WE NEED YOUR HELP!
Please donate to keep ReaderRant online to serve political discussion and its members. (Blue Ridge Photography pays the bills for RR).
Here's what Andrew Yang had to say in an interview about the down ballot loses.
“I would say, ‘Hey! I’m running for president!’ to a truck driver, retail worker, waitress in a diner, and they would say, ‘What party?’ And I’d say ‘Democrat’ and they would flinch like I said something really negative or I had just turned another color or something like that.” Yang told CNN host Don Lemon during a panel.
“So you have to ask yourself, what has the Democratic Party been standing for in their minds?,” he continued. “And in their minds, the Democratic Party, unfortunately, has taken on this role of the coastal urban elites who are more concerned about policing various cultural issues than improving their way of life that has been declining for years.”
It used to be folks viewed the Democratic Party as the working man's party while the Republican's were the party of business. It seems to me the Democrats have either lost or are losing their identity as representing the working man. The democrats seems to have forgotten him. More interested in which bathroom a transgender can use, tearing down statues and changing names, supporting rioters and looters than about the working man or improving the working man's life.
Union households use to be a group where any Democratic candidate could count on 60, 65,70 support or could until 2016. Hillary 51%, Biden 56%. Democratic candidates for president were from 1976 till the present above 60% with the union household vote. Trump won the votes of those working full time, Biden those who don't.
So is Yang right?
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.
It was interesting to watch a populist anger get subsumed by either party.
Trump campaigning on the economy erosion etc.. Even in his inaugural speech he testified to the destructiveness of neoliberal trade and economic policy. Similar to Buchanan really.
Dems meanwhile waged war on the reality. Trying to displace it thru (ahem) gas lighting: 'America is already great!', idpol politics and tales of Manchurion intrigue.
Trump rode a wave of populist anger to the Whitehouse. His analog, Sanders, was not able to overcome Dem party beat down in the primaries. He is partly responsible, IMO.
Yang looks like another venture capital salesman channeling the analysis of others who've made it their mission to drill into the parties realignments over the decades. I welcome his raising the subject, however. BAMN
Doubtful if team blue will listen to Yang though. They are already engaged in hippy punching while maneuvering further to the right. A decades long project.
It feels like they have picked up where Ol'Dutch left off. Lifting a senile, even more hawkish, more economically vicious neoliberal candidate to continue the work of Reagan.
Another insight on the left on what Trump represent(ed):
Whereas the banished left has been doing good analysis largely with media blackout, there's no end to 'former' national security state spokesman coming on Corp. Media to advance conspiracy theories ove the last several years. As it relates to domesticate politics or foreign intervention.
Where are the majority of Americans? We have a rather large group in-between the two parties known as independents. True, some lean toward the Republicans, some lean toward the Democrats, a few with no leans. There are a few to the right of the GOP and a few to the left of the Democrats. But where are the majority of Americans? Where are their voting habits which either party must tap into to win elections?
Certainly not to the left or right of either major party, ideological wise. I believe the Northeast and West Coast certainly are more progressive than the rest of the nation. That the south and plain states, much more conservative. Perhaps the battle for the soul of America doesn't reside in any of those states. Maybe it is in just five or six states these days. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and maybe Minnesota which has been extremely close these last two elections.
Are we seeing a presidential battle where the Democrats are most assured of 234 electoral votes to the GOP's 219? Minus those six states I mentioned? Now it seems changes are afoot. Georgia and North Carolina seem to be moving in the blue direction while Pennsylvania is moving red. Indiana is a red state, if that movement continues we could see a 265-219 Democratic advantage where the Republicans must win the four remaining states. Ohio seems to be moving red, away from blue and being in a swing state category. Even so, that still leaves a 265-237 Democratic advantage with just Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin left on the map.
just some thoughts
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.
A majority of Americans could not tell you the details of M4A if their lives depended on it. What a majority of Americans want is cheaper medical care and cheaper insurance. (They want lower taxes, too, with no plan for how it's financed!)
Any number of people have proposed something they call Medicare For All, and each of their proposals has different details. From single-payer (which is defined as government paying for everything necessary for everybody, financed by taxes), to existing Medicare with buy-in payments from people using a schedule of complex calculations based on age and income.
I much prefer the latter myself, and try to avoid the confusing mess by calling it UK-style National Health. I think calling it Medicare For All is a semantic ploy to make it more acceptable to most people who think: "Medicare is good, so why not Medicare for me?"
One ironic thing is that for all the progressives that criticize Bill Clinton for being a Republican-lite, the Clinton's health care proposal would have covered everybody!
A majority of Americans could not tell you the details of M4A if their lives depended on it. What a majority of Americans want is cheaper medical care and cheaper insurance. (They want lower taxes, too, with no plan for how it's financed!)
Any number of people have proposed something they call Medicare For All, and each of their proposals has different details. From single-payer (which is defined as government paying for everything necessary for everybody, financed by taxes), to existing Medicare with buy-in payments from people using a schedule of complex calculations based on age and income.
I much prefer the latter myself, and try to avoid the confusing mess by calling it UK-style National Health. I think calling it Medicare For All is a semantic ploy to make it more acceptable to most people who think: "Medicare is good, so why not Medicare for me?"
Yes. A majority of Americans are in favor of getting more, better, things, including healthcare, and giving others, more, better, things, unless they have to pay for it. Then, not so much.
There's so many polls out there and all worded in different ways. Kaiser polls showing 61% in favor of MFA while Gallup showed 40%. Who to believe, perhaps it all in the question or how the question is asked.
Pew Research broke it down, all individual, 36% favor a single national government program. 26% a mix of government and private programs, 30% just want Medicare and Medicaid to continue as is with no change while 6% state government should have no function in the healthcare system at all.
There's also a party break down there. So does this mean as Pew Research hints at or actually states that 63% of all Americans favor Medicare for all. Is that true? There's no way to find out. Some or all of those who favor only a single government run program could be totally against the mixture of government run and private programs. Those in favor of the mixture of government and private programs, some or all could be against a single government run program.
The above may be nit picking. But it leaves me wondering which I can find no firm answer. Is Medicare for all exactly what the name implies? Everyone will be enrolled in Medicare with no private insurance available to anyone. Then only 36% of Americans favor it, not a majority. Or is it different from what the name implies, which would be a mixture of both government insurance for those who want it and private insurance. Which for me seems the best way to go. But that has the support of only 26% of all Americans.
Depending on who one asks, you get a thousand different answers. It's easy to understand why only 40% would be in favor of MFA in one poll and 65% in another. No one or at least I understand exactly what MFA is. At least Pew has broken it down in a manner I think gives us a better understanding of the percentages for and for what type of health insurance.
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.
The most important fact that is often overlooked in this discussion, is that essentially everybody gets medical care right now. Nobody has to die in the ER parking lot. Even undocumented immigrants, foreign workers here on agricultural visa, tourists, etc. Getting care for chronic conditions may be trickier, but everybody who knows anything on the subject will tell you it's a lot cheaper to treat these conditions in a clinic or doctor's office than to wait until they require an ER visit.
The other fact is that insurance companies take 15 to 20% of every health care dollar, principally for interfering with health care delivery. Any plan that gets rid of them saves their cut. Billing and insurance are also a large part of health care administration: Get rid of that, and you save even more.
So the idea that "some other will benefit" from any of these universal or single-payer plans are just political fear-mongering. There WILL be losers, but they would be insurance companies and their employees.
My greatest concern is we end up with something CALLED Medicare For All, that is really just existing Medicare with buy-in for younger people. Because my copays with Medicare are much higher than my copays with my previous Blue Cross.
I've heard many say medicare will be bankrupt sometime in 2026. True or fear mongering, I don't know as I don't trust any of the sources telling me this, one way or the other.
In my mind, if all MFA is just a buy in, then it isn't MFA. MFA is everyone and yes, it means private insurance goes out of business or just offers supplemental insurance. I've already heard some seniors complaining that they paid into medicare all their life, now they going to offer it to others who haven't paid much if anything into it. They want their money back that they paid into it if everyone is placed on Medicare.
MFA is a political football that I'm indifferent to it. But I suppose the bottom line, is MFA means different things to different people and you get different definitions of it or how it will work from whomever you ask.
It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.
