Where do we go from here?

[BlooVooDoo]

I mean 15 years ago we had people violently and negatively reacting to what became a fairly incremental step in Obamacare, all because people were worried they would lose their current health insurance. EVERYBODY hates health insurance and dealing with insurance companies. Patients hate it. Doctors hate it. Hell, most of the people that work at the insurance company probably hate it. Yet still, people were so worried that what Obamacare would bring would be worse than what they had, that they were scared to give up what they had. Scared that it would bring all the worst parts of socialized medicine from places like Canada and the UK (Long wait times for procedures! Less incentive for smart people to be doctors! Insertion of more government bureaucracy!). What do you think is different now, versus then, that you don't think that sort of instinctive fear of change would still be the primary reaction of a lot of people?

It isn’t just instinctive fear. There is a minority that stands to lose a lot when the majority gains a little and they’ve been given outsized voices, the benefit of anonymity, and they stoke that instinctive fear very effectively. This is the problem I see with all the lamentations that “Dems just need better messaging and to get back to the basics.” These things don’t happen in a vacuum. There is a machine on the other side that is unfettered by accuracy, honesty, integrity, morality.

 

[Paine]

I mean 15 years ago we had people violently and negatively reacting to what became a fairly incremental step in Obamacare, all because people were worried they would lose their current health insurance. EVERYBODY hates health insurance and dealing with insurance companies. Patients hate it. Doctors hate it. Hell, most of the people that work at the insurance company probably hate it. Yet still, people were so worried that what Obamacare would bring would be worse than what they had, that they were scared to give up what they had. Scared that it would bring all the worst parts of socialized medicine from places like Canada and the UK (Long wait times for procedures! Less incentive for smart people to be doctors! Insertion of more government bureaucracy!). What do you think is different now, versus then, that you don't think that sort of instinctive fear of change would still be the primary reaction of a lot of people?

I think the difference is in the policy of Medicare for All vs the policy of the ACA. Just go for it. I don’t understand how it failing in the 40s and 90s means Democrats should stop trying to achieve the goal of universal coverage. Just call it expanding the ACA if you have to.

The slogan Medicare for All does some of the heavy lifting in and of itself.

 

[superrific]

I think the difference is in the policy of Medicare for All vs the policy of the ACA. Just go for it. I don’t understand how it failing in the 40s and 90s means Democrats should stop trying to achieve the goal of universal coverage. Just call it expanding the ACA if you have to.

The slogan Medicare for All does some of the heavy lifting in and of itself.

Of course we shouldn't stop trying. We just need to understand that the issue doesn't sell itself, and it might never be popular. It might never be a winning campaign issue. Or it might. I can't tell you that.

Relatedly, understand that "universality" in policy isn't necessarily attractive. I understand the theory; social security, medicare -- because everyone is invested in the system, everyone supports it. But they also predated drained-pool politics (SS was established long before Civil Rights Act; Medicare before the upheavals created by the Civil Rights Act were fully felt). Drained pool politics is strong. Too many people on the left, in my view, ignore it at our peril. I'm not saying universality can't work, but it's not a magic bullet.

 

[Paine]

Of course we shouldn't stop trying. We just need to understand that the issue doesn't sell itself, and it might never be popular. It might never be a winning campaign issue. Or it might. I can't tell you that.

Relatedly, understand that "universality" in policy isn't necessarily attractive. I understand the theory; social security, medicare -- because everyone is invested in the system, everyone supports it. But they also predated drained-pool politics (SS was established long before Civil Rights Act; Medicare before the upheavals created by the Civil Rights Act were fully felt). Drained pool politics is strong. Too many people on the left, in my view, ignore it at our peril. I'm not saying universality can't work, but it's not a magic bullet.

Fair enough. I’d like to see us try out a campaign in the modern era that focuses on these things. Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn’t. At least then we’d have a test case.

 

[rodoheel]

I think the difference is in the policy of Medicare for All vs the policy of the ACA. Just go for it. I don’t understand how it failing in the 40s and 90s means Democrats should stop trying to achieve the goal of universal coverage. Just call it expanding the ACA if you have to.

The slogan Medicare for All does some of the heavy lifting in and of itself.

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating that anyone stop trying, I was just saying that the baked-in resistance to change of any kind (combined with the American suspicion of anything characterized as "socialism") is very much still present.

 

[Paine]

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating that anyone stop trying, I was just saying that the baked-in resistance to change of any kind (combined with the American suspicion of anything characterized as "socialism") is very much still present.

I got you. I think some elected Democrats have stopped trying, though. I understand this kind of baked-in resistance. That has to be considered for any policy or politician in this era. That being said, Sanders got a Fox News town hall to cheer Medicare for All.

I think things have changed because people are just pissed and looking to shake things up.

 

[hedge]

Bill Maher continues to be one of the few folks on the left who gets it.

You think that he gets it when he's railing on liberals. He gives more than equal time to the other side, particularly Trump, but I doubt you think he "gets it" in that regard. Well, not enough to influence your political leanings and decisions anyway...

 

[LeoBloom]

Going back to the notion of identity politics and how it is basically all identity politics - so much of political discourse now is "I am this...I am not that."

"I'm a regular working class person, not some egg head elite."
"I'm a hard working person, not some illegal trying to live off the government."

Republicans tap into that basic identity: "You are this and not that." That's identity politics.
Part of the issue is that Pubs have framed the discussion so that too many people claim identity politics are only about race and gender. "I'm a working class person, a Christian, and I'm tired of the Democrats always talking about race and identity politics." The person talking like that completely fails to see the irony of the statement.

 

[superrific]

Fair enough. I’d like to see us try out a campaign in the modern era that focuses on these things. Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn’t. At least then we’d have a test case.

And the fucking problem is that, running against Trump, we don't feel as though we can afford a lab experiment. Risk aversion is a natural response to high stakes, even if it's somewhat irrational.

 

[korgguy1971]

Hilarious that republicans are still so fixated on who uses what bathroom. These people really have nothing better to do than whine and cry like babies about the most inconsequential shit.

Ask, and you shall receive. Nobody picks gnat shit out of pepper better than MAGA. Nobody.

 

[Paine]

And the fucking problem is that, running against Trump, we don't feel as though we can afford a lab experiment. Risk aversion is a natural response to high stakes, even if it's somewhat irrational.

Well the strategy we chose to go with has failed 2/3 times.

 

[superrific]

Ask, and you shall receive. Nobody picks gnat shit out of pepper better than MAGA. Nobody.

You couldn't tell she had ever been a he if you didn't know it before hand. This is all so disgusting.

 

[superrific]

Well the strategy we chose to go with has failed 2/3 times.

Like I said, risk-aversion isn't always rational. But it's also true that Trump caught everyone by surprise in 2016. I was rooting for him in the primaries, because I thought he had a 0% of winning the general. I don't like to make absolute predictions like that. But I violated my own rule, because duh, there's no way the American people would vote THAT as president. Ha.

HRC ran a bad campaign in a number of ways, but it's also true that it's hard to run against lies and hate, especially when it kind of comes out of nowhere.

 

[Paine]

Like I said, risk-aversion isn't always rational. But it's also true that Trump caught everyone by surprise in 2016. I was rooting for him in the primaries, because I thought he had a 0% of winning the general. I don't like to make absolute predictions like that. But I violated my own rule, because duh, there's no way the American people would vote THAT as president. Ha.

HRC ran a bad campaign in a number of ways, but it's also true that it's hard to run against lies and hate, especially when it kind of comes out of nowhere.

Unrelated, but how do you feel about Emanuel potentially running for DNC chair? In my mind, his kind of politics are what we have to get away from as a party.

 

[rodoheel]

Unrelated, but how do you feel about Emanuel potentially running for DNC chair? In my mind, his kind of politics are what we have to get away from as a party.

I know you weren't asking me, but I don't like Emanuel as DNC chair personally - I think we need a new direction. I would prefer for people like Pelosi and Schumer to move on as well. But it's sort of inevitable that whoever ends up as DNC chair will have to have won the support of some significant portion of establishment Dems to get there.

 

[HeelYeah2012]

You think that he gets it when he's railing on liberals. He gives more than equal time to the other side, particularly Trump, but I doubt you think he "gets it" in that regard. Well, not enough to influence your political leanings and decisions anyway...

I actually think Maher is pretty much on the money with about all of his takes, including the anti Trump ones.

You’re making the mistake often made on this board about me - I’m not nearly as thin-skinned about people criticizing Republicans as many of you are when people criticize Democrats. I don’t like either “team” and simply vote for who I think will be best for the country in each race.

I have zero personal attachment that would make me angry when Bill Maher criticizes Trump or the far right.

 

[Paine]

I know you weren't asking me, but I don't like Emanuel as DNC chair personally - I think we need a new direction. I would prefer for people like Pelosi and Schumer to move on as well. But it's sort of inevitable that whoever ends up as DNC chair will have to have won the support of some significant portion of establishment Dems to get there.

Agreed about the new direction. Not even necessarily in terms of policy, which we know I also think we need a new direction on. Schumer specifically needs to go. Don’t understand why Pelosi didn’t retire entirely other than her wanting to continue pulling strings from behind the scenes.

Part of the Democrats issue, IMO, is that we reward failure.

 

[superrific]

Unrelated, but how do you feel about Emanuel potentially running for DNC chair? In my mind, his kind of politics are what we have to get away from as a party.

No opinion. I don't have time to pay close attention to the inside baseball stuff.

 

[wmheel1287]

Ask, and you shall receive. Nobody picks gnat shit out of pepper better than MAGA. Nobody.

I'd be totally fine with something happening over Nancy Mace's dead body. I'm not saying someone should do that of course, or that I wish it, but I wouldn't be upset by that outcome at all.

 

[CFordUNC]

You know, call me crazy, but I am just now maybe possibly potentially conceivably starting to question whether the whole GOP paranoia about transgender people isn’t just about sports!

Seriously, does anyone in the entire universe think about transgender people more than Republicans? Fuck, I don’t even think transgender people think about transgender people as much as Republicans think about transgender people.

Would any of our board Republicans like to answer why y’all and your party at large spend so much time thinking about who is pissing and shitting in the stall next to you? I literally think about nothing in public restrooms other than getting the fuck in and getting the fuck out as quickly as possible. I was in the new airport in Kansas City last week and their bathrooms are all now gender-neutral, so both men and women are going in, doing their business in the stall, going out and washing their hands, and then going on about their normal day. Just so weird to me the Republicans can’t do that.