| |
| ▲ | lapcat a day ago | parent [-] | | > the one that currently holds all 3 branches of federal government The key word here is "currently". When did Democrats ever propose or pass single payer when they were in power? Moreover, when the leaders of both parties are opposed to single payer, how in the world do you expect it to ever pass? Jeffries wants to be Speaker of the House after the midterms. If he's opposed to single payer, then there's no hope for it. The majority of Democrats support single payer. That's why I'm pointing the finger at a Democratic leader. I don't expect Republicans to support single payer. What I expect is for Democrats and Republicans to have opposing views, not the same views. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops a day ago | parent [-] | | > Moreover, when the leaders of both parties are opposed to single payer, how in the world do you expect it to ever pass? I don't. However, if I were a betting man, I'd bet on the Democratic leadership to come around well before the Republicans. Not least because a significant, non-zero fraction of their politicians are already in favor of it (compared to the other side, which has close to zero). Without a 60-strong majority in the Senate, which must necessarily include some Republicans, it'll never happen. So ultimately Republicans are the bottleneck. | | |
| ▲ | lapcat a day ago | parent [-] | | > I'd bet on the Democratic leadership to come around well before the Republicans. Jeffries was already around. He supported single payer but now rejects it, so he's moving backward. > Without a 60-strong majority in the Senate, which must necessarily include some Republicans, it'll never happen. Democrats had 60 during Obama's first term. They'll always find a rotating villain to oppose it, Joe Lieberman, Joe mansion, etc. Anyway, the filibuster can be eliminated. In 2013 Democrats eliminated the filibuster for most nominations, and in 2017 Republicans eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops a day ago | parent [-] | | > Democrats had 60 during Obama's first term. They'll always find a rotating villain to oppose it, Joe Lieberman, Joe mansion, etc. So what do you propose? Is there a 3rd party that has a reasonable chance of doing it? Maybe if you flip a few Republicans (to supporting UHC) it might go easier. It'll give their leadership something to think about at least. | | |
| ▲ | lapcat a day ago | parent [-] | | > So what do you propose? Is there a 3rd party that has a reasonable chance of doing it? No, I propose calling out Democratic leaders for corruption, removing corrupt leaders from their leadership positions, and running primary challenges against them. As you said, Republican leaders are calling single payer "Communist". When the Democratic response is, "I no longer support single payer", they're essentially allowing Republicans to win the argument. That's political malpractice. I would note that the Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost a primary challenge in 2012, yet as you noted, this hasn't stopped Republicans from taking control of the House and the entire government. "Vote blue no matter who" is not necessarily a winning strategy. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops a day ago | parent [-] | | > removing corrupt leaders from their leadership positions, and running primary challenges against them Godspeed. | | |
| ▲ | lapcat a day ago | parent [-] | | > Godspeed. Why even bother asking me what I propose then? What do you propose? I can certainly understand pessimism, but if you're going to be a pessimist, asserting that there's nothing we can do, then at least be consistent in your pessimism. Don't pretend that you somehow have a better answer than I do. The only possible "plan" I've seen from you is "wait around for Republicans to support single payer", which IMO is vastly less feasible than challenging corrupt Democratic leaders, since the majority of Democratic voters already do support single payer, while the majority of Republican voters do not. And if the debate is one-sided, "Communist" vs. "I don't support single payer", then voters will never be persuaded to support it. Leaders need to lead, persuade, not just take a current poll. If you don't persuade, the other side certainly will. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops a day ago | parent [-] | | I meant it sincerely. I wish you well. > The only possible "plan" I've seen from you is "wait around for Republicans to support single payer" That and blame Republicans more. Don't let them off the hook and make it "corrupt Democrats" who are solely to blame. The median, disengaged, nominally-independent voter hears that and assumes it means "don't vote D". | | |
| ▲ | lapcat a day ago | parent [-] | | > I meant it sincerely. I wish you well. I apologize if I assumed incorrectly. > That and blame Republicans more. Don't let them off the hook and make it "corrupt Democrats" who are solely to blame. The median, disengaged voter hears that and assumes it means "don't vote D". But how can Democrats possibly blame Republicans for not supporting single payer when the top Democratic leaders don't either? That's the dilemma. What's the "Do vote D" reason? Biden didn't support it. Schumer doesn't support it. Now Jeffries doesn't support it. And Harris flip-flopped too, supporting single payer in 2020 when she ran for President but as the 2024 nominee became a Biden parrot (which obviously did not turn out well). In 2016, Hillary Clinton sent her own daughter out on the campaign trail to fearmonger about Bernie's single payer plan. That's why I point the finger at Democratic leaders. You're correct that Democrats are the only hope for passing single payer, but the leadership of the party is actively hostile and working to prevent it from ever happening. I'm not sure that the "disengaged" voter would even hear this debate, but in any case, voters seemed attracted to the "drain the swamp" concept, despite the irony that it was proposed by the swamp creature. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
