Here ya go…listen to the bots/Russian spam farms if that’s your bag but don’t pretend they are representative of anything:
…from the New York Post (the only media that would print the Hunter Biden Laptop story) article:
The combination of the New York Post and Chuck Todd make entertaining reading but this doesn’t show that “the far left hurt Harrison.” It shows the right is great at propaganda. What really hurt Harrison was probably this.
Graham was always the frontrunner here. It was surprising that Harrison ran close. But if we are going to play the blame game then an overt display of affection from Feinstein deserves more blame than a caption. The Republicans ran on a platform based on lies and deceit and they turn everything into a talking point. You can’t prevent that. But you can choose not to hug somebody. That moment probably more than any other turned the race for Harrison and it didn’t come from the “far left.”
This is materially the same as saying, “Feminists won’t start speaking out against [equality for transwomen] because most feminists believe in equality for transwomen, and the few that object to equality for transwomen are a fringe element of the feminist movement.” Of course people don’t object to ideas they’ve “bought into”, i.e., ideas they consider sound.
I already answered that And if you ban Private insurance and any hospital for profit, you have effectively nationalized the health care industry. They can only operate thru government largesse.
The hospital and doctors get paid only what the govt decides they get paid.
Oh sure. The Repubs used “defund the police” against the Democrats- but they were lying their asses off. It is not that the Democrats jumped on the abolish the police bandwagon, it is that the GOP tarred them with that brush- unfairly.
Nothing you can do when they accuse you of something you didnt do.
Your point seemed to be that the Democrats, thru their support of 'defund the police", hurt the party. But in general- the Democrats didnt support defunding the police- especially not as people thought it meant.
So yeah, "defund the police’ hurt Harrison- but Harrison never supported it:
But where is the “any hospital for profit” part coming from?
Hospitals can be for-profit places catering to those that can afford it. They just have to opt out of being national MFA providers.
And MFA status doesn’t mean not-for-profit, it just means they have to follow the certification process.
Cite?
I think this might be getting a bit into the weeds. There are reasonable proposals for universal health care that eliminate most private-practice medicine, and those that don’t; whether Sanders’s specific plan eliminated them may not get us to the heart of the disagreement between the left and the center of the Democratic party.
More to the point is that glee with which Republicans latched onto Defunding the Police. Yes, it was a dumb co-option by progressives of a position long held by the real far left (who incidentally hate Democrats and generally don’t vote–most of y’all don’t know what the real far left is like apparently). But the point remains that the GOP has not held itself constrained by whole “Don’t bear false witness against thy neighbor” schtick.
The GOP was going to lie about Democrats no matter what, and let’s be real, their lies don’t need more than a shred of straw-man in order to be spun into fool’s gold. A single anarchist asking to defund the police will suffice for their purposes.
Republicans have a relative advantage to Democrats in terms of people who like them and who vote. Democrats have a relative advantage to Republicans in terms of people who like them. Democrats, instead of trying to get voters to like them, need to get people who like them to vote. That’s what Stacey Abrams and other community organizers did in Georgia, and that’s what works.
All this “WE LOST BECAUSE THE LEFT WON’T SHUT UP” is deeply missing the twin points: GOP’s gonna GOP, and the voters are there if you get them to vote.
And yes,I think this might be getting a bit into the weeds, maybe the whole things about exactly what Sanders MFA plan would do is a bit of a hijack, since it is never gonna happen.
So, on to the next issue.
Agreed!
Modnote: Your remarks are aimed at posters and not their posts. Avoid this in the future in P&E. This is not a warning, but next would have to be.
Modnote: This is also bordering on attacking the poster and not the post. Please avoid this in the future.
Everyone in this thread, I know it is difficult at times, but the rules of P&E as spelled out by Jonathan Chance is debate the post, don’t attack the poster.
I also know this week has left people more frayed than usual. So lets try hard to be a little more civil.
While the suburbs in many parts of the country seemed to reject Mr. Trump’s brand of brash, hard-right rhetoric and policy, several Republican candidates in New York appeared to find success by characterizing moderate Democrats in swing districts as anti-law enforcement. That message was often conflated with calls from the left to “defund the police” and with occasionally violent clashes between authorities and Black Lives Matter protesters.
“The woke movement awakened the cultural conservative in a lot of voters,” said William F. B. O’Reilly, a Republican political consultant in New York. “The left overreached.”
Richmond was asked about complaints made by moderate Democrats during a heated call with Democratic leaders last week, the details of which were leaked to members of the press. Some House members who narrowly won their districts spoke of how messages like “defund the police,” pushed by progressive lawmakers in the caucus, damaged their campaigns and cost vulnerable freshmen their seats.
The Louisiana Democrat, who is a co-chair of the Biden campaign, said the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is “very important” to the party, but noted “no matter how progressive your ideals and values are and what you want to do and how bold your plans are, if we don’t win, if we don’t keep the majority of the house, you cannot implement any of those plans.”
“We have to make sure we can win first and govern second,” he said.
…from @Exapno_Mapcase’s link:
…so hear me out here. Perhaps these Republican’s found success over the moderate Democrats not because they successfully painted them as “anti-law-enforcement”, but because the moderate Democrats were being moderate?
Doesn’t that make more sense?
I mean this here:
I mean, have we all seen whats been happening in New York the last six months? The police have been rioting.
And no matter how much the right paint de Blasio as “anti law and order” (to the point of the NYPD Union doxxing the Mayor’s daughter) in reality the Mayor just rolls over and essentially lets the police do whatever they like.
So maybe, just maybe, Rose didn’t inspire people to get out and vote for him because he was tied to the Mayor who has shown himself to be complicit with the lawlessness of the NYPD. And governor Cuomo isn’t much better. Rolled back bail reform. Maybe the moderates didn’t have a platform that New Yorkers wanted. Maybe they didn’t inspire people out to vote.
The story of this election seems to be pretty clear: if the Democrats did the work on the ground then they got people out to vote and they won. Look at Georgia. Arizona. Who delivered those states? Did Rose actually do the work here or was he one of the candidates that AOC said spent “$0 on digital” until the week before the election?
John Kasich is lecturing the Democrats to ignore the progressive voice: but did he deliver Ohio? They let him speak at the convention but they didn’t let Julian Castro. So how did that work out again?
I mean why are we even listening to what a random Republican political consultant has to say? Is anyone surprised that a Republican political consultant has an opinion on the "woke political left?
Once again you aren’t bringing anything new to the table here. We’ve got moderates asserting that “defund the police” has hurt the messaging. But the only time I’ve heard about “defunding the police” in the last couple of months its either been a Republican spox or a Democrat complaining about the “far left.” Everybody else has forgotten about it. We last discussed it here about six months ago?
“Defund the police” isn’t really the mantra of the “far left” any more. Its turned into a Republican Talking Point: the same way as “the deplorables” and “her emails” were Republican Talking Points. Its been four years since Clinton lost and the moderate Democrats still haven’t figured out how to counter Republican Talking Points. You don’t play defence. You don’t give the game away. You don’t let them control the narrative. They haven’t learnt anything from 2016.
No it isn’t. It’s saying if evidence does emerge that the new policy is causing problems, they are likely to dismiss it because it conflicts with their existing beliefs, and if any do believe there’s a problem they cannot say so or argue their case because dissent is not tolerated. I find this stifling of debate highly problematic.
This is how every belief among human beings operates. The reverse is also true: folks opposed to trans rights dismiss evidence that their opposition causes problems. It’d be nice if humans weren’t subject to confirmation bias, but here we are.
Again, here we are: as you seem to realize but not admit, the overwhelming majority of feminists have decided that trans rights are not only a thing, but a really important thing. Anti-trans positions aren’t fringe because dissent isn’t tolerated, you have that backwards. They’re objected to so strongly because they’re a fringe position among feminists. “Most feminists” have “bought into”–i.e., “concluded”–that protecting the rights of trans people is a feminist position, and opposing the rights of trans people violates feminist principles.
Maybe it’d be nice if folks who strongly believe in rights were nicer to people who opposed those rights and let them talk on without interruption. Maybe.
Just like police and firefighters. Your point being…?
Think about it. You cheerfully pay taxes to fund police and firefighters which statistically you may never need in your life or rarely. But you bristle at paying taxes to fund a medical system that you will definitely need. Explain that mindset.
Rights isn’t a magic word. I’d like to be able to object to your right to swing your fist when I see it heading towards my nose. And I do believe my position is fringe in large part because of the taboo on looking at the evidence. Much like atheism was uncommon back when it was taboo to talk about it. Confirmation bias is normal, insisting on ideological conformity is bad for society.
Not gonna debate this with you here. Your position as anti-trans activist is, as you recognize, a small minority position among feminists. Your position isn’t fringe because of some sort of taboo, it’s fringe because everyone thinks your evidence is crap. Feminists aren’t the pitiful hive-mind you make them out to be: most of them disagree with you because they find your position to be super-weak.
You’ve got a few choices. You can accept that and re-evaluate your position; you can try to persuade other feminists that your evidence isn’t as weak as it appears; or you can whine about how it must be some sort of super taboo thing you’re doing to resist ideological conformity and how most feminists must be disagreeing with you because they’re sheeple or something. You got choices.