Why are the Democrats such pussies?

[Nars_Glinley]

As Will Rogers said in 1935

I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat.

Also, many southern Democrats are really Republicans in disguise.

[RickJay]

You know, the Democrats did sort of clean up in the last round of elections. Winning elections suggests they might not be entirely inept.

[QuercusMax]

@Superhal

Back in the day (2000) when there were grassroots efforts to oppose Dubya at dailykos, I noticed this was probably the biggest difference between neocons and everybody else. Right or wrong, a neocon will support whatever their party tells them to support. A liberal will argue until they’re dead.

They couldn’t even agree on which candidate to support in the primaries, and kept arguing even after the selection was made.

Daily Kos in 2000? Wikipedia’s article indicates it was created in 2002.

Might have been some other site, but definitely not Daily Kos.

[petew83]

3 thoughts-

1. Republicans are much more unified.

2. The scale has been set so high on the conservative side that any truly liberal policy seems extreme.

3. Dems are not getting a message across to the catch-phrase driven masses.

[Superhal]

@RickJay

You know, the Democrats did sort of clean up in the last round of elections. Winning elections suggests they might not be entirely inept.

Here’s my take on what happened:

With the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), control of the polls went to Diebold, a company with ties to the Bush family. In 2004, the statistical anomalies were incredible, and everybody realized that something was wrong. The push to vote was even stronger in 2006, the first real democratic victory over the repubs, although this, to me, seemed to be more pushed by dissatisfaction with the Bush administration and repubs in general than whatever platform the dems had (and, as I recall, the dems in 2006 had basically the same platform as the repubs.) Then, as Diebold machines were replaced by competing companies, the rout was completed in 2008.

The most striking thing to me was that when Bush won in 2004, he won by a million votes, and nobody knew where those votes came from. One group speculated it was yuppie Mexicans in California. The Mexicans came back and said, “It wasn’t us,” and on and on and nobody could figure out where those million votes came from.

Nixon also won by a million votes nobody could account for, and he called it the “Silent Majority.”

So, to get back to my point: the “wins” of the Dems were actually caused not by the Dems themselves, but:

1. The accurate counting of votes.
2. The previous losses were caused by crooked elections.

[akwally1]

@Sam_Stone

70% of Americans are satisfied with their health care. They will not benefit.

Just because someone is satisfied with their health care doesn’t mean they won’t benefit from an improved plan. I’m happy with my health care, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think there’s room for improvement, plus I’d like to help those who currently don’t have easy access to insurance. I think throwing around that 70% number is a bit disingenuous. (Not specifically directed at you Sam, just as a general rule)
Mark

[Der_Trihs]

@Sam_Stone

Democrats control the government now. How they wield that power will determine whether or not they still control the government a year and a half from now. The smarter Democrats understand this. Even when you have large majorities, you have to pay attention to the will of the people, because they can take that majority away from you really fast.

And the will of the people is UHC. The Democrats are defying the will of the people in order to suck up to the Republicans and the medical industry.

And to answer the OP; it’s because they are corrupt, spineless cowards.

[Sam_Stone]

The latest NY Times Poll shows that only 30% of people ‘mostly support’ the Democrat’s health care plan, and 23% ‘mostly oppose’. 46% say they don’t have enough information to say. That is not resounding support. Perhaps the most accurate thing to say is that if the Democrats pass this using reconciliation, they will utterly, completely own the issue. If it turns out badly, it’s all on the Democrats. If it turns out well, it will be a feather in your cap and the Democrats will gain from it.

So I guess if you’re a true believer, you should support ramming this through. If you have any doubts at all, you’d better consider just how big a gamble this really is.

[GIGObuster]

@Sam_Stone

The latest NY Times Poll shows that only 30% of people ‘mostly support’ the Democrat’s health care plan, and 23% ‘mostly oppose’. 46% say they don’t have enough information to say. That is not resounding support. Perhaps the most accurate thing to say is that if the Democrats pass this using reconciliation, they will utterly, completely own the issue. If it turns out badly, it’s all on the Democrats. If it turns out well, it will be a feather in your cap and the Democrats will gain from it.

So I guess if you’re a true believer, you should support ramming this through. If you have any doubts at all, you’d better consider just how big a gamble this really is.

I just need to remember how wrong you are lately in these discussions, and after researching and discussing this here and elsewhere and also seeing members of my family and myself being affected negatively by the current system, I have to say that calling it a gamble is just BS.

[Wesley_Clark]

There are a variety of reasons I can think of

1. Conservatives tend to have a more black and white, us vs them mentality. Liberals tend to see shades of gray and be concerned with ‘other people’ and their feelings or needs. Conservatives seem much better at demonizing the ‘other’ and ignoring/subjugating him (whether the issue is immigration, crime, gay rights, etc) whereas liberals are more prone to see the other persons POV and support legislation to represent that (immigration reform that unites families, rehabilitation for criminals, gay rights), etc. So there is a gap of empathy.

2. Conservatives are more authoritarian according to right wing authoritarian scales determined by people like Altemeyer. As a result they are more willing to submit to leadership. Liberals are less likely.

3. Supposedly the GOP has a very effective system called ‘wingnut welfare’ where after a politician ends his tenure in washington, the GOP has a variety of levers to pull to get ex-politicians jobs in lobbying, think tanks, the media and other outlets. Paul Krugman said that Lincoln Chafee (the republican senator from Rhode Island) was banished from this system after he left the senate for being too moderate, and compared him to a different republican who towed the party line and was rewarded with high paying jobs. So the GOP seems able to use high paying, prestigious careers after you leave congress as leverage to control voting. I don’t know if the dems have anything like that, but I’d doubt it.

4. Conservatives seem better at doing election primaries than liberals. I read an article not long ago saying several GOP members of congress wanted to vote for the stimulus, but had to vote against it out of fear of a primary from the right. Liberals are only beginning to understand the power of primaries, whereas the GOP has been using them for years to intimidate politicians. Arlen Specter was forced to change parties and become a democrat because of a primary from the right in 2010.

5. Harry Reid supposedly got his job because of seniority, not because he is a competent leader.

6. Obama is not a very strong leader and instead is pretty submissive to his attackers. A leader like LBJ could probably get better results. Obama said Chuck Grassley was negotiating in good faith and wanted bipartisanship. Then Grassley went out and spread death panel lies, and stood by and did nothing when one of his constituents threatened to assassinate Obama at a town hall meeting after comparing him to hitler. These are the ‘moderates’ who Obama wants bipartisanship with. Pathological liars like Grassley who have no interest in passing good legislation and refuse to condemn assassination threats.

- YouTube

The end result (I’m sure there are other reasons) is a system where the liberals are spineless pussies and the conservatives will march lockstep off a cliff.

The GOP votes to impeach for a blowjob, and the dems refuse to impeach for war crimes. The GOP blocks hundreds of judges under Clinton, then threatens the nuclear option in 2005 when the dems block a handful, then the GOP tries to block judges again in 2007-2009.

To be far the congressional progressive caucus (CPC) is showing spine by not backing health reform w/o a public option.

[Der_Trihs]

@Sam_Stone

The latest NY Times Poll shows that only 30% of people ‘mostly support’ the Democrat’s health care plan, and 23% ‘mostly oppose’.

Of course; it’s a joke created as an attempt to suck up to the Republicans and the medical industry. They removed everything that appealed to the general public, and the Republicans never liked the whole idea. Of course it’s unpopular.

[Mosier]

@Sam_Stone

Furthermore, you will have set a precedent that you can be sure will be used against you the next time the Republicans regain power. Are you sure you want to open that can of worms?

You mean the Republicans will become uncooperative and ruthlessly oppose Democrats in complete lockstep without a single dissenting vote on any issue, ever? We certainly can’t have that! Nothing would ever get done!

[sleeping]

@Sam_Stone

The latest NY Times Poll shows that only 30% of people ‘mostly support’ the Democrat’s health care plan, and 23% ‘mostly oppose’. 46% say they don’t have enough information to say. That is not resounding support. Perhaps the most accurate thing to say is that if the Democrats pass this using reconciliation, they will utterly, completely own the issue. If it turns out badly, it’s all on the Democrats. If it turns out well, it will be a feather in your cap and the Democrats will gain from it.

So I guess if you’re a true believer, you should support ramming this through. If you have any doubts at all, you’d better consider just how big a gamble this really is.

From your own link:

On one of the most contentious issues in the health care debate — whether to establish a government-run health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurers — nearly two-thirds of the country continues to favor the proposal, which is backed by Mr. Obama but has drawn intense fire from most Republicans and some moderate Democrats.
…
In the poll, 55 percent said Mr. Obama had not clearly explained his plans for changing the health care system, and 59 percent said they thought the health care changes under consideration in Congress were confusing.
…
And there is abundant evidence that critics of the bill made progress over the summer while the White House stayed largely silent: about one in four respondents said they believed that health care legislation would create organizations to decide when to stop providing medical care to the elderly — so-called death panels — despite an all-out effort by Mr. Obama to debunk the claim, which is false. Three in 10 say the bill would use taxpayer money to provide health care benefits to illegal immigrants.

Also:

A new survey by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates for the AARP reveals widespread uncertainty about the nature of the “public option” …
Just 37 percent of the poll’s respondents correctly identified the public option from a list of three choices provided to them
…
It is tempting to attribute these results to attempts by conservatives to blur the distinctions of the health care debate. And surely that is part of the story. But it may not be all that much of it. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to correctly identify the public option in this poll, but not by all that wide a margin – 41 percent versus 34 percent.
…
More generally, there seems to be a sort of arm’s-race on both sides of the debate to conduct crappy, manipulative polls on health care reform, and the public option in particular. This poll belongs in the ‘crap’ pile, as do most of the others. Defenders of the public option, however, should have little to fret about: the most neutrally and accurately-worded polls on the public option – these are the ones from Quinnipiac and Time/SRBI – suggest that their position is in the majority, with 56-62 percent of the public supporting the public option and 33-36 percent opposed.

So, it seems that despite conservative push polling and arrant lying about healthcare reform (through well-funded ideological and corporate surrogates), a majority of the public still supports the public option.

Hmm. Perhaps we should see what people think of single payer?

[Aji_de_Gallina]

They are not pussies, they are just too good nad have good manner so, even when they know they are right they can’t get themselves to see Republicans being sad, it’d break their hearts.
I find it interesting that the problem with Democrats is, apparently, that Republicans are unified/crazy/fascist ir something…it can’t be their own intenral problems or lack of leadership…it has to be that they are too attuned to other people’s feelings

[Sage_Rat]

@GIGObuster

I just need to remember how wrong you are lately in these discussions, and after researching and discussing this here and elsewhere and also seeing members of my family and myself being affected negatively by the current system, I have to say that calling it a gamble is just BS.

It’s a gamble because it’s guaranteed to not decrease spending.

The only reason why spending might decrease would be because of the economies of scale. If they don’t shut down all of the private insurance companies in the US and switch to a single payer system, then you don’t get that. If you do shut down all of the private insurance companies in the US, you’ve just put a large chunk of the American economy out of business and thrown the market into a downspin while still in a recession. And more importantly, you’ll only decrease spending by about 10%–since most spending is not due to the existence of private insurance–where we need to decrease it by 50% to come in line with other countries. And since coverage will be expanded to more people, that 10% might just be filled back up. Either way, the rate of cost growth is unlikely to change significantly, so after perhaps a small dip, the cost will go back on growing.

And yes, I understand that your argument is that lives saved is the big issue, not cost. But the thing is that 70% of everyone is in love with their health care and worked hard to get it. They don’t want people dying for sure, but they don’t want people to die in Africa either, but that doesn’t mean that they want to finance an occupation and restructuring of the African continent. For most people, if they don’t see people around them dying, they just don’t really care. They care about the part that impacts them, and that’s the price tag.

[UltraVires]

Bottom line: The Dems don’t have the votes in the House to pass Obama’s plan. The blue dogs are against it.

They don’t have 60 votes in favor of Obama’s plan in the Senate. A filibuster will kill it there.

They have to make concessions to satisfy OTHER DEMS to make this palatable. This talk of “bipartisanship” is spin.

[Der_Trihs]

@Sage_Rat

It’s a gamble because it’s guaranteed to not decrease spending.

Unlike the rest of the world?

@Sage_Rat

The only reason why spending might decrease would be because of the economies of scale.

Or because it’ll be spent more efficiently, on preventative care for example instead of people waiting until they need far more expensive emergency care. Or because research will flow towards vaccines and cures that only need to be used one, instead of lifelong drug regimens that don’t actually cure anyone but bring in more profit. And so on.

And again; we have the example of other countries that get better care for less money. You are basically claiming we are innately less competent than the rest of the world.

[Der_Trihs]

@jtgain

Bottom line: The Dems don’t have the votes in the House to pass Obama’s plan. The blue dogs are against it.

They don’t have 60 votes in favor of Obama’s plan in the Senate. A filibuster will kill it there.

They have to make concessions to satisfy OTHER DEMS to make this palatable.

And doing so will have an excellent chance of handing the government back to the Republicans, as huge numbers of people next election decide to simply not vote because there’s no point to it. Why bother voting Democrat if they just follow the Republicans’ demands? Why bother voting at all if the people voted into office simply ignore what the people who voted for them want?

Making these kinds of concessions means there might as well be no reform at all.

[BrandonR]

@Der_Trihs

And doing so will have an excellent chance of handing the government back to the Republicans, as huge numbers of people next election decide to simply not vote because there’s no point to it. Why bother voting Democrat if they just follow the Republicans’ demands? Why bother voting at all if the people voted into office simply ignore what the people who voted for them want?

Yep. I hope Obama realizes that no public option = no second term. After all, it was a significant issue that he ran on.

[Sage_Rat]

@Der_Trihs

Unlike the rest of the world?

Which country saw a decrease in spending after switching to UHC?

Health Care: Where does the Money Go?