Has anyone asked Pelosi?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,125
30,518
136
Oh man. You actually think the party did everything they could in 2016, and have done everything they could since? I disagree with that.
I did not say they did everything they could. I said they are attacked by both sides. The more progressive they get, the more "independents" they lose.
I don't know, that would mean adopting a position with 70% public support, I just don't see how you can win elections like that.
Yeah 70% support it right up until they learn that Democrats support it, then it becomes socialism and we don't want to become Venezuela.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see Democrats go full Sanders, I just don't think they are going to instantly win the hearts and minds of shithead Americans by doing so.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,686
126
I did not say they did everything they could. I said they are attacked by both sides. The more progressive they get, the more "independents" they lose.

That's what the party claims, but there's no evidence that it's actually true. Where progressive candidates have successfully primaried establishment Democrats, they've done just fine in general elections. Pelosi and Schumer don't prefer Biden to Sanders because of electability, they prefer Biden to Sanders because they're as corrupt as Republicans and they don't want the gravy train to stop.

Yeah 70% support it right up until they learn that Democrats support it, then it becomes socialism and we don't want to become Venezuela.

Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see Democrats go full Sanders, I just don't think they are going to instantly win the hearts and minds of shithead Americans by doing so.

If I had to guess, I'd say that Democratic Party support for M4A is overestimated by voters rather than underestimated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrunkenSano

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,125
30,518
136
That's what the party claims, but there's no evidence that it's actually true. Where progressive candidates have successfully primaried establishment Democrats, they've done just fine in general elections. Pelosi and Schumer don't prefer Biden to Sanders because of electability, they prefer Biden to Sanders because they're as corrupt as Republicans and they don't want the gravy train to stop.



If I had to guess, I'd say that Democratic Party support for M4A is overestimated by voters rather than underestimated.
I am not talking about what the party claims. I'm also not surprised that progressive candidates do well in areas progressive enough to choose them in a primary. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the tea leaves I read are way off and America is ready to bitch-slap conservatives back to the stone age where they belong. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, haha. I just think that all the demographics that Democrats have to appeal to in order to win have wildly varying stances on a lot of issues, and they are often not compatible. Why do you think the GOP was able to win with candidates like Dubya and Trump? (He asked, hoping not to receive the answer he suspects he will receive.)
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
I am not talking about what the party claims. I'm also not surprised that progressive candidates do well in areas progressive enough to choose them in a primary. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the tea leaves I read are way off and America is ready to bitch-slap conservatives back to the stone age where they belong. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, haha. I just think that all the demographics that Democrats have to appeal to in order to win have wildly varying stances on a lot of issues, and they are often not compatible. Why do you think the GOP was able to win with candidates like Dubya and Trump? (He asked, hoping not to receive the answer he suspects he will receive.)

If cable news viewership is any indication, I dont think thats what America wants.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,103
1,550
126
If cable news viewership is any indication, I dont think thats what America wants.
I'm very progressive and center left maybe further. Most of my friends are as far left as I am or more. Not a one of them I know watches cable news.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,686
126
I am not talking about what the party claims. I'm also not surprised that progressive candidates do well in areas progressive enough to choose them in a primary. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe the tea leaves I read are way off and America is ready to bitch-slap conservatives back to the stone age where they belong. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, haha. I just think that all the demographics that Democrats have to appeal to in order to win have wildly varying stances on a lot of issues, and they are often not compatible. Why do you think the GOP was able to win with candidates like Dubya and Trump? (He asked, hoping not to receive the answer he suspects he will receive.)

You're asking some questions that are difficult to answer, and the way I look at them may or may not be right.

The first thing I've come to believe over the last two and a half years is that there are very real limits to what can be accomplished with electoral politics. I think back, not to Bush, but to Obama in 2008, when the nation seemed ready for political change. Obama built a movement of people that were frustrated with what had been happening for the last 8 years. The resource wars, the tax cuts for the wealthy, the environmental plunder, and leveraged that into a huge electoral victory.

The conventional wisdom is that Obama was then stonewalled by the blue dog democrats in congress, hamstrung when he lost the majority in the house, and then finished his terms with his hands largely tied. But there are some problems with understanding.

1. Obama filled his cabinet with establishment type Democrats, not a cabinet that was consistent with his campaign of change.
2. Obama remained close to lobbyists and got lots of big dollar donations from special interests. He was playing the same game behind the scenes.
3. He has followed through after his terms by giving high priced speeches to special interest groups, he hasn't fought for anything progressive or put the weight of his considerable popularity within the party behind any progressive causes.

So you had people that wanted change, voted for change, and then the administration came in and just did things the same way Bush did. That will kill the enthusiasm for the next candidate. Compare that with a legitimate progressive like Sanders. He has moved M4A to the head of the table and explicitly called out the special interests that are blocking it. He has very visibly fought for policies that important to a lot of people like student debt relief and minimum wage hikes. Even if he's not elected, the movement that he built could be powerful enough to push for concessions.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
You're asking some questions that are difficult to answer, and the way I look at them may or may not be right.

The first thing I've come to believe over the last two and a half years is that there are very real limits to what can be accomplished with electoral politics. I think back, not to Bush, but to Obama in 2008, when the nation seemed ready for political change. Obama built a movement of people that were frustrated with what had been happening for the last 8 years. The resource wars, the tax cuts for the wealthy, the environmental plunder, and leveraged that into a huge electoral victory.

The conventional wisdom is that Obama was then stonewalled by the blue dog democrats in congress, hamstrung when he lost the majority in the house, and then finished his terms with his hands largely tied. But there are some problems with understanding.

1. Obama filled his cabinet with establishment type Democrats, not a cabinet that was consistent with his campaign of change.
2. Obama remained close to lobbyists and got lots of big dollar donations from special interests. He was playing the same game behind the scenes.
3. He has followed through after his terms by giving high priced speeches to special interest groups, he hasn't fought for anything progressive or put the weight of his considerable popularity within the party behind any progressive causes.

So you had people that wanted change, voted for change, and then the administration came in and just did things the same way Bush did. That will kill the enthusiasm for the next candidate. Compare that with a legitimate progressive like Sanders. He has moved M4A to the head of the table and explicitly called out the special interests that are blocking it. He has very visibly fought for policies that important to a lot of people like student debt relief and minimum wage hikes. Even if he's not elected, the movement that he built could be powerful enough to push for concessions.
In short: Democracy is dead.


Money determines what people think and how they vote. We all knee jerk with fear we'll die of poverty on the streets, if the government gets pried from the hands of the rich. That would be socialist crazy.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,125
30,518
136
You're asking some questions that are difficult to answer, and the way I look at them may or may not be right.

The first thing I've come to believe over the last two and a half years is that there are very real limits to what can be accomplished with electoral politics. I think back, not to Bush, but to Obama in 2008, when the nation seemed ready for political change. Obama built a movement of people that were frustrated with what had been happening for the last 8 years. The resource wars, the tax cuts for the wealthy, the environmental plunder, and leveraged that into a huge electoral victory.

The conventional wisdom is that Obama was then stonewalled by the blue dog democrats in congress, hamstrung when he lost the majority in the house, and then finished his terms with his hands largely tied. But there are some problems with understanding.

1. Obama filled his cabinet with establishment type Democrats, not a cabinet that was consistent with his campaign of change.
2. Obama remained close to lobbyists and got lots of big dollar donations from special interests. He was playing the same game behind the scenes.
3. He has followed through after his terms by giving high priced speeches to special interest groups, he hasn't fought for anything progressive or put the weight of his considerable popularity within the party behind any progressive causes.

So you had people that wanted change, voted for change, and then the administration came in and just did things the same way Bush did. That will kill the enthusiasm for the next candidate. Compare that with a legitimate progressive like Sanders. He has moved M4A to the head of the table and explicitly called out the special interests that are blocking it. He has very visibly fought for policies that important to a lot of people like student debt relief and minimum wage hikes. Even if he's not elected, the movement that he built could be powerful enough to push for concessions.
I can't prove that Obama wasn't more of the same behind the scenes, and I agree that Obama should be doing a whole lot more today. However, if Obama actually wanted more of the same, I would think he would throw his weight behind Biden (and would have endorsed Hillary against Sanders), would he not? So I think that at least raises some concern with the thought that he didn't/doesn't want real change.

Now, as for Trump winning being the result of Obama not following through with campaign promises, I think the fact that America quite definitively rejected even his modest change to the healthcare system by immediately saying "no we really want the GOP back to fight this new socialist scourge" kind of makes the idea that America wanted more socialism a little hard to swallow.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,338
1,215
126
Wish I had your faith, but sadly, I do not. I also have no faith that Russia won't intervene at a massively increased level, no faith that Trump and his appointees and most GOP reps in most of the states won't just cheat to help him and the rest of the GOP since there are apparently no consequences for cheating, and no faith that even if Trump is defeated that he will accept the result and leave (especially if the House flips back and he has nobody to "answer" to).

Fortunately, the Dems kept pushing for impeachment and appointing a SC to investigate "Trump-Russia" interference. This allowed us to see that the Dems were at the very least useful idiots in helping Russia trying to meddle with our elections and maybe even partners. I'm glad the Democrats are all in for the "peaceful transition of power".