Democratic (Party) Direction

lol that two of Gillibrand's other shady associations according to Jacobin are Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton

well, they both suck shit.

Al d'Amato, otoh, is possibly the most corrupt senator of his era, including any and all who may have been convicted of something.

In the USA "the platform is the platform" carries FAR less weight than in European politics, because party representation is not proportional, but entirely based on who wins in any given district. Candidates care only about positions that will help them win East Podunk, not what appeals nationally. Party discipline is especially lax among democrats.

But dmac is correct to point out that it is generally bizarre to speculate on a national-level politician's personal views, compared to what they think is most popular with voters or what will net them the biggest campaign donations. They recalculate these two factors tirelessly.

that kind of thinking goes on constantly though-- "Obama is really going to be Obama now that he's won re-election/ is about to leave office" "Trump isn't really pro-life" etc etc

once again Freddy B, you know fuckity fuck about all. Jacobin will be tot worthless the day a cheese curd like you approves of them.

Well, that sure is a lot of influence you give me.

I agree that Clinton would have done nearly nothing in that 'progressive' platform, btw, but that has more to do with the Republicans almost certainly hanging on to the house no matter what than some personal defect in Clinton. Clinton would have given the US left the Supreme Court and... that's it... Sanders would have given them about the same.

their DOJs wd've prosecuted the same ppl, eh

Sanders would have given the left much greater clarity of narrative about the great things they wanted to accomplish, if only circumstances allowed. Clinton would have been more about endless maneuvering for incremental victories. both approaches have validity, but it works better if they are alternated. rn the US electorate is clearly in the mood for bigger visions and bigger changes, and the dems aren't stepping up their vision game.

The speed of change in ideology is a fair question with any politician, especially if one is adopting a new progressive streak. It runs with the bullshit about how Hillary '16 "had the most progressive platform in history" - despite literally no one on Earth thinking it represented her actual views or how she would govern given her druthers.

― El Tuomasbot (milo z), Tuesday, May 9, 2017 12:48 PM (one hour ago)

this is a fair point, though gillibrand's history is not quite as extensive as HRC's so i do side with lemieux on this one. skepticism is proper, but you can't let it be pure cynicism

what a bizarre criticism. the platform is the platform. her actual views or druthers are irrelevant seeing as how she put together the platform to take into account the practicalities of an attempt to get elected, whether that platform was left or right if her own belief on any one issue.

reggie is a pretty good example of twitter radicalization. dude was like the politics algerian goalkeeper when he started posting here

i've been weaponized!

US electorate is clearly in the mood for bigger visions and bigger changes, and the dems aren't stepping up their vision game.

tbh this is kinda hard when Repubs' "vision" is bringing back coal jobs and replacing Obamacare with "something great."

xps to milo you are just making the same criticism and its still ridiculous tbh

No no no darragh. You said she did it 'to take into account the practicalities of an attempt to get elected' while milo claims she did it 'to encourage unity after the primaries'.

FIGHT!!!

I say she did it for the lulz

This conversation is literally hell

hell is other democrats

^^^

haha true

Democratic (Party) Direction

Straight to hell boys

glad i'm not one.

Bernie, Jimmy talk inequality:

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/09/jimmy-carter-and-bernie-sanders-explain-how-inequality-breeds-authoritarianism/

https://www.facebook.com/cartercenter/videos/10155045555976005/

lol outic otm nb im not a democratic i vote left

glad i'm not one.

maybe you and Bernie can start your own party

Cranky Old Party has a nice ring to it

maybe you and Bernie can start your own party

And hold the meetings in a fucking bathysphere.

guess no one is going to acknowledge the elephant in the room..... why is Party in parentheses in the thread title?

i will belong to no party that wd have someone like me etc etc

bcz it's Jewish?

Medicare For All should clearly be agenda #1, but may I humbly submit we nationalize the airlines next.

I like this: http://www.salon.com/2017/05/09/democrats-shame-republicans-with-adopt-a-district-plan-to-hold-town-halls-for-missing-gop-congressmen/

how do u get elected on single payer when half the country would be terrified shitless of their employer-based coverage evaporating over night? isn't public option a better route to universality, from current point?

I think people use public option and single-payer interchangably

or they use those *terms* interchangeably, even though yeah they are not quite the same thing

i don't think they do, actually!

as far as why not go with public option first -- idk, i mean we tried this in 2009 and it was shot down. and why try anything, when you know the GOP disinformation machine is going to be woking at full power? just fuckin campaign on good policy and things you believe in, why is this so hard

because it would be electorally unpopular, given that most of the middle class are on employer based plans? im all in for the 'more direct provision of public goods, less wonky indirect tax noodling', but PO is the former. is there evidence that SP is popular?

yup

http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx

xps to milo you are just making the same criticism and its still ridiculous tbh

Public option is incrementalism toward single-payer - if everyone can buy into Medicare, eventually everyone will.

xps qualms- Nice!

because it would be electorally unpopular, given that most of the middle class are on employer based plans? im all in for the 'more direct provision of public goods, less wonky indirect tax noodling', but PO is the former. is there evidence that SP is popular?

― flopson, Tuesday, May 9, 2017 4:00 PM (four minutes ago)

bro every sweeping legislative change is unpopular. the ACA was unpopular. dems thought that by watering it down as much as possible they could avoid electoral defeat. (ron howard voice: they didn't.) if the purpose of your half-measures is simply to avoid backlash among the uninformed, i think it's misguided

One problem with public option as opposed to single payer is that it must be coupled with mandatory coverage (as with the Obamacare mandate) and it frames the monthly premiums as a direct out-of-pocket cost to the citizen. Psychologically speaking, this is enrages people x100 more than framing it as "health care is universal and free or nearly so" while raising the revenue to pay for single payer in whatever way the public is least unhappy with -- e.g. a financial transactions tax would be highly acceptable to the general public and hard to gin up a scare-tactic ad campaign against.

if ACA had good public option they wouldn'ta gotten away w repeal

my point is more, health policy is path dependent (look how different it is across countries) and voters are insanely risk averse about Their Healthcare. So u gotta think about the path, ie, starting from an employer based system in the US, and about selling it to selfish wimps. maybe ur right tho and they're ready, idk! I certainly like living in a country with SP and wish the best, just wondering what that angle is on Medicare For All

maybe you and Bernie can start your own party

hey Shakey, Jimmy "Reagan Lite" Carter is a BernieBro. gtfo

it really doesn't matter where on the spectrum of liberal health insurance expansion you're proposing when the spin on fox news is going to be "death panels" regardless. again, look at the ACA

xp

hey Shakey, Jimmy "Reagan Lite" Carter is a BernieBro. gtfo

racist war criminal Jimmy Carter? didn't know you were a fan. Aren't you worried that he's going to contaminate Bernie?

my point is that Bernie is only 'left' in this country, u ass

as Barack Walker Bush himself said

I think everything hinges on what McConnell & co do next

why is Party in parentheses in the thread title?

You gotta fight for your right to not parenthesize "Party."

Single-payer/Medicare-for-all appears to assume that people will be comfortable paying $200ish on average for Medicare-level coverage - maybe it's taking too positive a view of Americans, but I don't think hostility comes from having to pay for care, it comes from having to pay too much for shitty care that you're not sure will even actually cover you.

The rest of the developed world doesn't, AFAICT, rely on obfuscated taxes, the citizens don't think healthcare is just appearing for free.

(the rest of the developed world also couldn't pay for an entire NHS with a quarter of its military budget, either...)

Possible projection, though - I initially resisted getting an ACA plan (my first health insurance ever) not out of any hostility to the idea of paying for insurance but because it was ~$275/mo the first year for a $5000 deductible, which just meant I was giving Blue Cross/Blue Shield over $3k to not pay a minor emergency clinic the one time I get sick per year.