General politics

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I guess I'd ask you that.  Didn't you just criticize her for suggesting exactly that?

 

No, I’m observing/criticizing her for *not* doing that.

[TheLeviathan]

 

No, I’m observing/criticizing her for *not* doing that.

 

So then it seems you didn't understand her.  She said she wants to work towards that but it will come in parts because a whole sale shift isn't possible.  

 

Part of the problem is any time a candidate tempers aspirations, they get cast aside as "not supporting" something.  She supports it, but her path to it isn't immediate.  I wish we allowed for that nuance in our politics.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

But yet you support Bernie who has accomplished almost nothing in his time as a Senator.  At least hold them to the same standard or don't pretend otherwise.

Fair, I see your point. I could also argue that what Klobuchar is accomplishing is worse than doing nothing (like adding a negative WAR player is not really making a team better). I don’t know.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Fair, I see your point. I could also argue that what Klobuchar is accomplishing is worse than doing nothing (like adding a negative WAR player is not really making a team better). I don’t know.

 

I'd be interested in seeing you lay that out.  It seems to imply that anything passed bi-partisan is bad.  Maybe you don't feel that way, but that happens a lot on the right and is growing on the left.  I think that's a very misguided conclusion, but maybe she's been secretly Republican.  But I'd like to see more about that criticism before I can buy it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The Republicans will totally play nice with a practical, slow move towards Medicare for all!

 

If the goal is to prevent a Republican backlash, might as well just let them win. They'll characterize what ever plan the Democrats offer as socialism. The lesson to be learned from the reaction to ACA shouldn't be "tone it down and do everything on a smaller scale" but rather that even if we take a Republican idea from a Republican state and advocate for it, the Republicans will eat you alive.

It’s not to prevent a Republican backlash, it’s to prevent a moderate backlash that drives them to the open arms of insanity again.

 

The Democrats just won back the suburbs. Do what it takes to keep them and the party gets to stay in power for quite some time. Republicans cannot win with rural America alone.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

So then it seems you didn't understand her.  She said she wants to work towards that but it will come in parts because a whole sale shift isn't possible.  

 

Part of the problem is any time a candidate tempers aspirations, they get cast aside as "not supporting" something.  She supports it, but her path to it isn't immediate.  I wish we allowed for that nuance in our politics.

Ok, fair, I will look for statements from her to that effect. I have not seen it reported. If you have a link you could share that, too.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Ok, fair, I will look for statements from her to that effect. I have not seen it reported. If you have a link you could share that, too.

 

Check for a video of the CNN Town Hall she did.  It's a good watch.  She challenges a lot of the current, further left platforms in reasonable ways.  You don't have to agree with her, but I think it's worth a watch.  I believe one of her first questions she fields is about health care.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I'd be interested in seeing you lay that out.  It seems to imply that anything passed bi-partisan is bad.  Maybe you don't feel that way, but that happens a lot on the right and is growing on the left.  I think that's a very misguided conclusion, but maybe she's been secretly Republican.  But I'd like to see more about that criticism before I can buy it.

I used to think her bipartisan bills were building goodwill and political capital with her among Republicans, but then the Kavanaugh nomination came along, and she either did not spend that goodwill convincing Republicans to vote against him, or tried to spend that goodwill and failed. If ever there was a time to call in a favor, that was it. So no, I’m less and less impressed with the “bipartisan-ness” of the bills she’s continuing to sponsor.

[PseudoSABR]

 

It’s not to prevent a Republican backlash, it’s to prevent a moderate backlash that drives them to the open arms of insanity again.

The Democrats just won back the suburbs. Do what it takes to keep them and the party gets to stay in power for quite some time. Republicans cannot win with rural America alone.

I don't think that's in the cards.  People overwhelmingly approve of medicare for all. 

 

And policy designed to prevent a backlash from any one group is a policy plan that I won't sign up for.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

And policy designed to prevent a backlash from any one group is a policy plan that I won't sign up for.

And that's why Democrats lose so bloody often. You're arguing that it's your way or the highway; moderates need not apply.

 

That attitude loses you a ****load of elections in a two party system.

[PseudoSABR]

 

And that's why Democrats lose so bloody often. You're arguing that it's your way or the highway; moderates need not apply.

 

That attitude loses you a ****load of elections in a two party system.

No, I'm not.  I'm saying that for my preferred candidate, I want them to advocate for Medicare for All and through legislation, I hope they can negotiate with people with whom they disagree.

 

And no, the Democrats don't lose because it's my way or the highway; what Democrat in the last 30 years has advocated that!?  Gore/Kerry/Clinton all totally moderated on liberal ideas and lost, with Obama being the exception. 

 

The lesson of 2016, shouldn't be let's double down on Democratic pragmatism.  It should be we need some one who is authentic and advocates ideas that people can get behind. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I used to think her bipartisan bills were building goodwill and political capital with her among Republicans, but then the Kavanaugh nomination came along, and she either did not spend that goodwill convincing Republicans to vote against him, or tried to spend that goodwill and failed. If ever there was a time to call in a favor, that was it. So no, I’m less and less impressed with the “bipartisan-ness” of the bills she’s continuing to sponsor.

 

Absolutely, Kavanaugh was a failure to pull over moderates.  But, again, if that is your bar for what you want in a President - I can't imagine a WORSE candidate than Bernie Sanders.  

 

And if you're waiting around for some veto-proof majority or unanimous consensus to get your positions through....you're going to be met with a lot of disappointment.  Plus, we all come from a state that has proven how effective the very thing you're dismissing can be.  The alternate?  (Only when we can ram through things on our own) has rarely proven to lead to good policy.  Certainly not over the long term.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

No, I'm not.  I'm saying that for my preferred candidate, I want them to advocate for Medicare for All and through legislation, I hope they can negotiate with people with whom they disagree.

 

And no, the Democrats don't lose because it's my way or the highway; what Democrat in the last 30 years has advocated that!?  Gore/Kerry/Clinton all totally moderated on liberal ideas and lost, with Obama being the exception. 

 

The lesson of 2016, shouldn't be let's double down on Democratic pragmatism.  It should be we need some one who is authentic and advocates ideas that people can get behind. 

I agree that authenticity is key and that's how Democrats can win.

 

But my idea isn't some appeal to centrism; it's a different angle from which to approach the problem, one that won't scare off a bunch of people with "Big Washington Coming to Take Your X". My goal has the same outcome as yours, it's simply on a more granular, achievable arc that will take longer but receive less resistance in the short-term.

 

And I think it will work better when all is said and done.

 

The parties have underserved the middle of this country for too long. Democrats mostly want everything to come from Washington. Republicans want everything to come from nowhere. Approaching this disparity by advocating Washington assistance through state programs could bring a hell of a lot of people on board while largely achieving the same goals. It's a lot easier to sell "Iowa helping Iowa" than "Washington providing for Iowa and Oklahoma and California (dirty commies) and Montana". One creates an inclusive feeling of helping the people around you while the other harbors animosity that someone out there, far away, is surely freeloading on your hard-earned dollars.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I agree that authenticity is key and that's how Democrats can win.

 

But my idea isn't some appeal to the middle; it's a different angle from which to approach the problem, one that won't scare off a bunch of people with "Big Washington Coming to Take Your X". My goal has the same outcome as yours, it's simply on a more granular, achievable arc that will take longer but receive less resistance in the short-term.

 

And I think it will work better when all is said and done.

 

The parties have underserved the middle of this country for too long. Democrats mostly want everything to come from Washington. Republicans want everything to come from nowhere. Approaching this disparity by advocating Washington assistance through state programs could bring a hell of a lot of people on board while largely achieving the same goals. It's a lot easier to sell "Iowa helping Iowa" than "Washington helping Iowa and Oklahoma and California (dirty commies) and Montana". One creates an inclusive feeling of helping the people around you while the other harbors animosity that someone out there, far away, is surely freeloading on your hard-earned dollars.

I just don't know that Presidential candidate is going to get much headway with the States should do it first argument but zero pull to actually make/allow them to do it.  I fine with someone saying here's my Medicare for all ten-year plan! But the emphasis should be on the Medicare for all part. 

 

We're probably not that far off from agreeing on policy, and even on how to get there, it's simply that the candidates are so new and their platforms so undefined as of yet.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

And that's why Democrats lose so bloody often. You're arguing that it's your way or the highway; moderates need not apply.

 

That attitude loses you a ****load of elections in a two party system.

You mean like the 2016 election? Still confused.

 

Also, it's not a my way or the highway, it's more like "come on in, the water's fine"

 

 

/ninja'd  by Pseudo

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

We're probably not that far off from agreeing on policy, and even on how to get there, it's simply that the candidates are so new and their platforms so undefined as of yet.

Which is why I haven't hitched my wagon to anyone yet and have chastised a few Facebook friends who are already pounding the drum relentlessly for one candidate or another (while equally bashing the others). I'm tepidly on Warren's side but I want to hear what Klobuchar and others have to say, too. 

 

I keep repeating "I'm going to let the candidates come to me, I'm not going to come to them." It's good policy this early in the game. Let the candidates fight it out and see who emerges with the best ideas.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You mean like the 2016 election? Still confused.

 

Also, it's not a my way or the highway, it's more like "come on in, the water's fine"

 

 

/ninja'd  by Pseudo

 

Hillary did not appeal to moderates.  The mantra you keep marching out is not supported by the facts of the 2016 election.  It just isn't.

 

It wasn't about how left or right or moderate she was....she just plain didn't appeal to a large swath of the country, particularly in key swing states.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Hillary did not appeal to moderates. The mantra you keep marching out is not supported by the facts of the 2016 election. It just isn't.

 

It wasn't about how left or right or moderate she was....she just plain didn't appeal to a large swath of the country, particularly in key swing states.

True, it’s not about how left, right, or moderate she was. But, she was a moderate.

[TheLeviathan]

 

True, it’s not about how left, right, or moderate she was. But, she was a moderate.

 

Yeah, as you've said, those definitions are tricky.  But whatever she was or what her policies were, that isn't why she lost.  

 

So using where she falls on the spectrum to judge the next candidate is a flawed idea from the start.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Yeah, as you've said, those definitions are tricky.  But whatever she was or what her policies were, that isn't why she lost.  

 

So using where she falls on the spectrum to judge the next candidate is a flawed idea from the start.

That she was moderate, wasn't why she lost, but it may have been partially why she didn't inspire any enthusiasm.  I can't recall one single policy she was advocating for--her whole campaign was built around the idea that she was the most pragmatic, experienced candidate.   

[biggentleben]

The issue that building policy really needs to take is to have the entire party understand where they want to get and battle for steps.

 

It's akin to the person looking to lose 100 pounds. You approach 100 pounds, and you do too many extreme things, burn yourself out, and you quit...and very likely add on 10-20 more pounds you need to lose.

 

Instead, you tackle the first 10 pounds by counting every day calories with a reasonable limit and gaining some level of intentional movement every day. That 10 pounds disappears.

 

Then you have to work at a bit more effort in your movement everyday. The next10 disappears.

 

Then you have to start making some definite changes in diet - not a complete overhaul, but small diet changes. That next 10 disappears.

 

You add in new exercising and maintain the diet changes thus far. The next 10 goes. Now you're 40 pounds down and really have not made huge, terrible changes yet.

 

Once you start to get down to the last 20-30 pounds, you're going to have to start making those hard changes, getting into more intense workouts and doing plenty of work on your diet to get those final 20-30 pounds to come off.

 

Getting back to a healthcare bill. You want Medicare for all? Don't walk to the table with it. Come up with steps. Steps that are easy for the public to digest and easy to win legislatively. Pretty soon, you're so close to Medicare for all and so far from any other option that the arguments against it have become the outlier rather than the dominant counter voice.

 

Incredibly, this is something the Republicans have done remarkably well on a number of areas, using redistricting and small bills to undercut abortion protection, for instance. They've made it so much a topic that all focus on the places they're confronting has been focused to that one procedure performed in the facility, not all the other work done, and no one seems to understand how it is we got to the place where we equate Planned Parenthood with abortion. Long-term, persistent, "small bite" messaging has accomplished it over many years. Democrats/progressives/liberals need to work in a unified way to attack like this rather than push so hard for the extreme ends.

[TheLeviathan]

Ben, you had me doing this:

 

 

You are so, so spot on.  I'm sad it seems as though that will fall on deaf ears.  I wonder sometimes why the Republicans are so much better at steering their coalition towards incremental victories that loom large over time.  More pervasive talk radio?  Fox News?  

 

Whatever it is, we need to implant your post in some left wing brains.  Today.  Before they blow it in 2020.

[PseudoSABR]

That a sensible plan, but I just don't think the electorate will go for it.  People want medicare for all, not baby-steps. 

[biggentleben]

 

That a sensible plan, but I just don't think the electorate will go for it.  People want medicare for all, not baby-steps. 

 

We're coming on a majority that do want it, though I'm not convinced that it's at a majority yet, simply because of the fear of the entirety of the program. Many people want pieces of Medicare for all, however, and that's what you could attack. Other pieces that are more controversial can be fought for later on. There will be those who view that as a loss, but once again, that's seeing things in the short game. Look at the state laws that have been enacted in the last decade that make abortion as inaccessible or more so than it was BEFORE Roe v. Wade throughout huge swaths of this country. It's all about message and a 30-, 50-, and 80-year vision.

 

I love the Green New Deal (hate the name, but that's another thing). I do believe, however, that my children will be voting for aspects of that bill in their middle ages, no matter how the shape of the world goes up to that point, simply because it's a hard sell to convince someone on so many of those topics right now when you're trying to pull them from 0-60. Move someone to 20, then 40, then get them the last 20 to 60 instead of trying to get it all in one swoop.

 

I live with farmers that see their lifestyle threatened every day by decisions made by people who have never put a plow in the ground or shoveled a bit of dung. Changes are enacted upon farmers in huge, sweeping moves all the time to the point where they no longer trust such moves by the government, and frankly, there's good reason.

 

Sure those people aren't the majority of the population, but they do control the majority of the land area of the country, and there's something to be said for at least considering that in policy making.

[TheLeviathan]

What people want are unicorns. They want a wall to keep brown people out and make them pay for it. They want free federal "All the things" paid by rich people.

 

Beware the candidate who promises that. And shame on those who can't see the folly of it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

We're coming on a majority that do want it, though I'm not convinced that it's at a majority yet, simply because of the fear of the entirety of the program. Many people want pieces of Medicare for all, however, and that's what you could attack. Other pieces that are more controversial can be fought for later on. There will be those who view that as a loss, but once again, that's seeing things in the short game. Look at the state laws that have been enacted in the last decade that make abortion as inaccessible or more so than it was BEFORE Roe v. Wade throughout huge swaths of this country. It's all about message and a 30-, 50-, and 80-year vision.

 

I love the Green New Deal (hate the name, but that's another thing). I do believe, however, that my children will be voting for aspects of that bill in their middle ages, no matter how the shape of the world goes up to that point, simply because it's a hard sell to convince someone on so many of those topics right now when you're trying to pull them from 0-60. Move someone to 20, then 40, then get them the last 20 to 60 instead of trying to get it all in one swoop.

 

I live with farmers that see their lifestyle threatened every day by decisions made by people who have never put a plow in the ground or shoveled a bit of dung. Changes are enacted upon farmers in huge, sweeping moves all the time to the point where they no longer trust such moves by the government, and frankly, there's good reason.

 

Sure those people aren't the majority of the population, but they do control the majority of the land area of the country, and there's something to be said for at least considering that in policy making.

Very well said, Ben.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What people want are unicorns. They want a wall to keep brown people out and make them pay for it. They want free federal "All the things" paid by rich people.

Beware the candidate who promises that. And shame on those who can't see the folly of it.

I think the wall is a good example why incremental approaches work if you have the dedication to stick with it (also why the ACA maybe shouldn't be abandoned outright).

 

Immigration has been a problem for a long time. Lots of presidents have taken approaches to curb various problems through increased enforcement, smarter tech to aide enforcement, fencing where appropriate, etc.

 

And, by god, IT WORKED. Illegal border crossings are waaaayyyyy down, like 25% of what they were 20 years ago.

 

And then some orange dope comes along promising to build a wall AFTER WE FIXED THE PROBLEM. The most expensive works project of the entire situation is offered only after we've cured most of one problem and identified a new, unexpected problem caused in its wake.

 

The actual problem today has shifted to points of entry, where drugs continue to pour through our borders.

 

Spend a bunch of money on the front end of this problem and it's likely you simply wasted a bunch of money chasing the wrong dragon.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The issue that building policy really needs to take is to have the entire party understand where they want to get and battle for steps.....

 

I appreciate the thought, but the great landmark law should be made right away, immediately after the president takes office. If you think about it, it makes sense. First 100 days and all that.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I appreciate the thought, but the great landmark law should be made right away, immediately after the president takes office. If you think about it, it makes sense. First 100 days and all that.

Sure, but even incremental steps need landmark achievements along the way. Big advances can be made in short time but don't try to Save The World in 100 days. That's not reasonable, nor will it likely be smart policy or stay in place for long after your party loses power.

 

Obama basically lucked out with the ACA. Had public sentiment held its line for even 12 months longer, the law would have been revoked. It was only those last few months where people started to be convinced that it should remain law... after seven years of being in place.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think the wall is a good example why incremental approaches work if you have the dedication to stick with it (also why the ACA maybe shouldn't be abandoned outright).

 

 

The right has any number of good examples.  Look at how successfully they have chipped away at Roe v Wade.  I know the Court is the grand prize, but they've seriously hurt women across the country in little ways.  The incremental domination of conservative media across all platforms that was light years ahead of the left.  Destruction of labor unions.  Tax breaks for billionaires.  Voting rights and the drawing of lines.  Criminal justice.  I could go on.

 

Meanwhile the left screams at their own about how left their policies, the right slowly chips away at what it cares about.  And then the left wonders why, over time, the right is winning out.  And in response to this reality, they yell even louder about the very thing that stuck them there in the first place.

 

Yes, people are shifting towards universal health care, but that momentum is largely based on hypotheticals.  Once the nuts and bolts are truly flushed out, I think a lot of that support will wane.  But over time you can eliminate that by moving the ball forward as you've suggested. 

 

It's like getting a kid to take their medicine.  If you try and force it all in they will throw that stuff up.  Incrementally is your only shot.