If this board is any indication, Democrats talk about health care, after the Obama administration reformed it, exactly the same way they talked about it before. My view that that the Democrats fixed half of the U.S. health care problem, and should take credit for that.
A Mexican-American woman I am helping with her English told me last year that she was considering voting for Trump because it would prove to doubters that she was a real patriotic American. (My response was 10 percent Trump is bad, and 90 percent you are already a good American.)
Messaging only helps at the edges, but this from a new David Brooks column sounds reasonable:
You can make fun of Trump for literally wrapping himself around the flag, but it works. As others have pointed out in this thread, Democrats do talk about bread and butter issues. And that message has now gotten through. Polls show voters already know Trump 47 is no good on the economy. So I would spend more time on demonstrating that pride in what has made America great is basic to the Democratic Party. MAGA makes patriotism harder, but Democrats still fly the flag and support what it legitimately stands for.
From my perspective, it’s not that Dems aren’t interested in economic issues; just that actual humans and their rights take precedence. Today’s right wing puts money before their morals and to some of us, that is unacceptable.
Its really not. I believe the filibuster can be done away with using a simple majority vote at the start of a senate session.
Also my understanding is the senate can pass up to 3 budget reconciliation bills a year. That means the democrats had up to 6 chances to pass meaningful reform with reconciliation that only requires 50 votes plus the VP. I think they only used one for the ACA.
The public option could’ve been passed through reconciliation since it lowers government cost. The democrats never passed it.
The GOP passes tax cuts through reconciliation all the time.
The issue sadly is that ever since the civil rights act of 1964, southern whites have left the democratic party to become republicans.
The republicans were the party of lincoln, civil rights and reconstruction. So southern whites were overwhelmingly democratic as a way to resist civil rights for black people. This gave democrats supermajorities in congress.
In 1936 the democrats had 74 senators vs 22 republicans. The house had 322 democrats vs 102 republicans.
In 1964 the democrats had 66 senators and 258 representatives.
It was much easier to pass the new deal and the great society with supermajorities like that. But sadly since civil rights, southern whites have left the democratic party and become republicans due to the southern strategy.
Now in 2025, in the 13 confederate states of the civil war, 22 senators are republican vs 4 democrats. Of the 4 democrats, 2 are from Georgia and are probably not going to win re-election.
The 13 states have 146 representatives. 110 republicans and 46 democrats.
The 13 states have 182 electoral votes. Of the 182 electoral votes in those 13 states, Trump won 169 and Harris won 13.
As someone who was alive at the time and voting, a big part of it was disappointment in the democrats for not doing more. The issue wasn’t that democrats decided to vote republican, its that republicans decided to show up to vote and democrats didn’t.
In 2008 for house elections, 65 million democrats showed up to vote for democratic representatives vs 52 million republican voters.
In 2010, 45 million republicans voted for GOP representatives vs 39 million democrats.
It wasn’t so much that people switched parties, its that compared to 2008, about 26 million democrats stayed home vs 7 million republicans who stayed home. Turnout is always lower in midterms, and the incumbent presidential party generally loses seats in a midterm, but there was a lot of democratic demoralization.
Come 2012, the democrats got about 60 million house votes vs 58 million for the GOP.
So there arguably was some swing, but it was about 5-6 million voters who switched from 2008 vs 2012. The reasons the dems lost in 2010 was demoralization and low turnout, not people switching parties. 5-6 million people switching parties can’t explain a 26 million vote deficit.
I used to read and post on the Daily Kos all the time during this period of Obamas first 2 years in 2009 and 2010. There was a massive feeling of disappointment in how the democrats squandered a once in a generation supermajority and people felt like ‘whats the point of voting in 2010’.
I did vote in 2010, but I understood where people were coming from.
Health reform could be passed on the state level. A variety of wealthy democracies developed universal health care because a certain province or region passed UHC, then it was successful and became a national model.
That is what happened with the ACA. The ACA was originally passed in Massachussets, it was a success so Obama passed it on the national level.
There is nothing to stop a state like California, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, etc from passing meaningful health reform on the state level. The democrats in the state government just don’t want to.
You don’t even have to pass UHC. Doing away with networks so no more out of network charges, or allowing the government to negotiate prices, etc could be passed but democrats on the state level won’t pass those either.
Partisans almost always think that their side rolls over dead while the other team gets their way. Could it be that Democrats are correct when they say that and Republicans wrong? Sure, but the fact that a tribe often says it doesn’t prove it is correct.
As for it being possible to wave away the filibuster with reconciliation, that is very complicated and requires looking at each case. In retrospect it is easy to overlook Senate parliamentarian rulings.
Neither were in office in 2009 - Manchin was elected to the Senate in 2010. Sinema was in the House from 2013 to 2019 and thence in the Senate.
The issue was more people like Ben Nelson, whose state Nebraska is home to the headquarters of a lot of health insurance corporations. He had to have his interests appeased before he would throw his support behind ACA.
And then he lost his next election anyway, the jerk.
Yeah, bread-and-butter economic policies are hard to do for several reasons: wealthy interests lobbying against them, bureaucratic inertia that stops stuff getting built in the real world, or slows it till after the next election, unwillingness of voters to pay for things.
I think this was what kicked off the electoral realignment in the first place, and it’s still a significant factor.
When was that?
If 80% of voters opposed raising the minimum wage, and the other party were arguing against it because they secretly wanted to bring back slavery, then I simply wouldn’t try to raise the minimum wage. Why would you risk losing the election when the stakes are so high?
In Colorado, single payer lost 30% to 70%. Coloradans would rather save $20 in taxes and spend hundreds to thousands in insurance premiums and medical costs.
And especially the lousy Joe Lieberman. Single-handedly torpedoed part of the bill. And Ted Kennedy, for being a useless piece of crap his entire career and then dying. And then, at a distance, Martha Coakley with an absolutely pathetic Senate run.
You missed a very important point. The average voter has no clue how economics works.
See my example above: save a penny on taxes to pay a pound for medical.
Paying tipped employees the same minimum wage will increase restaurant prices. Yes but I save 15-20% by not tipping. And by the way, why is it my responsibility to subsidize a living wage and not the employers?
Tariffs will reduce prices thus saving us from Bidenomics.
“I don’t want to get this money because I’ll have to pay taxes on it.” Ummm… but you keep 70-75% of it.
I mean why do you think the public complains that our schools don’t teach basic financial literacy? They are trying to make that a requirement in Colorado and it is already a requirement in many districts here for graduation.
In my opinion, it’s hard for any political figure to talk to anyone about money, on any side. People are very ignorant about finances, from personal finance to taxes to macro economics. Hell, the politicians themselves surely have some massive ignorance on all that.
It’s easier to just focus on asking people to be NICE, as it’s free. Like, hey, you like your neighbors, who happen to be in a marginalized group. Why not just let them live?
And that’s something that often goes too far. Remember Hillary Clinton’s "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow….would that end racism? Would that end sexism?”
I do a lot with local politics and local levies. One of the few ways that people are directly asked to agree to a raise in taxes. People do not give a shit that an extra $200/year in property taxes can go to keep their local schools running. It’s an absolutely monumental thing to explain to them how taxes work to benefit society. They hear “it’ll cost you some money” and they check the box for “no.”