The Biden Cabinet

[henrygandorf 29223]

12 minutes ago, Llogg said:

Some things are binary. Some things are subject to threshold effects. And some things are truly spectral. Universal healthcare is the former, climate change is the second. You can't sort of have universal healthcare anymore than you can be sort of pregnant.

doesn’t biden’s proposed public option support the opposite of what you’re claiming?  it’s seen by some as a step towards m4a/total coverage. 

(i am not arguing the merits of this proposal, just that there are incremental steps that can be taken on healthcare)

[Texaspython 231]

42 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You are moving the country to the right but don't see it. You should be listening to them more, not vice versa. 

You just proved my point. Thank you

Edited November 18, 2020 by Texaspython

[Js1 86945]

Oh my god, can we get a Democrat Thunderdome thread for the centrist vs. progressive fighting?  This is about who is being nominated for the Cabinet.

Biden builds his Cabinet "sherpa" team: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/18/biden-builds-team-for-senate-confirmation-battles-437186

Looks like they want to introduce the nominees to the public early to build support and put pressure on Senate GOP to confirm.  Will be hard considering Rubio, Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, Rick Scott, Tim Scott and Ben Sasse could be 2024 contenders and will take the 2016 Senate Democrats approach to Cabinet nominees: "fuck off, I need to use this to prove how badass I am."   Aka, Klobuchar, Harris, Gillibrand, Sanders, Warren. 

If you look at 9 key nominations (Defense, DHS, CIA, UN Ambassador, Transportation, State, Education, AG and HHS), the Dem Senators who eventually ran for President voted as such:

• Booker 2 yes, 7 no
• Gillibrand 1 yes, 8 no
• Harris 3 yes, 6 no
• Klobuchar 5 yes, 4 no
• Warren 2 yes, 7 no
• Bernie 2 yes, 7 no

Edited November 18, 2020 by Js1

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

18 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Oh my god, can we get a Democrat Thunderdome thread for the centrist vs. progressive fighting?  This is about who is being nominated for the Cabinet.

Biden builds his Cabinet "sherpa" team: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/18/biden-builds-team-for-senate-confirmation-battles-437186

Looks like they want to introduce the nominees to the public early to build support and put pressure on Senate GOP to confirm.  Will be hard considering Rubio, Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, Rick Scott, Tim Scott and Ben Sasse could be 2024 contenders and will take the 2016 Senate Democrats approach to Cabinet nominees: "fuck off, I need to use this to prove how badass I am."   Aka, Klobuchar, Harris, Gillibrand, Sanders, Warren. 

If you look at 9 key nominations (Defense, DHS, CIA, UN Ambassador, Transportation, State, Education, AG and HHS), the Dem Senators who eventually ran for President voted as such:

• Booker 2 yes, 7 no
• Gillibrand 1 yes, 8 no
• Harris 3 yes, 6 no
• Klobuchar 5 yes, 4 no
• Warren 2 yes, 7 no
• Bernie 2 yes, 7 no

 

Yeah but Trump's nominees were some of the worst people.   Devos, Sessions, Price, Carson, Mnuchin, Ross.  

[Js1 86945]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Yeah but Trump's nominees were some of the worst people.   Devos, Sessions, Price, Carson, Mnuchin, Ross.  

Oh without a doubt.

But Senate Republicans who will run for President in 4 years will use it as their excuse to vote no.  THEY DID IT FIRST, scream the petulant 7 year olds in the US Senate who also routinely plug their ears and go NAH NAH NAH CANT HEAR YOU regarding COVID stimulus bills, ethics reform and Democrat-nominated SCOTUS judges. 

[Huckleberry 34407]

31 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

You just proved my point. Thank you

Not really. You are an unwitting pawn in the American Right's successful move of our nation with respect to the world. 

The GOP convinces the Democrats that they have to give something to their wingnuts so the Democrats give ground. The Democrats tell their wingnuts to shut up. So the country moves a bit to the right. 

Next time there is a discussion the exact same thing happens. And all along the right calls whatever is two ticks left of the last agreement RADICAL SOCIALISM. 

So it happens slowly (S is what the Republicans call Socialism at each point in time): 

But you wake up two decades later and what actually happened is: 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Js1 86945]

NEWS:

-Karine Jean-Pierre seen as probably frontrunner for White House Press Secretary

-New Mexico Rep. Deb Haaland being vetted for Interior (would be first Native American Cabinet Secretary)

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

1 hour ago, G650 said:

No, centrists want universal healthcare but don't go in for idiotic identity politics and wokeness.

Wrong. The centrist hide behind woke and identity politics while most leftists scream about issues, not posturing. 

The identity politics is why the centrist say 'shut up' about a politician beholden to the fossil fuels industry because he happens to be black, as demonstrated in this very thread.

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by MC Fresh Breath

[bad_teammate 13481]

If you call yourself a "centrist" and your reasoning is "I want good things" then "centrism" is just an identity label you want for yourself. It's basically identity politics.

 

[Texaspython 231]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Not really. You are an unwitting pawn in the American Right's successful move of our nation with respect to the world. 

The GOP convinces the Democrats that they have to give something to their wingnuts so the Democrats give ground. The Democrats tell their wingnuts to shut up. So the country moves a bit to the right. 

Next time there is a discussion the exact same thing happens. And all along the right calls whatever is two ticks left of the last agreement RADICAL SOCIALISM. 

So it happens slowly (S is what the Republicans call Socialism at each point in time): 

But you wake up two decades later and what actually happened is: 

No, leftist can’t convince the electorate to accept their ideas so they spend their time attacking centrists (their allies and in agreement on policy) and telling everyone how they’re right and no one understands. Instead of listening to centrists on how to get what they want, they continue to lose and get none of what they want. I’ve seen this play out over and over again. It’s as predictable as the sun rise. 
 

This comes from a guy who has voted for every losing progressive candidate in this state for my entire life. At some point you think the left would change tactics.

[bad_teammate 13481]

24 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

But you wake up two decades later and what actually happened is: 

This chart is good for exposing centrism, not only because it is 100% accurate in its depiction of rightward shifting, but also because putting "wingnuts" on the edges reveals that it's basically nothing but egotistical self-labeling.

[Huckleberry 34407]

23 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This chart is good for exposing centrism, not only because it is 100% accurate in its depiction of rightward shifting, but also because putting "wingnuts" on the edges reveals that it's basically nothing but egotistical self-labeling.

Well sure but you gotta know your audience. If I were presenting to the ends then they would be labeled Ideologues and the center would be labeled Sellouts. Ha. 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Huckleberry

[bad_teammate 13481]

Oh you made it? Nice.

[SilasCoade 2622]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

doesn’t biden’s proposed public option support the opposite of what you’re claiming?  it’s seen by some as a step towards m4a/total coverage. 

(i am not arguing the merits of this proposal, just that there are incremental steps that can be taken on healthcare)

If the goal is universal coverage, and your plan does not provide universal coverage it is a failure. And a totally unnecessary one. There is an obvious solution that would benefit everyone except private insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and hospital corporations. Closer to success is still failure.

[softlynow 1893]

3 minutes ago, Llogg said:

If the goal is universal coverage, and your plan does not provide universal coverage it is a failure. And a totally unnecessary one. There is an obvious solution that would benefit everyone except private insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and hospital corporations. Closer to success is still failure.

This is a cold way to view helping people with problems. If the ideal plan could never pass to begin with, should those that could be helped by incremental improvements be told that simply helping them but not everyone is "failure," so fuck it?

As to the larger (side) conversation. This hammers home that the right just does every aspect of politics better, this aspect being radical flanking.

[henrygandorf 29223]

17 minutes ago, Llogg said:

If the goal is universal coverage, and your plan does not provide universal coverage it is a failure. And a totally unnecessary one. There is an obvious solution that would benefit everyone except private insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and hospital corporations. Closer to success is still failure.

while i agree with you as far as end results (folks are either covered or they're not - it is certainly binary to them), through the political lens, i would group it just like green new deal or pretty much any other progressive policy - there are incremental steps, even if they suck.  free college seems simple enough, but i'm sure there are obstacles that would slow it down or turn it into steps towards the right solution.

maybe student loan forgiveness would be the only thing i can think of that would be one-stop shop sweeping hammer-hitting-nail done.

again, it's an issue for another thread, but as long as the american govt is structured the way it is, the deck will always be stacked against certain progressive ideas, because of how long things realistically take to get through the system, and how long people are in power.  a month ago, i would've said this was the best possible time for such change, because trumpism could easily lead to biden (4) and kamala (8) which would give the proper runway.

but then 71mm people voted for trump, even while plenty of them probably support certain progressive policy.  the whole thing sucks.

[henrygandorf 29223]

25 minutes ago, Llogg said:

If the goal is universal coverage, and your plan does not provide universal coverage it is a failure. And a totally unnecessary one. There is an obvious solution that would benefit everyone except private insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and hospital corporations. Closer to success is still failure.

also, if you have 50mm people uninsured, and reduce that number to 25mm, those 25mm people would not consider it a failure.  you're the one letting good be the enemy of great here.

america is a huge fucking steam ship.  americans take a long time to evolve.  wasn't long ago we were smoking on airplanes, and there are still senseless gun deaths every day.  you take what you can get or you move to denmark i guess.

the fact that trump/gop have been trying to knock down aca (an already flawed piece of legislation) for a decade and have been unable to is a small victory.  time to take the beachhead. 

[Texaspython 231]

I’ll admit, we’re talking very generally about the left and it isn’t all fair. You have the welling meaning left. I can argue with these people on tactics all day because I know they’re sincere. I think they’re wrong about tactics but I respect them and agree with their goals.

Then you have the angry left. The people who are insincere and sinister. These people are really not that different than the angry trumper. They just blame different people for their lot in life. Thankfully, we don’t have many of them on this board, b_t being one of the few.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 hour ago, Texaspython said:

I’ll admit, we’re talking very generally about the left and it isn’t all fair. You have the welling meaning left. I can argue with these people on tactics all day because I know they’re sincere. I think they’re wrong about tactics but I respect them and agree with their goals.

Then you have the angry left. The people who are insincere and sinister. These people are really not that different than the angry trumper. They just blame different people for their lot in life. Thankfully, we don’t have many of them on this board, b_t being one of the few.

Many of the progressive ideas are popular among the electorate. The majority of folks want universal healthcare, anti-corruption legislation, action on climate change, wealth tax, etc.  The problem comes with a lack of agency and leadership on these ideas within the party power structure. The gatekeepers at the Federal level  try to keep themselves walled off from movement politics and gravitate towards preserving the status quo that empowered them.  

Essentially we have a self reinforcing structural corruption problem that will take a movement from the bottom up to overcome, or the system collapses.  Either way change is hard and takes a lot of work. 

[Js1 86945]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

also, if you have 50mm people uninsured, and reduce that number to 25mm, those 25mm people would not consider it a failure.  you're the one letting good be the enemy of great here.

america is a huge fucking steam ship.  americans take a long time to evolve.  wasn't long ago we were smoking on airplanes, and there are still senseless gun deaths every day.  you take what you can get or you move to denmark i guess.

the fact that trump/gop have been trying to knock down aca (an already flawed piece of legislation) for a decade and have been unable to is a small victory.  time to take the beachhead. 

Hey that's basically the progressive's motto! 

100% fealty to their ideas and methods or they'll threaten to stay home and let it all blow up. 

[safe sex 11914]

Could we at least just get some actually progressive legislation passed and try it for a while? I'm in my mid-30s, and I can't recall ever getting to experience the effects of truly progressive legislation. I'm not asking for the New Deal or anything (though that would be dope), but I want to try something. 

[Js1 86945]

2 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

Could we at least just get some actually progressive legislation passed and try it for a while? I'm in my mid-30s, and I can't recall ever getting to experience the effects of truly progressive legislation. I'm not asking for the New Deal or anything (though that would be dope), but I want to try something. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

And if not the turtle, then Joe Manchin. 

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 hour ago, softlynow said:

This is a cold way to view helping people with problems. If the ideal plan could never pass to begin with, should those that could be helped by incremental improvements be told that simply helping them but not everyone is "failure," so fuck it?

How would we know this? Because the center uses Republican talking points to help kill it?

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

there are incremental steps, even if they suck.

The goal isn't even 100% with Biden's plan. His optimistic end-result is 97% coverage.

It's hard to have a conversation about sober realities when one side is dishonest about its goals. The center doesn't want universal healthcare to be enacted. They do not value it. This would be easier if the center was as honest as the far-right.

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

also, if you have 50mm people uninsured, and reduce that number to 25mm, those 25mm people would not consider it a failure.  you're the one letting good be the enemy of great here.

There it is.

Quote

you take what you can get or you move to denmark i guess.

Love it or leave it! #GOPTalkingPoints

The reality is that Americans want universal healthcare. That's been true for decades. Even with the party establishments united against government-provided healthcare, it is popular in polling and candidates who run on actual universal healthcare are successful.

[bad_teammate 13481]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

And if not the turtle, then Joe Manchin. 

The man who killed the public option was Al Gore's running mate on the Democratic ticket in 2000.

[SilasCoade 2622]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

also, if you have 50mm people uninsured, and reduce that number to 25mm, those 25mm people would not consider it a failure.  you're the one letting good be the enemy of great here.

america is a huge fucking steam ship.  americans take a long time to evolve.  wasn't long ago we were smoking on airplanes, and there are still senseless gun deaths every day.  you take what you can get or you move to denmark i guess.

the fact that trump/gop have been trying to knock down aca (an already flawed piece of legislation) for a decade and have been unable to is a small victory.  time to take the beachhead. 

You are absolutely right and I recognize my internet bombast could not translate to public policy. That doesn't make me wrong, just an asshole  My position on healthcare is that good enough is not good enough because the people who oppose real change oppose any change. Look at obama care. There was no greater compromise solution than that. It did so little to change the healthcare landscape in real practical terms, but the Ted Cruz's of the world still cry about it. If you are going to deal with that level of obstruction to minimal changes, fuck them and go for broke.

There's also no need to compromise. It will save money and save lives and improve mental health and improve the ability to respond to widespread crises. The downside is that the one percent might have to wait an extra three weeks for their face lift. 

[henrygandorf 29223]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How would we know this? Because the center uses Republican talking points to help kill it?

The goal isn't even 100% with Biden's plan. His optimistic end-result is 97% coverage.

It's hard to have a conversation about sober realities when one side is dishonest about its goals. The center doesn't want universal healthcare to be enacted. They do not value it. This would be easier if the center was as honest as the far-right.

There it is.

Love it or leave it! #GOPTalkingPoints

The reality is that Americans want universal healthcare. That's been true for decades. Even with the party establishments united against government-provided healthcare, it is popular in polling and candidates who run on actual universal healthcare are successful.

i want universal healthcare.  i am in favor of m4a.  the candidate i wanted to win in the primaries was for a version that slow-walked it, and i agreed then (and now) that his inexperience led to supporting an "already compromised" solution.

i'm arguing semantics, not policy.  i think certain progressive policies involve steps, and i don't consider those steps to be all-or-nothing/success or failure scenarios.  and like i said, i don't think people who gain healthcare would consider it a failure either.

i also have not now or ever said that joe biden's healthcare plan is the one i prefer or that it's m4a adjacent or good or great in any way.  this conversation really isn't about biden unless he changes his stance on the subject.

let me ask the progressives this - if every american is covered except redheaded men, and they're only not covered for one month following their 34th birthday, is that a success or a failure?

[G650 14422]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

i want universal healthcare.  i am in favor of m4a.

As do I

[softlynow 1893]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

How would we know this? Because the center uses Republican talking points to help kill it?

You think there's even 1 Republican vote for M4A in the Senate? 

[henrygandorf 29223]

1 minute ago, Llogg said:

You are absolutely right and I recognize my internet bombast could not translate to public policy. That doesn't make me wrong, just an asshole  My position on healthcare is that good enough is not good enough because the people who oppose real change oppose any change. Look at obama care. There was no greater compromise solution than that. It did so little to change the healthcare landscape in real practical terms, but the Ted Cruz's of the world still cry about it. If you are going to deal with that level of obstruction to minimal changes, fuck them and go for broke.

There's also no need to compromise. It will save money and save lives and improve mental health and improve the ability to respond to widespread crises. The downside is that the one percent might have to wait an extra three weeks for their face lift. 

ok, well now you're changing it.  i agree that your solution is the best solution and that this should be our goal.  and by "our" obviously i mean the non-ted-cruz's of the world.  i also agree that you should go for broke if you're in position to push policy.  i don't agree with the assessment or labeling of substantial improvement as "failure" just because the painting didn't quite match the photograph.  we're not very good artists.

[bad_teammate 13481]

31 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i think certain progressive policies involve steps, and i don't consider those steps to be all-or-nothing/success or failure scenarios. 

Again, "steps" implies a journey to a destination.

The centrist destination on healthcare is not universal healthcare. Believe people when they tell you things.

Why do you ignore what they are telling you, invent a position for them that they don't claim, and then use right-wing talking points to chide progressives? Totally bizarre.

28 minutes ago, softlynow said:

You think there's even 1 Republican vote for M4A in the Senate? 

No, what kind of stupid question is that? There wasn't 1 Republican vote for Obamacare w/ no public option. Idiotic question.

[Huckleberry 34407]

There would be Republican votes in the Senate for M4A if Democrats didn't suck so much at politics.

But they do suck at politics so they let it get turned into a socialist evil in the public discourse.

[henrygandorf 29223]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Again, "steps" implies a journey to a destination.

The centrist destination on healthcare is not universal healthcare. Believe people when they tell you things.

Why do you ignore what they are telling you, invent a position for them that they don't claim, and then use right-wing talking points to chide progressives? Totally bizarre.

i'm not arguing in favor of the centrist destination for healthcare.  i believe biden and he's against m4a.

why are you ignoring what i'm saying and inventing a position for me?  sorry for chiding, but i disagree with certain labels.

separately, don't all m4a plans involve "steps" or "journeys"?  bernie's wasn't a thanos snap, was it?  even if everyone agreed, signed off, and voted the shit out of it, it still took years, correct?

[Biff Tannen 46061]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

There would be Republican votes in the Senate for M4A if Democrats didn't suck so much at politics.

But they do suck at politics so they let it get turned into a socialist evil in the public discourse.

Let's also take a look at the R numbers in terms of the rise of social media and Fox News.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20837]

Just keep your dirty government hands out of my Medicare!

[Huckleberry 34407]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Let's also take a look at the R numbers in terms of the rise of social media and Fox News.

Completely irrelevant. If Democrats didn't pussyfoot around all the time and try to play nice so that Republicans could appease their extreme wing then M4A would already be a reality. I don't really feel like reposting what I did before, but I've already explained this process in post 356. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.

Actually it's a much starker example than normal because in general I'm talking about how America is moving rightward relative to the world which is steadily progressing. In this particular case the Republicans have managed to move America rightward relative to itself and a static policy position thanks to the complicity of Democrats.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Huckleberry

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

why are you ignoring what i'm saying and inventing a position for me?

I didn't invent a position for you. I'll take you at your word that you want universal healthcare.

Quote

separately, don't all m4a plans involve "steps" or "journeys"?

Yes. I want M4A and M4A has a 4-year phase-in.

The issue isn't Thanos snap, the issue is the agreed-upon destination.

[Biff Tannen 46061]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Completely irrelevant. If Democrats didn't pussyfoot around all the time and try to play nice so that Republicans could appease their extreme wing then M4A would already be a reality. I don't really feel like reposting what I did before, but I've already explained this process in post 356. This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about.

Actually it's a much starker example than normal because in general I'm talking about how America is moving rightward relative to the world which is steadily progressing. In this particular case the Republicans have managed to move America rightward relative to itself and a static policy position thanks to the complicity of Democrats.

I wouldn't say COMPLETELY irrelevant.  It certainly helped the R wingnuts solidify their numbers.  But yes, your earlier post was correct as well.

[henrygandorf 29223]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

I didn't invent a position for you. I'll take you at your word that you want universal healthcare.

Yes. I want M4A and M4A has a 4-year phase-in.

The issue isn't Thanos snap, the issue is the agreed-upon destination.

i can get down with that. 

pete was always on the record saying single payer was the destination, but he saw it as a longer crawl.  biden has a different destination, which i don't support.  regardless, the goal (for the govt) should be to cover as many people as quickly as possible, while the goal (for progressive politicians and activists) should be to keep fighting.  i just don't see it as an either/or, because it seems like you'd need both to see real change.

the real goal should be something that takes 4 years (or less) and wrecks healthcare to the point where even if the republicans were to gain control of all 3 parts of govt, it would be impossible to untangle.  or maybe we can finally master face-swapping technology and get the votes we need on the right.

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

the goal (for progressive politicians and activists) should be to keep fighting.

Yes, so let's stop being mad at them for doing what they're supposed to do.

[Huckleberry 34407]

11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I wouldn't say COMPLETELY irrelevant.  It certainly helped the R wingnuts solidify their numbers.  But yes, your earlier post was correct as well.

Ah, I see your angle.

But yes, the Democrats should yell as loudly about the far right as Republicans do about the far left and they should never stop. Being nice and worrying about decorum and appeasing their opponents more than their base has ended in complete and total defeat over the last two decades. The little chart I put together is fairly personal for me because I basically haven't moved in terms of what I believe in for the last two decades. I was the center 20 years ago (one of those mythological socially liberal fiscal conservatives). I'm basically left of most Democrats in office now in terms of how people actually think about politics in this country.

But it's actually kind of frightening. The rightward movement isn't stopping and in fact is not even showing signs of slowing down. It will continue as long as the Democrats spend more time yelling at the far left than they do yelling at the far right.

Do Republicans spend more time acting hysterical about the far left or the far right?
What about Democrats?

There's your answer right there.

[washparkhorn 9967]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The centrist destination on healthcare is not universal healthcare

Facts.

Universal healthcare is a disaster for those making money off the inefficiencies in our medical system (the status quo). 

 

 

[softlynow 1893]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

No, what kind of stupid question is that? There wasn't 1 Republican vote for Obamacare w/ no public option. Idiotic question.

You're really bad at this. Unless you can get 60 Senate votes, no M4A (getting it through Reconciliation is a pipe dream). Your question was "how would we know this" in response to my assertion that the ideal plan could not pass. We know this, and you just admitted you know this, and knew this before you asked you idiotic question, because . . . Republicans.

So quit trying to gaslight me about your centrist boogeyman. You suck at it. I didn't even have to go to a previous page.

[softlynow 1893]

48 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Ah, I see your angle.

But yes, the Democrats should yell as loudly about the far right as Republicans do about the far left and they should never stop. Being nice and worrying about decorum and appeasing their opponents more than their base has ended in complete and total defeat over the last two decades. The little chart I put together is fairly personal for me because I basically haven't moved in terms of what I believe in for the last two decades. I was the center 20 years ago (one of those mythological socially liberal fiscal conservatives). I'm basically left of most Democrats in office now in terms of how people actually think about politics in this country.

But it's actually kind of frightening. The rightward movement isn't stopping and in fact is not even showing signs of slowing down. It will continue as long as the Democrats spend more time yelling at the far left than they do yelling at the far right.

Do Republicans spend more time acting hysterical about the far left or the far right?
What about Democrats?

There's your answer right there.

I would tend to agree, however Dems need to be fairly targeted in the parts of the far right they go after. Trump has exposed the ugly racist divide, and that part of the far right clearly 1. does not scare swing voters all that much and 2. drawing attention to them appears to have drawn more of them into the voting ranks.

Dems absolutely need to stop worrying about AOC and the like, and, at the very least, keep criticisms of them out of the public eye. But consider a moment Bill Maher. He's exactly why Dems will never get their shit together. As bad as the Trump era got, he was always up for attacking the PC left. He'd even end a joke about campus silliness and go right into questioning why Dems couldn't protect their own when silly shit happens like in the case of Al Franken. He was the target of his own criticism and doesn't see it. They have no party discipline and never will, and show little awareness that they don't, why they don't and why they should fix that shit.

[Texaspython 231]

4 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Many of the progressive ideas are popular among the electorate. The majority of folks want universal healthcare, anti-corruption legislation, action on climate change, wealth tax, etc.  The problem comes with a lack of agency and leadership on these ideas within the party power structure. The gatekeepers at the Federal level  try to keep themselves walled off from movement politics and gravitate towards preserving the status quo that empowered them.  

Essentially we have a self reinforcing structural corruption problem that will take a movement from the bottom up to overcome, or the system collapses.  Either way change is hard and takes a lot of work. 

Yup, heard this 1000000 times, yet nothing comes of it. You guys lose, every single time in places like Texas. You don’t listen or care. It’s easier to blame others (centrist) than take ownership for your own failures.

[UTDD 362]

5 hours ago, Llogg said:

If the goal is universal coverage, and your plan does not provide universal coverage it is a failure. And a totally unnecessary one. There is an obvious solution that would benefit everyone except private insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and hospital corporations. Closer to success is still failure.

I get this logic on one level, but if some change actually gets more people good insurance versus doing nothing, I wouldn't call that a complete failure at all in what I would deem important.

[Huckleberry 34407]

1 hour ago, softlynow said:

I would tend to agree, however Dems need to be fairly targeted in the parts of the far right they go after. Trump has exposed the ugly racist divide, and that part of the far right clearly 1. does not scare swing voters all that much and 2. drawing attention to them appears to have drawn more of them into the voting ranks.

Dems absolutely need to stop worrying about AOC and the like, and, at the very least, keep criticisms of them out of the public eye. But consider a moment Bill Maher. He's exactly why Dems will never get their shit together. As bad as the Trump era got, he was always up for attacking the PC left. He'd even end a joke about campus silliness and go right into questioning why Dems couldn't protect their own when silly shit happens like in the case of Al Franken. He was the target of his own criticism and doesn't see it. They have no party discipline and never will, and show little awareness that they don't, why they don't and why they should fix that shit.

The far right racists were and are energized by the attacks, including dog whistles, against the left. They're not energized by attacks against the right, that's not how it generally works. 

People get energized to attack a common enemy and Democratic leaders absolutely suck at focusing on a common enemy. They spend more time attacking the left which simultaneously depresses their support from the left and energizes the right to vote against themselves. 

If Democrats want to win they would absolutely never make a public statement against the left, but they have no idea how to win. Humans are predictable creatures. There's a reason the right's #bothsides approach works even when discussing horrific acts like the Charlottesville vehicular attack. If and when some lefty commits a terrible act they should specifically denounce that person by name for that specific act and say nothing else. But they can't help adding stuff that generalizes that behavior to the entire left in order to make themselves feel superior. 

So they keep losing despite the majority of the country agreeing with the left's policy goals. Nobody but leftists and a handful of celebrities tell about the right being scary. But Americans are constantly told by both Democrats and Republicans that the left is scary. And then those Americans head to the polls where Democrats = left and Republicans = right in their minds. 

Democrats have been beating themselves for decades and it won't stop anytime soon. 

[bad_teammate 13481]

3 hours ago, softlynow said:

You're really bad at this. Unless you can get 60 Senate votes, no M4A (getting it through Reconciliation is a pipe dream).

51 + filibuster reform gets it done.

We're not getting ANYTHING from Republicans. We won't get Medicare expansion. We won't get a public option. We won't get additional funding. We aren't getting any steps forward with Republicans, so that argument makes no sense.

Quote

Your question was "how would we know this" in response to my assertion that the ideal plan could not pass.

It can't pass as long as we're under 51 in the Senate. Sure. Did I ever say we'd get it with a Republican Senate?

A question I beg you to answer: Will Biden get HIS non-universal plan without 51 in the Senate? Will the centrists get their plan?

[henrygandorf 29223]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

The far right racists were and are energized by the attacks, including dog whistles, against the left. They're not energized by attacks against the right, that's not how it generally works. 

People get energized to attack a common enemy and Democratic leaders absolutely suck at focusing on a common enemy. They spend more time attacking the left which simultaneously depresses their support from the left and energizes the right to vote against themselves. 

If Democrats want to win they would absolutely never make a public statement against the left, but they have no idea how to win. Humans are predictable creatures. There's a reason the right's #bothsides approach works even when discussing horrific acts like the Charlottesville vehicular attack. If and when some lefty commits a terrible act they should specifically denounce that person by name for that specific act and say nothing else. But they can't help adding stuff that generalizes that behavior to the entire left in order to make themselves feel superior. 

So they keep losing despite the majority of the country agreeing with the left's policy goals. Nobody but leftists and a handful of celebrities tell about the right being scary. But Americans are constantly told by both Democrats and Republicans that the left is scary. And then those Americans head to the polls where Democrats = left and Republicans = right in their minds. 

Democrats have been beating themselves for decades and it won't stop anytime soon. 

big tent vs small tent problems.

[softlynow 1893]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

The far right racists were and are energized by the attacks, including dog whistles, against the left. They're not energized by attacks against the right, that's not how it generally works. 

Not generally, no. But as you pointed out, the left is less than proficient at this. What starts as an attack on what is generally accepted as clearly racist and readily seen as "bad" can easily become an attack what is arguably racist and maybe not so bad to some, and then maybe a bit racist and "oh, come on, really?" The statue removal movement is an obvious example of that dynamic.

Although not exactly on point, the #metoo phenomenon exemplifies why it's harder to just tell the left "ATTACK!" It gets out of control real fast. That people had to apologize for saying that an offensive shoulder touch wasn't as bad as rape shows how easily a leftist offensive pattern goes from pincer to mobius.

Anyway, they're my people and they're often right, but very exhausting.