It could also be that 2020 is not the goal. The goal could be to reshape the makeup of the Democratic Party.
-
I dont think we should be checking for citizenship status when giving healthcare. I dont know of ANYONE who wants to give free health care ONLY to undocumented Immigrants. The way this is worded i can see why most wouldnt like it, but if you word it my way, I think most non-GOp would support it.
-
I think that, as in CA, **Public **Community colleges (this includes trade schools to some extent) should be almost free (some tiny charges for Student body fee, which can be waived), and after you get your two year degree, the next two years are subsidized, on a means test.
-
I think there should be a way for a felon to petition to get his voting rights back, like for example he was convicted of a Marijuana possession charge before that state made it legal. I dont think it should be automatic. I dont think many think it should be automatic, so again- a badly worded loaded question.
-
I dont know of ANYONE who favors the elimination of private health insurance. I know of many who support Medicare for all or UHC, which is not that same thing at all. Of course with Medicare for all , you’d likely pay for a medicare supplement, and even in Canada & GB, some wealthy people do have private health insurance also. This question was worded in a loaded way.
And yet she won’t actually stand by her accusations. What’s up with that?
In the only competitive election she has won, she received 16,898 votes. That’s 0.005% of the U.S. population that voted for her to “shake things up”. :dubious:
Leave me out of that “we”. I vehemently disagree with that criticism of mainstream Democrats, especially if we are talking about Nancy Pelosi.
Really? 
So if someone publicly accuses me of embezzling from the poorbox, or molesting children, I shouldn’t get upset about it as long as it’s not true? Are you hearing the things you are saying?
Really? We should show her how to stand together as Democrats by standing with her in her attacks against other Democrats? That makes literally zero sense. :smack:
Hey, I’m not saying you have to like it. I’m just saying that no, it’s not really a more drastic example of intraparty “public disarray” than Bob Dole in 1988 declaring that George Bush should “stop lying about [Dole’s] record”, or Pelosi in 2008 calling Joe Lieberman “totally irresponsible” and “one of [Republicans’] best weapons” for criticizing Barack Obama.
Lieberman deserved to be called out by Pelosi for the same reason AOC deserves to be called out by Pelosi: they are demonizing the majority of the Democratic Party. One from the right, one from the left. I am strongly against that, either way.
There’s a big difference between criticizing and demonizing. Please don’t confuse the former with the latter.
This is a party that, quite frankly, needs a good intraparty debate right now. And some of that has to happen in the House. The Presidential candidates can argue over whether there should be Medicare for All, and what that should mean: if a Dem is elected in 2020, s/he will determine the party’s policy agenda for 2021. But right now, the House has to decide whether and how it’s going to take on Trump, which is something that the candidates can only do verbally.
And it’s a target-rich environment, even if they forswear impeachment, and even if they avoid lines of inquiry that Trump, as President, can block or drag out forever. They can hold hearings on: the concentration camps, the ~2 dozen women who’ve credibly accused Trump of sexual assault, Kavanaugh (the Senate cut short many lines of inquiry last year that had nothing to do with his behavior towards women), Acosta/Epstein, 666 Fifth Avenue, emoluments, other uses of the Presidency to enrich Trump and his family…the list goes on. And while Trump will block a lot of stuff, they need to have a hearing on just how close we came to war with Iran a few weeks back, because that’s scary stuff.
Point is, they can pick and choose their ground for taking on Trump, but they need to pick some fights with him that can at least make the point that they’re doing so. And they can abandon passing bills that the Senate will never take up, because it’s masturbation is what it is: they make the House Dems feel good, nobody else knows about them, and they don’t affect anything else. And like I said, the next President will determine the 2021 legislative agenda, not the House.
So they need a good debate on the best line of attack against Trump, and the more public, the better - so that we, the voters, can get a sense of who’s dragging their heels against any sort of attack at all. Because it’s not just Pelosi. And maybe there’s an argument for not taking on Trump at all, but let’s see people make it openly, rather than be an invisible drag on the party.
As you’ve reworded these, I agree that they’d be approved by a large proportion of Democrats. (Independents might be a tougher sell on some of them.)
But a problem for Dem candidates is that on some of these and other issues, their official positions DO sound fairly radical to independents and centrist Democrats. For example:
(My emphasis.)
There is all kinds of room for driving voters away, if the Democratic candidates choose that road.
^100% this.
I’m on Medicare. Would someone please define “Medicare for all” for me?
I have a supplemental policy that covers that all-important 20% that Medicare doesn’t cover. No, my supplemental policy doesn’t pay for anything Medicare doesn’t cover, but I could buy supplemental policies for dental, eyeglasses, etc. IMHO, that’s a good system for America.
OTOH, Medicaid is pretty close to insurance of last-resort. Yes, it will pay for dental care and eyeglasses, at least under some circumstances, but you have to find a physician, dentist, or optometrist who’ll take it. That forces a lot of Medicaid recipients to rely on either privately or publicly subsidized clinics. That’s a lot closer to the socialized medicine the Republicans scream about.
AFAICT, the definition differs from one candidate to the next.
But if we had Medicaid-for-all, physicians would have to choose between accepting it or going out of business.
What’s particularly awful is that there is absolutely no reason for the accusation, no basis in anything that Pelosi’s done, just a “well I notice the people you disagree with happen to be young women of color…” kind of insinuation that’s frankly a bullshit deflection from the things they disagree about. Moreover, the flipside of the argument is that Pelosi would be far more receptive to them if they were white guys, and I don’t buy that for a second. “If you can’t argue the issues, attack their character,” is a shitty tactic to employ in any case, made infinitely worse when it’s a false accusation.
If AOC actually believes that it’s race that motivates Pelosi’s attitude towards her, then she either has a lot more information regarding Pelosi than the public does, or she just sounds like someone who blames racism for everything that doesn’t go her way.
While I understand what you are saying about party infighting, I feel that AOC’s race comment was worse than the others. I don’t mind the back and forth over the issues, questions about leadership, party direction, and so forth, but I would have to throw a flag on that play…
what Parts do you have? AFAIK, it would be Part A free, Part B= whatever the normal monthly cost would be, based upon your income. Etc.
CAH, Sherrerd, good points.
RTF, I will just reiterate that we should be listening to Democrats who win in places where Trump has an approval rating of north of 45%. They are clearly the ones who know how to frame things in the way that works in those crucial and difficult places.
Sure, listen to them. But listen to them on what ground to take Trump on, not on whether or not to do so. ‘Not take him on’ is the way to kill Dem turnout next year. Why bother electing people who are going to be all impotent once they’re elected?
You don’t know of ANYONE who favors the elimination of private health insurance? Did you see the 1st Democratic debate?
When asked if they would abolish private health insurance entirely in favor of a government-run plan, on the 1st night Warren and de Blasio raised their hands, on the 2nd night Harris and Sanders raised their hands. That’s 4 people you should know that favor abolishing private health insurance.
Now Harris clarified/softened her position almost immediately but that leads to an ad against her that writes itself (could be from other Democratic candidates or by Trump if she’s the Democratic nominee): Clip of moderator asking the question, then zooms onto Harris raising her hand, then a clip of Harris clarifying her position, ending with offscreen announcer asking “Harris was for abolishing private health insurance before she was against it. What other issues will she change positions on?” Closes with a background of an eagle and an American flag, announcer stating “Paid for by Americans for America.”
It’s a difficult position for the candidates, they have to let voters know their position and distinguish themself from the other candidates but the more they speak, the more their words can be used against them.
I’ll get a pony before it happens but I’ve long wanted the candidates to only tell me about themself and their positions; don’t tell me about your opponent, I’m not liable to believe you/I’ll consider the source and it’s his/her job to tell me about themself and their positions.
Because having impotent Democrats is better than having Trump, and if you don’t elect “impotent” Democrats, you’ll have 4 more years of lawlessness, 4 more years of attacks on the Constitution, 4 more years of migrants in cages, 4 more years of dangerously unpredictable foreign policy.
There’s no reason not to show up and vote for a Democrat, even an impotent one. Besides that, the degree to which Democrats are impotent depends on how many voters show up to vote down the ballot.
Going back to the original thread title, I’ll sum it up this way:
The Democratic party seems to be at a crossroads right now. They have a choice between going down the road of Bernie Sanders and taking a hard left turn, and with that, choosing an aggressive, in-your-face “burn the motherfucker to the ground” approach to politics, or they can opt for the more pragmatic approach to politics. There’s the Bernie Bro path, or the Barack Obama path. I’ll take the advice of the guy who won became the first non-white president in American history and won two terms over the advice of people who support the guy who couldn’t defeat a highly unpopular former Sec of State and is struggling to remain viable in the current primary.
Is there a term for someone who almost always agree with progressive’s goals but almost never agrees with their strategy to achieve them? So for instance, I’d consider myself ideologically progressive, but think my ideological compatriots are constantly shooting themselves in the foot politically. I see the center-left to be more politically viable and therefore a faster way to ultimately achieve a progressive agenda. I contrast this with someone who is ideologically center-left and seeks that agenda as an end in itself.
AFAIK, it’s really only Sanders, as that’s a simplistic question. I am not sure about Warren, she seems to be all over the place.
Yes, and so what?
Well, if all we have are impotent Dems, that will surely be the case. But again, so what?
Your audience for this is the set of people who are very likely to vote Democrat if they vote at all, but very often don’t vote at all.
Convince THEM. But if you think they’re going to be mobilized by House Democrats sitting around twiddling their thumbs while Trump keeps committing new outrages, you’ve got a very poor read on human nature.
THEY ALREADY DID. Less than eight and a half months ago.
If that rather impressive turnout last November didn’t result in non-impotent Dems, why should they think it’ll work better next time? They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result the next time.