That didn’t happen.
Actually, looking back, it was over two posts. My bad.
In #446, you are talking about things that are “broadly popular”, as a requirement for getting a plank. Later, you are admitting that things that were not popular (as in supported by a majority) at the time that they were introduced became popular later.
It is only a minority of definitions of the word popular that indicate a majority. If you are insisting that you only intend to use it that way, not only are you using a less popular definition, you are also wrong, as many of those very things that are now supported by the majority were not supported by the majority when they were first added to the platform.
In any case, your pointless and incorrect pedantry aside, if we only ever advocate for things that the majority already accepts, then there is no need for advocating anything. That’s kinda the whole point of advocating things, to make them popular.
Constructive criticism is good. That is happening a little bit in this thread.
There is demonization going on in this thread as well, where those who advocate more progressive policies are not only being told that it is their fault that Biden only won by a small margin, they are also being told that they must be shut down immediately.
That doesn’t represent an inconsistency in my use of the word “popular”, which you literally just accused me of “weaseling” about.
This is an accusation of inconsistency in my position, which is a different thing.
Also untrue. But still different.
The one specific example I mentioned in this thread of a position that “became popular later” was decided legally by the courts, not an electoral campaign push, as I already said. This was interracial marriage. It never needed to be a plank of an electoral campaign because it was already law. And in fact, I specifically pointed out how civil rights activists, at the time the position was unpopular, carefully stepped around that issue in order to focus on more popular issues that they were more likely to win.
Interracial marriage went from extremely unpopular to extremely popular, with no campaign implications because the courts had already decided it. A political campaign is simply not a necessary part of changing people’s minds. Activists can change people’s minds, and the broader culture can change, too, without the issue ever becoming an electoral topic.
If there is further confusion about my position, I can continue to clarify.
Right. Look at 2018. The reason the Democrats swept into the House wasn’t because the progressives were beating Republicans in House races. It was because centrist Democrats were beating Republicans in large numbers (a lot of those joined the New Democrat Coalition).
Meaning absolutely nothing. I would be shocked if most voters could describe the details of Sanders’ healthcare plan versus any other healthcare plan whatsoever. Just like voters didn’t like Obamacare but liked the ACA (which is the same thing).
What we need is a nationwide agreement that we should work towards some version of Universal Healthcare. Once we do that we can argue the details.
People like you arguing that Sanders’ plan is just horrible only works against the larger goal.
No, just the opposite. Too many people thing we have to have Sanders plan or nothing or that Sanders plan is somehow related to medicare.
Sanders plan needs to taken out and shot, then we can have a real debate.
Really?
Too many people think it is Sanders’ way or nothing?
We can’t even start the conversation because Sanders’ plan is the only plan? Because…why?
Because that is what everyone brings up “Medicare for All” over and over and over, like it is the only IHC plan ever.
When progressives ignore the desire of candidates to provide UHC that’s NOT M4A, and blame that position for why they lost? Yeah, you’re gonna find a significant group of people think progressives are stating “My way or no way”. Are you really surprised by that?
Progressives reliably voted for both Clinton and Biden. They are a pragmatic bunch. It was the moderate/centrist Clinton supporters who bailed on Obama in big numbers that were very much more “my way or no way”.
Do you guys think at least some responsibility is on establishment Dems for advocating for their vision of UHC more strongly?
The problem is “pie in the sky”. See, you have sanders with his crazy plan (mind you, if it could be passed, it would be good, except expensive) and Joe with his “baby steps”.
Sanders plan, if you had a magic wand- would be fine. But it will never, ever pass Congress. It is unfeasible.
Joes plan could pass congress- but many accuse it (rightly) of not going far enough.
So let us say someone said “What would you rather have- one chance in a million trillion of a million bucks in the future, or a coin flip for $10000 cash right now?” Smart & practical people would go for the 50/50 and the cash in hand.
Dreamers will go for the impossibly tiny chance.
Is Joes plan great? Nope. But it is a baby step. Free ACA for the poor, and the age for medicare lowered. Next we extent both, redefine poor to include those lower middle class struggling, and lover medicare gae by another five years. And so forth. Sooner or later, everyone has healthcare.
Thee perfect is the enemy of the good.
I wonder if your, and other’s, characterization of his plan as crazy may have to do with why it would “never, ever pass congress”? 
Yes, I have said that. [quote=“DrDeth, post:535, topic:924994”]
Sanders plan, if you had a magic wand - would be fine. But it will never, ever pass Congress. It is unfeasible.
[/quote]
It can not possibly, under any scenario, pass congress. Totally impossible.
I also dont care for his deliberate misnaming his plan.
Thus it is taking attention away from serious, practical and possible ideas to get use closer to UHC.
That seems to contradict the moderate/centrist voters who came out in support of Biden in a big way.
How so?
Gay marriage also went from something that was widely opposed to something that is generally accepted, in a shorter span of time than support for interracial marriage. And it did that while being a major factor in electoral politics.
Can you name any plan…ANY plan…that would pass congress intact?