Ok, so you’re confident that the Dem nominee will be able to clearly articulate the merits of the GND/M4A and secure enough votes to propel themselves into the presidency, got it. I legit hope it works out that way.
GND This plan creates high-paying jobs and moves us closer to protecting the environment with sustainable options that will pay dividends well into the future for our children and grandchildren. Or we can fight to the death over basic supplies such as food and water, with limited jobs. MFA While a sizable investment, MFA offers companies a way to save money, and individuals access to affordable health care. Eliminating the shackles between health care and employment allows for economic growth. Providing for a basic need allows all citizens to focus on prosuctivity rather than basic needs and elevates us all. Never get wonkish.
This is why im not a Bernie guy (bro lol). Why tear down Feinstein? The woman believes 90% the same things Bernie does, has been the stalwart for strict and progressive gun legislation, but were still going to tear her down because of a tweeted video. Progressive purity test is bullshit
The term gets used a fair amount. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...llusory/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.131805300451 AlternativeFactsRule https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/democrats-midterm-chances-rust-belt/572065/
I know and I should have clarified my frustration better. The ardent Bernie bro following is what pisses me off. “Yeah lets tear down these other progressive democrats to make our dude look better” gtfo with that bs. I like Bernie and he has pushed the party left on popular issues, hes just too old to be POTUS.
Not really sure what your link does to refute my point Clinton lost those states (Michigan and Wisconsin, specifically) because she took them for granted. It wasn't just rural, white voters that were disenfranchised in those states -- it was the urban voters, suburban voters, white voters, black voters, Hispanic voters, etc. The whole "we have to get the white, rural voters and cater to them" is outdated as all hell. Both aspects of those voters -- the whiteness and the ruralness -- are shrinking by the day. I never will understand continuing to give a weakening force a disproportionate focus. Go after the people more likely to lean your way first (young voters, urban voters, multicultural voters, etc.), go after voters who are more practical second (college-educated suburban voters of all ethnicities, the ones that went heavy Democrat in the mid-terms) then hope for a few of the more emotional, less practical, less educated voters will let down their guards and see the light. I just think that the conventional wisdom is shifting and a lot of the tropes are outdated. Whether that's due to the more polarized nature of politics or the increasing influence of social media is up for debate, but it's a different ballgame.
I don’t disagree that some of these tropes are on their way to being outdated. And as I’ve said I’m willing to abandon my “conventional wisdom” provided that the Dem nom is able to clearly articulate stuff like the GND in a coherent way that doesn’t become comic fodder. But I’m not sure how I feel about Hillary taking those states for granted being the reason she lost. Her campaign ppl pointed out in the postmortem that she practically lived in PA and lost it by the widest margin. I admit I reflexively reach back to the better personality/authenticity usually wins to explain it. (2020: O’Rourke>Trump) 2016: Trump>Clinton 2012: Obama>Rom 2008: Obama>McCain 2004: Bush>Kerry 2000: Bush>Gore 1996: Clinton>Dole 1992: Clinton>Bush 1988: Bush>Dukakis 1984: Reagan>Mondale 1980: Reagan>Carter That’s why I get nervous about someone like Bernie or Warren. Them winning would go against the historical trend. And upsets of incumbents are pretty rare, too.
That's why I said Michigan and Wisconsin, specifically. She flat-out ignored those states until the last week when her campaign suddenly realized there was a problem. And I'm not challenging the personality thing, just the "rural white voter" thing that doesn't past the smell test in my mind. And Sanders has plenty of personality, IMO. He's old as fuck, but personality isn't the issue there.
Old habits die hard, my friend. But I promised I would approach the enthusiasm angle as it relates to policy with more of an open mind and will hold to that.
As a general rule, entrenched power is very comfortable with the status quo, no matter what their stated personal policies are. Feinstein's no different. She's been in that seat for 27 years. That's what matters to her.
here's a thread of unedited videos from Feinstein people keep saying how this changes stuff, but all the condescending shit she said is still real so I'm not getting how this make it look any better
18 was largely a referendum on Trump, he made about himself and he was rejected by voters. White suburban voters voted against him, against character issues and the extreme elements of the immigration/white nationalist platform that Trump escalated in the closing weeks, and to some degree against the attacks on ACA and health insurance. It’s a big, and mostly fact free, jump to claim that the anti Trump white suburban vote from 18 will be activated by M4A or the GND in 20. Dems do indeed need to turn out and expand their core constituencies, and the focus on white working class is mostly misplaced (Clinton actually won the lowest economic slices of white voters). Appealing to the middle and the swingy white Republicans will be necessary for electoral college success.
Legitimately if I didn't know who Dianne Feinstein was I would have thought she was a Republican based on that video
I’ll give them credit. The wealthy scaring poor, uneducated racists to support themselves from the bottom has worked quite well.
Good review of the technology, political, and economic variables of the GND. NYT Climate has been excellent the past few years.
Main problem with DiFi is she’s way over 75, which is too old to hold National Office. But the voters in the most important state within the Democratic electoral coalition elected her by large margins.
You guys know trump is going to win the re-election in a land slide right? I can’t wait for the day to come, imagine all of those liberals crying on live tv it really doesn’t get much better then that.
Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million against an unpopular Democrat when America was still oblivious to Russia's helping him. He's not winning shit in 2020 against anyone.
I've almost beaten this drum to death but listen to Mayor Pete speak on this. It's pretty spot on to what slogan says.
By that same logic, Hillary lost MI and WI and PA because of help provided to Trump by Cambridge Analytica and Russia. Otherwise she would have won.
I know this is way late, but my company is doing this right now. We’ve always had lower “salary”/ hourly rates than our competitors, but pay OT and bonus out at end of the year. Recently we have had a hard time finding new hires. So we’ve had to pay more for our entry level positions. We are now going to raise everyone a pretty signicant amount across the board to account for this.
Relevant to y'all's argument: Time for Democrats to stare down Trump’s red scare Spoiler By Ronald A. Klain Contributing columnist February 22 at 6:09 PM Ronald A. Klain, a Post contributing columnist, served as a senior White House aide to Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton and was a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. It’s time for Democrats to stand up and stare down the great “red scare” of 2019: President Trump’s desperate effort to label Democrats “socialists” and the intraparty hand-wringing over whether Trump’s attacks are working. The biggest mistake Democrats could make would be to back away from bold ideas on health care, income inequality and climate change — believing that less compelling ideas can still rally voters while avoiding the “socialism” charge from the GOP. The party’s “realists” are unrealistic in thinking that any progressive policies will be spared the “socialism” label from the GOP, and wrong to worry that this label will do any more damage now than it has in the countless earlier failed efforts by Republicans to campaign on such fearmongering. The experience of the Obama administration is illustrative. Consider President Barack Obama’s two most important domestic legislative achievements: the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act. Both were carefully drafted by Clinton-era veterans working for Obama to gain bipartisan support. One-third of the Recovery Act was tax cuts, in part because Obama’s economic team recommended them but mostly because they believed it would bring the GOP on board. And inclusion of the high-speed rail plan in the act was pressed hard by Obama’s Republican transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, who thought it would appeal to his former GOP congressional colleagues. Likewise, the Affordable Care Act was closely modeled on the health-care plan implemented by Republican Mitt Romney as Massachusetts governor. Like Romney’s plan, the ACA relied principally on private health insurance to expand coverage; in fact, Obama’s plan was developed in consultation with the experts who advised Romney. Additionally, the Obama White House held endless meetings with, and made key policy concessions to, major private-sector players such as the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. All of this was done with a central goal: mollify potential opponents and bring Democrats and Republicans together to pass it. What happened? In the House, the Recovery Act and the ACA got a combined 465 Democratic votes — and zero Republicans. (In the Senate, the tally was 117 Democratic yesses and three Republican ayes.) All the policy compromises, all the outreach, all the careful pacing were rebuffed by a stone wall of GOP obstruction and partisanship. Moreover, notwithstanding the extensive tax cuts in the Recovery A ct, and the vast reliance on private industry in the ACA, both were labeled “socialism” by critics. “Socialism” was what Fox News calledthe Recovery A ct. If the GOP is going to label as “socialism” legislation that largely uses private insurance to pay private providers to expand health coverage — and it did, and still does — why would any 2020 Democratic health-care proposal escape that attack? Nor did the GOP’s assertion that any social legislation is “socialism” start in the Obama era. Democrats longing for the centrism of the Clinton administration should recall that in 1996, when I was Al Gore’s chief of staff, Jack Kemp stood on the vice presidential debate stage and called the Clinton-Gore empowerment zone program “socialism.” This is as it always has been. In 1964, George H.W. Bush called Medicare “socialized medicine”; Barry Goldwater said it was like giving away free beer and vacations to pensioners. A generation before, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed the New Deal and Social Security, congressional Republicans railed about “socialism.” Democrats did not cower in the face of these attacks. They won great legislative — and political — gains by brushing them aside and fighting for health security and greater economic fairness. This, of course, does not mean that the most sweeping proposals are the best proposals, either substantively or politically. The right path forward on health care, taxes and climate change should be the subject of robust (but constructive) discussion over the next two years. But Democrats should not back down for fear of the “socialism” label, or out of some illusion that more modest approaches will be spared that attack. There’s a proverb that applies here. When the English authorities long ago imposed capital punishment for any theft of farm animals, no matter how small, the pilfering of the fattest, most valuable livestock went up. If taking any animal was going to get you hanged, “might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb,” the folk wisdom said. Republicans and conservative media are going to call whatever Democrats propose “socialism.” They are going to fight these proposals tooth and nail, for as long as they can. Democrats might as well stand for policies that embrace their values and true perspective, and let the voters decide whose path forward is best for our country. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a14d7fec96a_story.html?utm_term=.d4b4f6c022aa