Recent poll data on Medicare For All

This topic contains 57 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  cbaravelli 8 months, 1 week ago.

Viewing 13 posts - 46 through 58 (of 58 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #37547

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    At a minimum, if the party gets pulled left, past center let’s say for brevity, I’ll be happy.

    That’s worth it right there.

    A Merkley run? I would be happy with that too.

    This isn’t about anything other than improving party performance, appeal, winning so we actually get better for people.

    Assuming we all want social and economic progress for Americans, yeah, same team.

    #37548

    Vitalogy
    Participant

    Was it worth it to have Trump as president?

    #37549

    Vitalogy
    Participant

    Bernie bots did win in that regard.

    #37551

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    How many ways can you express the same blame and shame?

    I’ll start a collection on those too. Should be useful.

    Yes. Of course.

    All the work to mobilize progressives, take the strong ideas, from the stronger candidate at that time mind you, to the party platform, etc… was great work. Nobody involved in any of that feels any regret at all, and as I’ve said prior, there isn’t really an option for you to change that.

    That is precisely what the process is for.

    Now, once that was all done, Clinton had a ton of options. She could have won that election, and should have too.

    That she didn’t wasn’t on the people looking for solid representation, nor the ones participating in the political process, as intended.

    That’s on Clinton, and I’m super pissed about it. We don’t need Trump, and the truth is the guy is going to do one hell of a lot of no good too. Buckle up! It’s gonna get a lot more ugly. Sadly.

    And as I’ve said before, what was the priority?

    Was it winning the election, beating Trump, or was it something else?

    Because if the priority really was beating Trump, it was all there, available, yet not done.

    Ask Clinton about all of that. Was her call, her outcome.

    Regarding Trump, the future.

    In my view, he’s gonna make one hell of a mess. That requires one hell of an answer, which underlines pretty much all I’ve put here.

    I do not believe running the same old playbook is gonna do it for us, and that’s the truth.

    This isn’t just petty, or shallow. I have a genuine concern about the future, and the need for the left to become relevant in government again. What it’s gonna take to do that.

    #37553

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    That concern can be put a simple way:

    There has got to be a way for the left to improve on it’s overall economic unity. Socially, we’ve got a good game.

    I believe in that social game. We aren’t fundamentally wrong.

    Economically, there are matters of genuine ambiguity in play. People really don’t believe, and they have cause, standing to both believe that and express it.

    Dismissing all of that with blame and shame isn’t going to do us any good at all.

    #37557

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    I’m not sure what you mean. Do you not understand that the GOP controlled the Senate during Obama’s last two years in office?

    Of course. And do you not understand Dems pulled punches? What happens when the GOP is in that position?

    They go to town. Rubbing faces in shit everywhere, working what position they do have for leverage, etc…

    Now, it could be there was no moving on any of that. But, I didn’t see my party go to the mat on it, and they should have. Was super important.

    And, fact is, some of the votes they did get were all about it too.

    Taking a step back, looking at the kilo seat problem, viewed through the lens of SCOTUS picks, one does wonder about the priorities.

    The wave of losses basically didn’t get a response, other than to run away, or redirect onto fairly benign things, like the environment. More answers were entirely possible, suggested by many.

    The conventional, “common sense” wisdom on all of that is, “nation leans right, move right, win.”

    I would actually be inclined to buy all of that, but for the fact that issue polling data, what we saw in 2016 primary data, all point to a nation in serious need of investment in it’s people rather than bombs, and a changing electorate as boomers age out and millennials age in.

    Secondly, if we consider the available votes to be the current pool of voters, zero sum game type thinking basically equates to convincing Republicans and indie voters trending Republican, to vote D.

    However, those people aging in trend seriously left. And, many are willing to vote FOR, and they represent an expansion of the pie possible, not zero sum game.

    That has got to be tried. Without doing that, we’ve left political potentials off the table, and that’s irresponsible, arguably foolish.

    It just so happens doing that conflicts with the big money in politics to. I do not believe that combination of things is a mere curio or fantasy at all.

    The party either does, or simply is unwilling, unable to run in conflict with the big money, and that’s precisely why progressives are doing what they are doing.

    Guys, that’s a fair call. Nobody has to like it, but it is happening. And it’s entirely obvious no amount of blame and shame will change that.

    #37558

    Andrew
    Participant

    No matter what you think Obama should have done, he wouldn’t have gotten his justice on the bench, because the GOP doesn’t play by the rules of civility anymore. They weren’t going to back down even if Obama had given them rougher treatment.

    #37560

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Maybe.

    #37563

    Andy Brown
    Participant

    “the GOP doesn’t play by the rules of civility anymore”

    Precisely. A perplexing problem moving forward.

    Perhaps that will change as they start losing seats in Congress. drumpf’s popularity still has a long way to fall but as his doings result in impact on voters (and they will, it’s already begun) they will certainly nosedive (it’s the economy and what happens in a trade war) but Congress’s numbers are pretty much at rock bottom already.

    #37564

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    I don’t think a change in seats will impact that one bit.

    Hasn’t before.

    #37565

    Andrew
    Participant

    Republicans will only change their behavior if they pay a political price for it. But since 1994, they really haven’t had to worry about it – the conservative re-alignment (conservative Democrats dying out, conservatives becoming Republicans instead) means Republicans will probably enjoy a majority in the House for a while longer, most years. They may lose it for a few sessions as in 2006 and 2008 over temporary anger over Iraq or fear about the economic crisis. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them lose the House with Trump in charge. But Democrats are really need to change something if they want to go back to having an enduring majority in Congress again.

    None of that changes the fact that Obama had no option to get his Supreme Court nominee even a hearing in the Republican Senate. President Sanders or President Warren wouldn’t have had any better luck.

    #37566

    missing_kskd
    Participant

    Maybe.

    However, more of an effort can be played into political momentum, capital.

    That’s a bigger deal than many on the left give it credit for.

    #37633

    cbaravelli
    Spectator

    Unicorns and leprechauns. Where is the pot of gold at the end of your rainbow?
    I know. Let’s do what the Seattle City Council tried to do and tax the shit out of Amazon and Boeing!

Viewing 13 posts - 46 through 58 (of 58 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.