty good reason not to pursue futile policy Yeah like how the Republicans had a vote in the house every 3 hours to dismantle ACA and it discouraged their base and now they... oh nm
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Ate My Balls Redux posted:Yeah like how the Republicans had a vote in the house every 3 hours to dismantle ACA and it discouraged their base and now they... oh nm and how successful were they in pursuing that policy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
DreamingofRoses posted:loving white people and oil. I'm sure that stabilizing the middle east is a cakewalk. J Kush is on the job, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:and how successful were they in pursuing that policy? Uh they came much closer last year than you'd think based on the smugness you are radiating. Either way, it was meat for their base and kept them energized. Meanwhile we are posting in a thread full of the opposition whose position seems to be "don't even try anything, it can never get better, only not worse"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
Condiv posted:"Donald Trump and I have decided to work together to stabilize the middle-east, which will have a positive effect on the price of oil." lmao wow gently caress Macron, what a piece of poo poo. Willa Rogers posted:And that's leaving aside the Iowa caucuses (the primacy of which is enshrined in the state's constitution, just as NH's being the first primary election is enshrined in that state's constitution) and the circuses & out-of-state money that accompany them. This seems like a right shitshow. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
Whether Democrats have the votes or not is something that influences what bills can be passed. It shouldn't limit what policies can be advocated for. I bet you would be in a totally different place, politically speaking, if Obama was willing to loudly and explicitly advocate for UHC, 15$ minimum wage and other progressive policies despite the opposition of Blue Dogs and Republicans. Spirited advocacy, especially from someone like a popular President, can change the popular discourse on issues and shift the Overton Window, which in turn allow for more radical options being on the table after the next elections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Folks here seem to think that if only the Democrats had BELIEVED in themselves enough the Republicans would have had no choice but to pass UHC. Henry Seward and Samuel Chase ran to the left of Lincoln and were responsible for slavery in their respective states. I think that in addition to politicians who can win the electorate, to get things done, America requires politicians who can lead the conversation by popularizing and marketing the beliefs they think are right. Otherwise, people will have the impression that the tepid legislation which Democrats tried to pass in 2009-2010 is the endgame. It doesn't help that a lot of politicians are underestimating what can be done, and they don't even try to pass the leftist bill first, and though legislative time is too valuable to try everything twice, I think it's because they don't want to be on record as having voted against the leftist thing so they can shape their platform to pretend they always supported it. Frankly, I blame you for people like you for giving people the impression that all Democrats are snobby, elitist, and are very willing to call everyone else dumb before hearing them out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This seems like a right shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:If that's the case why did he let house and HELP committees pass a bill with a public option in it? depending on which view you subscribe to, either because he knew it wasn't going to pass and it wasn't a threat, or because he was trying and failing to get it passed but wasn't able to manage because he sucks at getting votes. i just don't buy that obama did everything humanly possible to try to pass a public option and that nobody else could have possibly done better. this is the guy who met with insurance industry execs first thing and i'm supposed to believe he was fighting as hard as he could for a public option?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:My husband is self-employed and has an unsubsidized Obamacare plan. My work only insures me. It would cost more to buy into my plan for him than it does to just pay for an Obamacare plan (even though it is still stupid expensive.) The problem for us self-employed folks is that our income usually varies from month-to-month (same for service workers) and that it's super-hard to estimate income during the prior year, when we sign up for plans for the current year. Basing subsidies on prior year's income would be far easier, although it'd lead to some inequity, but the current system sucks when you're fined hundreds or thousands of dollars at tax time for not accurately reading the crystal ball on your future income. (And yes, I know you're supposed to report income changes to the marketplace, but requiring it month-by-month is unwieldy.) And employer-provided insurance is adopting a lot of the same mechanisms as the marketplace to curb ever-increasing insurance costs: narrow networks, high deductibles, and higher premium costs for employees. Given that the marketplace now covers ~8 million people and that employer-provided healthcare is a factor of about 20x greater than that, these changes for the worse will impel lots more people to demand a better system in the years ahead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Ate My Balls Redux posted:Yeah like how the Republicans had a vote in the house every 3 hours to dismantle ACA and it discouraged their base and now they... oh nm So the Democrats should have used the short window where they had the votes to do something about health care to instead bluster about a policy that didn't have enough support in their own caucus to actually pass and not actually change anything?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Ate My Balls Redux posted:Uh they came much closer last year than you'd think based on the smugness you are radiating. Meet my eternal enemy, the  crew.E- Not directed completely at moose. KickerOfMice fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Nov 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:lmao wow gently caress Macron, what a piece of poo poo. if you think that's bad, you should check out his attempts to rehabilitate a french nazi https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1060182489736593408 quote:The French president has said it is “legitimate” to pay tribute to Marshal Philippe Pétain, who led the French army to victory in the first world war but decades later collaborated with Nazi Germany.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:Serious question, are you joke posting here? It reads like a parody of technocratic neoliberalism. Haha, no; I'm not a technocratic neoliberal and I hate the ACA (except for expanded Medicaid). Ask any longtimer here whether I'm an ACA sycophant. I was arguing against the point that Trump hosed the ACA because the unintended consequences ended up weirdly positive when he screwed around with the cost-sharing reductions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:You have no idea Having now been to a local Democrats meeting, I think I do tbh.  Condiv posted:if you think that's bad, you should check out his attempts to rehabilitate a french nazi Gross. But Macron was always trash. He's a sneak peak at what happens if we choose one of the empty suits like the Starbucks CEOs to run against Trump, even if they win they'll just get ousted by like, President Richard Spencer in 2024.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
Stexils posted:yeah you can make the argument that obama pushed what he could and that he wasn't able to push more leftist policy because he didn't have the votes but the fact that obama showed himself a corporate dem in lots of other ways (passing a bunch of tax cuts in the stimulus plan as a sop to republicans who then didn't vote for it, bailing out the banks string-free) leaves the overall impression that either the bill was exactly the kind of result he wanted from the start or that we could have gotten something way better if someone who was a better negotiator had been pushing for it I can buy "Obama was not ideal at Congress-wrangling" just fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
AFancyQuestionMark posted:Whether Democrats have the votes or not is something that influences what bills can be passed. It shouldn't limit what policies can be advocated for. I bet you would be in a totally different place, politically speaking, if Obama was willing to loudly and explicitly advocate for UHC, 15$ minimum wage and other progressive policies despite the opposition of Blue Dogs and Republicans. The argument (which is complete nonsense, so please don't take my post as endorsing this at all) is that Democrats can't advocate for good policy when they aren't in power because their advocacy will be used against them in races for seats that they need to defend or take. Most strategic mistakes that Democrats make boil down to a desire to poach Republican votes and/or not understanding that successfully poached Republican votes are basically useless since those seats can't be defended outside of very unusual election years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Ate My Balls Redux posted:Uh they came much closer last year than you'd think based on the smugness you are radiating. If Trump hadn't insulted John McCain and put him in a "gently caress you" mood at exactly the same time he knew he was dying, it would have been repealed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
Squalid posted:He generates reports because he's willing to disagree with people when they post bs. Looking through his post history itt almost every post is provable statements and simple facts, usually backed with relevant quotes or links or at least easily falsifiable. I'm not sure why people see this as trolling, I think there's a certain kind of person who can't distinguish an argument about facts and evidence from moral/political statements. I would also like a solidarity sixer for basically the same. I would add this. Here's the pattern, poster Y posts X. X is usually a good opinion but poster Y may not have fully justified it or have fully developed their reasons for believing it. Enter Leon, usually attempting to stick to factual statements Leon pokes poster Y. This pisses off poster Y and others who share opinion X. It fine and normal to be angry people. Use the loving anger. If what you believe is worth believing you'll come out the other side of it fine. I've said before: Leon is punishment for sloppy thought. That's not a bad thing to have in a thread. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
Obama has "evolved" from his original positions to become a right-leaning centrist, that is all
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I can buy "Obama was not ideal at Congress-wrangling" just fine. he seemed p good at it when he forced kucinich to not hold out for a public option. he just only ever tried to wrangle the left while he coddled the right
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
democrats should stop that ridiculous strategy of ever trying to take republican votes, a republican will vote for a dead body with an R next to it before even the biggest blue dog. did AOC's huge stomp victory teach them ANYTHING?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Folks here seem to think that if only the Democrats had BELIEVED in themselves enough the Republicans would have had no choice but to pass UHC. Actually using the bully pulpit of the presidency to advocate for good policy, instead of bad policy, would have been a good first step. The fiction is that Dems wanted better than Obamacare and we’re forced to settle, when in fact they created pretty much the exact law they wanted. Language matters. The democrats stumped for Obamacare not as a compromise position, but as the ideal form of health care, and now they own its problems as well as its successes. Even if we ended up with something like Obamacare in the end there was real value in using that historical moment to begin seriously socializing the idea of single payer to the voters, and making that voters understood that democrats believe that health care is a right, and republicans are the reason it’s still far too costly for many even under Obamacare. There’s also a serious lack of imagination when people say “the votes aren’t there!!!!” about and good policy as if good politicians simply follow the will of the voters instead of creating it. The problem is many Dems are very bad politicians who simply cravenly follow polling instead of trying to advocate for good things in a forceful way to sway opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Peter Daou Bundy posted:democrats should stop that ridiculous strategy of ever trying to take republican votes, a republican will vote for a dead body with an R next to it before even the biggest blue dog. See Dennis Hof. The guy may have terrible views but if he gets elected then they can just replace him with another Republican!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Looks like FL senate/governor's races are going to a recount.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:Looks like FL senate/governor's races are going to a recount. nice. hope gillum wins
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
The time for Democrats to advocate for UHC is *right now*. They are on the resurgence and need a simple, popular policy to carry them through. The next election they win decisively with President, Senate and House, they need to be ready to do what they want to do, because they have 2 years at best: not enough time to drum up enthusiasm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Peter Daou Bundy posted:democrats should stop that ridiculous strategy of ever trying to take republican votes, a republican will vote for a dead body with an R next to it before even the biggest blue dog. You realize AOC's district is a huge outlier?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
DeeplyConcerned posted:Looks like FL senate/governor's races are going to a recount. Hell yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Was the whole purpose of Trump's trip supposed to be the commemoration of this armistice or something else? 100th anniversary of the end of WW1 on Nov. 11. Edit: Oh, and 242nd birthday to the Marine Corps (although it was formally proclaimed 167 years ago) today. Young Freud fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Nov 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:100th anniversary of the end of WW1. Right, so for him to not even actually go to the ceremony that was the whole purpose of the trip seems... bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Peter Daou Bundy posted:democrats should stop that ridiculous strategy of ever trying to take republican votes, a republican will vote for a dead body with an R next to it before even the biggest blue dog. To be fair, AOC ran in a deeply blue district, while far less radical (even, one might say, conservative) candidates won seats from actual Republicans in normally red districts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
freckle posted:who would expect a quisling to stand up to a fascist? Macron regularly compares himself to a king, so quisling isn't the term I'd use. More like "upstart monarchist".
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:You realize AOC's district is a huge outlier? A member of DSA, Lee Carter, won in a deep red district of Virginia, while simultaneously progressive candidates have lost in other conservative areas and so have conservative Democrats. There doesn't appear to be much rhyme or reason why candidates lose in the context of establishment vs. outsider, and seems to have more to do with individual candidates' perceived authenticity. DeeplyConcerned posted:Looks like FL senate/governor's races are going to a recount. Hand recount for both of them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Sorry but the Democrats don't deserve a hall pass on literally doing loving anything for the next 20 years. It would be one thing if we lived in a reality where the majority of the country was not in favor of Medicare for All, but we live in one where the even the majority of the Republicans want M4A. Right now "Medicare for All" is so ill-defined it means absolutely nothing - just like "universal healthcare" was very popular until the insurance industry and right-wing media spun up the propaganda machine to turn even the tiniest, most non-controversial bits of any actual proposal into "the government wants to kill you and your family." Remember how "maybe we should help pay for end-of-life counseling and hospice care" got turned into "death panels"? Universal single-payer healthcare is a good thing and we should fight tooth and nail for it. But, if you think that any real Medicare for All proposal is going to result in the Republican base saying "gosh, sounds like a good idea, I can't see any reason to fight against this" then you are living in fantasyland. Every small step is going to be a massive fight. A lot of the current Democratic leadership are giving up on that fight before it even starts. That's a bad and morally bankrupt stance. But, they're still right that it would be, and will be, a desperate fight. If you think that you can just waltz up and say "hey guys, I've got a proposal for Medicare for All, let's do it!" and have everybody stand up and clap - even Aaron Sorkin would think you're leaning a little too hard on the bright-eyed idealism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:The time for Democrats to advocate for UHC is *right now*. They are on the resurgence and need a simple, popular policy to carry them through. The next election they win decisively with President, Senate and House, they need to be ready to do what they want to do, because they have 2 years at best: not enough time to drum up enthusiasm. this is true, but they're deathly afraid of even mentioning it despite its popularity with the populace
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:The time for Democrats to advocate for UHC is *right now*. They are on the resurgence and need a simple, popular policy to carry them through. The next election they win decisively with President, Senate and House, they need to be ready to do what they want to do, because they have 2 years at best: not enough time to drum up enthusiasm. It's always been a good time to advocate for UHC, though. Democrats could have advocated strongly for UHC in 2008 while still passing whatever they could have passed. Literally just saying "we're passing this now because we have to but we are 100% committed to a true UHC system and understand that this isn't it" would have gone a long, long way with a lot of folks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2018 19:49
|
|