The Dems Want to Lose

[Sandman]

It's like the transcript of a Bill Maher episode in here lol. The whole premise of this discussion is bullshit. "Electibility" pundit logic is what got us the Clinton and Obama presidencies, trying to out-flank the right. If you're an establishment democrat and that's all your imagination can muster, that's fine, but the majority of people want better.

Two things Bernie constantly says are undeniably true. 1) All the "crazy progressive" policies you all seem to think are losing issues, happen to be incredibly popular nationwide even among republican voters. And B) they're so "crazy" that they are working fine in literally every single other developed nation but ours.

On top of that, everyone seems to forget that Trump won by promising his base universal healthcare. Go back and watch the rallies.

[Kane]

[exploited]

[Kane]

https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-america ... thcare-for
https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-op ... -coverage/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/de ... alth-care/

It's a winning issue but only if they avoid specifics lol.

[exploited]

It kills me how utterly useless you are as a political thinker.

47% of Republicans want to keep the pre-existing conditions part of the ACA, and only 52% support repealing the ACA.

66% of Republicans want lower drug costs.

Voters are stupid. They say stuff like "I vote for the man, not the party," and then consistently vote for the same party for most of their lives, with rare exceptions.

That America is partisan does not mean it is impossible to make incremental change. And further to the point, you can accelerate the rate of incremental change by proposing what most really want, and slowly pulling back until it is something that lizard people can live with. People don't give a rats f**k about policy, because they don't follow it and probably can't, given their lifestyles. They just want people who are going to make them feel a bit better about their security and prosperity.

Politics is a sales and marketing game. That's why Obama decided to do the ACA - he could sell it. Not because it was the ideal or best possible policy. Just a step forward. And it still exists today, with clear majority support.

As I've said before, Kane, stop voting. Stop reading the news. You should take up a meaningless hobby that includes some kind of intricate pattern work. This would give you the intellectual stimulation you crave, without also allowing you to become a scourge of disabled American uselessness.

[Kane]

What's incremental about eliminating privately funded healthcare via employers and insurance companies and moving strictly to universal healthcare?

[exploited]

The result, you f**k mutant.

That a President can push hard for universal healthcare is a given. That the legislative branch can make it work is not.

America is a two-party system and you're questioning the tactic of asking for more than you want as an initial negotiation tactic.

STOP VOTING

[Philly]

The thing that Kane isn't mentioning here is that the reason a large portion of Democratic officials/candidates will not voice support for Medicare for All isn't just because they don't understand basic negotiation tactics.

Nancy Pelosi is frantically running around capitol hill stomping out any spark of an exciting and good policy proposal that comes from people like Ocasio-Cortez, Talib, or Jayapal. All the ideas and enthusiasm in the Democratic caucus are coming from those young progressive members, but Pelosi's concern lies elsewhere. Her main task as Speaker now is to snuff out any talk of the Democrats actually getting behind a plan to do anything other than not be Donald Trump. And the reason that it's her main task is that the only thing sustaining her position as Speaker is her ability to raise large sums of money from wealthy supporters and corporate interests. If she were to let things like Medicare for All be considered and gain momentum, she might have trouble landing some of those big donations next time she makes her fundraising calls.

People like Pelosi know where they stand. She will always follow the money no matter what. And it's not even about getting the money so you can remain competitive at this point. If she could be guaranteed a win if she told the corporate donors to f**k themselves and guaranteed to lose if she kept taking their money, she would still take their money, because she'd rather be the leader of an out of power Democratic Party than lose the donor network that keeps her relevant within the party and then watch the Democrats succeed from the sidelines.

[Kane]

[Kane]