Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

In today's modern political era of polarization, mega, ultra high partisanship you're not going to change many hearts. It is said that politics is the art of the possible. Getting what is possible and putting what isn't on the back burner is wise politics. You may be able to take only a few steps forward, toward you achieving your goal by going slow, but you're moving closer all the time.

It's when you over reach, try to do the impossible that the people get angry and throw you out to where achieving only a few steps forward toward you goal becomes impossible.

You're correct, first one must win elections. As a loser, whether in the primary or general, making changes becomes impossible. Unless there is an outside force, outside of the two major parties pushing for it.

The ideal situation would be to return to an era of more cooperation between parties. But that isn't about to happen in the near future. So what a party needs to do is recognize that huge group that's in-between the two major parties. To read them as to what they'll accept and what they won't. This is a big and growing group as more and more people become dissatisfied with both major parties. Push your agenda to the limits of what they'll accept, don't go over or they'll throw you out. Gain your few steps, stop. Then come back next year for a few more steps, stop. Then come back the year after and so on.

People laugh when I talk about comfort zones. But elections are lost when you take these in-betweeners out of their comfort zone. They rebel. It's hard to know when to stop and when to push more. The trick is not to get these people angry at you.

Get them angry, you get wave elections where you get thrown out. 1994,2006, 2010 and 2018 are examples. That's four wave election recently. The last wave election prior to these was in 1948. Slow and steady will eventually get you what you want, lurches gets you thrown out.

That sounds like restrained wisdom. I see no evidence of what your talking about in the historical record. No progress has been made by a 'don't ask for too much' approach. Rather, it's a way to lower expectations of those being under served by those that benefit from the system as it is.

Again, you just witnessed the largest wealth transfer in human history under the CARES act and there was crickets about it being too radical or not slow and steady enough. Hmmm...

You also have to ignore the fact that voter preferences have no effect on legislation. Zero. Almost all legislation is being written by lobbyist. Medicare for all has broad popular support yet the current political leadership is against it in favor of a system costing twice as much while delivering terrible results compared to our peer countries.

No, reducing peoples expectations is just a way of those benefiting from the system to gas light those that aren't from wondering 'where's our help?'

Trillions dropped over of the Hamptons... crickets...

We need universal healthcare provided by society - just like the police and fire departments. Everybody is involved and everybody pays for it. There are a lot of different ways to do that and should study on it before doing it.

The real problem is the word 'social', in all its permutations. Bernie, for instance, lost because he insisted on attaching the word "socialist" to his name. Socialism, regardless of how used is anathema in America. Its just the way it is. We really need to get it done but its not gonna happen if them trying to get it done even mentions it, let alone putting it in print. They MUST dance around that word, and all permutations. as its deadly and certainly proven in the last few years.

I know, its stupid, makes no sense, and WTF all apply - don't make no different as its a fact. The really unfortunate part is there seems to be a Democratic segment who are determined to use the word every chance they get even though the results are always bad.

Oh, words make a difference!

Some people are so in love with Socialism, they can't see what that label evokes in 95% of American voters. Generations of voters will have to die out before the specter of Soviet Socialism is forgotten.

As I said before, I'm in favor of British-style National Health: See? No "socialism" in the name at all, but entirely accessible to all and financed by taxes. My aim is get everybody healthcare, not to force everybody to love socialism.

As for "Medicare For All", that phrase can mean lots of things to different people. I know very well that any Medicare For All plan we would actually end up with would be much more like the current Medicare, but with younger people paying to buy into it, than Bernie's plan.

That's why I favor a "boiled frog" approach of adding a Public Option to ACA and fixing the holes in it, in 2021. Let that cook for a while, and since the public option would be 15% cheaper than any other for the same medical group memberships, most ACA enrollees would soon be selecting it. Then employers would switch their employees to the ACA public option to save money. After 5 or 10 years, everybody would be using the public option. And of course, subsidies would be increased over time. Voila: Boiled frog.

Hmm, voter preferences. In 2008 the voters elected Obama to fix the economy, he provided the stimulus. They he went a bit too far as the voters were concerned to the tune of a 63 house seat loss along with 8 more in the senate. The voter preference back in 2010 was no ACA. Obama finished his last six years in office as a caretaker president constantly defending the ACA when so much else could have, might have been accomplished if he listened to the voter preferences at the time.

That wasn't what the people elected Obama to do, one could say because of that, it lead to Trump.

Makes sense to me. It also wouldn't in my opinion take many folks out of their comfort zone. No 2010 in 2022.

Or if he had been a Republican, so Sen McConnell would not have buried all Democrat bills.

Reid did the same to the Republican House Bills sent over between 2011-2014. Reid tabled some 300 plus bills.

“ Some people are so in love with Socialism, they can't see what that label evokes in 95% of American voters. Generations of voters will have to die out before the specter of Soviet Socialism is forgotten”

Hmmm, I suppose you’re referring to me. I’m an any means necessary guy and if we get a better, sane and equitable redistribution of resources, I don’t care who’s brand it comes from. Fun fact about the Soviet Union. Most of the older, less critical generations of Americans are thoroughly indoctrinated by Cold War propaganda when it comes to the Soviets. Now that there’s been some time and distance we’re learning more of the facts from the fiction. One being they lifted more people out of poverty faster than anywhere else on earth. Conversely, with Perestroika came an awareness by its Liberal classes that they were embarrassingly unequal compared to liberals in the west. It was that class that dissolved the Soviet Union which, at the time, had broad popular support for maintaining.
What followed was a neoliberal assault on their society much like we conduct in other parts of the world. Fraudulent loans to use debt to asset strip their public goods and services. I believe it was our own US ambassador who was quoted as saying he witnessed the largest pillaging of a society in human history during the Clinton years. A pillaging that led to many premature deaths that some put in the millions.
I may not love socialism but I’ve learned to loath liberals and conservatives alike. They’re simply kissing cousins to one another but broadly agree. State violence, taxation, etc..
I think it will take the passing of boomers, the most indoctrinated generation, IMO, to fade before we can see any movement towards true economic, racial justice. There will be the court system to act as a bulwark to maintain the current political economy. Here, too, liberals have been complicit.

“ As for "Medicare For All", that phrase can mean lots of things to different people. I know very well that any Medicare For All plan we would actually end up with would be much more like the current Medicare, but with younger people paying to buy into it, than Bernie's plan.”.

- It will always mean a lot to many people if you don’t take the trouble to read and understand it. Hard to have a debate with anyone who ‘knows’ what the future events will be and is arguing from that place and not the present.

65k/year die. Cost more than anywhere else on earth. Delivers poor results. That’s some boiling!

Sanders lost with vote thru DNC vote rigging and the coordination of campaigns to collapse into one candidate on super Tuesday.

The DNC took over the vote counts in Iowa when it appeared that Sanders was going to win there. We still don't know the final vote tallies from this action except Sanders won but his bounce was suppressed coming out of that win. Had nothing to do with cold war 'Socialism'.

Two of the top candidates, below the front runner Sanders, dropped out of the race and threw their support behind the DNC establishment chosen candidate Biden, who had the lowest electoral count going into super Tuesday. Again, the word 'Socialism' had nothing to do with that activity.

This makes a mockery of democratic voting, by the way, and makes any attempt with liberals fretting over concerns of Republican's stealing in the general so much of the pot calling the kettle black. Refusal to defend the primary election has made that class completely phony. Russian conspiracies to explain the loss of the last general election makes them no better than Qanon, IMO. A similar refusal to face reality but it's baked in the cake now. I'm digressing..

The Sanders campaign had the most consistent level of stickiness and consistent rise in the polling over time. His campaign was the most diverse, in terms of ethnicity, gender and age, than any other candidates. His campaign and supporters were, much like 2016, reviled as homophobic, misogynistic, and racist by the liberal leaning media. That message was picked up and echoed, as efficiently as any propaganda piece could have been, by witting viewer participants. Some here were guilty of that IIRC.

Socialism scare tactics came from liberal/conservative media alike when the threat of his candidacy was taking off. Their use of the word looks to have been shrugged off from the polling record across the entire timeline of the primary. He simply ran out of runway before the DNC acted to close the airport. He should have gone after Biden harder, reducing his favorability before they closed the airport. Would have made it harder for Obama and co. to do so. Oh well, hindsight...

I think 'Socialism!' had little effect, much like Trumps rudeness and boorishness, as the political center has become more illegitimate with more voters now. Being different was a bonus, actually, and the Sanders campaign crashed against the wall of back room coordination by Obama and the DNC more than a cold war relic that still stirs in the Boomer subconscious.

No, it was illiberal co-ordination of Obama, DNC party (Perez, Mook, etc..) and media than a word that has only grown in popularity over the decades of neoliberalism.