Same as when Affordable Care Act was being molded, a couple of “Democrat” senators like Leiberman sank any chance a taxpayer funded option. Just like Manchin and Sinema sank Biden’s universal preschool/daycare and paid parental leave proposal last year.
For all practical reporting purposes, they are Democracts. The moment you apply 'but they voted for X', you can cast McConnel as a democract, because he greenlighted new gun deal.
The reality is that Democrats, as a bloc, are the only ones to have even attempted taxpayer funded healthcare, and somewhat succeeded. Just because a couple people who label themselves Democrats, but do not vote with them does not make sense to blame Democrats as a whole for holding back progress in taxpayer funded healthcare, and ignore the 50 Republicans voting against it.
This is all ignoring the fact that in the context of taxpayer funded healthcare, you need 60 votes to do anything, so the measure for “control” of the Senate would be 60 votes.
Your question is qualified enough to relate specifically to the bill listed by OP, but, again in theory, if the bill wasn't so off-putting that senators decided to filibuster, maybe it would pass.
In other words, 60 is not control; 60 is safety. 50+1 is control albeit minimal.
[1]https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/the-legislative-pr...
Incorrect. I was admonishing them for not putting it to a vote.
Which would burn a lot of political good will for no reason, considering the likelihood of how Sinema and Manchin would vote.
The point being that evidence points to Democrats by and large supporting taxpayer funded healthcare options. It specifically was removed in 2009 from ACA because of 1 senator from Connecticut.
It's not really fair to pin Lieberman's opposition to the public option or expanding Medicare as some personal opinion, he had previously supported expanding Medicare until he abruptly... got new orders? Seems like the the $930,000 in bribes he accepted from the health industry could have played a role:
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/industries?c...
And the major force against universal healthcare, since FDR's Second Bill of Rights (right to health), has always been the AMA:
https://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/12/ama_opposition_to_oba...
When you speak with disdain and sarcasm, no one will listen to what you have to say even when you are right about everything.
If you want to change minds, show respect first, clarify the opponent's best argument, and then take it apart calmly piece by piece.
If, instead, you want to spread anger and frustration from yourself to those around you, by all means continue with the snide comments.
Even with public support for their ideas, they are losing the messaging war against the other party. Most voters don't pay attention to candidates' voting records, and barring the unforseen the Republicans appear poised for a major victory in the House, with the senate in play as well. We are in for some bad times ahead.
I mean gerrymandering doesn't help but the Democrats aren't one cohesive unit otherwise they'd have no issue doing stuff right now. Sure people claim they only have 50+1 in the senate so they can be filibustered but they can just remove the filibuster with 50+1 and then do w/e they want. Democrats don't achieve their "party position's" because they're not the position that each member of the party has.
The same is true for Republicans. Look at Trump's campaign promises [1] which were often parroted by Republicans in congress but they only major thing they achieved was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [2]. ACA was not repealed because some Republicans voted no. One thing news orgs commonly bring up with Trump is he appointed a bunch of judges but that's just because Republicans changed the filibuster so they could; if RBG retired when Obama told her too or Democrats made the same changes, Obama would have appointed a bunch more judges.
[1]: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/list/?prom... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act_of_2017
1. Thwart Democrats
2. Oppose abortion
3. Tax cuts
4. Cut/freeze non defense spending
2. I did forget about mentioning that one. Republicans could have easily restricted it in 2016 if they as a cohesive unit wanted to. They do not. It's much more useful to leave it in the current state where it can constantly be brought up every election cycle as a way to drum up supporters who have no object permanence.
3. You got me here but that's also the thing I listed as their only accomplishment.
4. This one is very bi-partisan. The military has no issue with losing funding and especially wants to optimize funding by doing things such as closing low-utilized bases and moving those staff to other under-utilized bases. However doing so affects congressional districts and their congress representative have no interest in losing jobs (money) for their region. The lack of awareness of defense spending as a jobs program is a big pet peeve of mine :/
> What Republican lawmakers are great at is being united in thwarting Democratic policies and doing what it takes to enhance their own power.
5. Sure but Democrats have this issue as well. There have long been calls for things such as Ranked Choice Voting, Approval Voting, etc and Democrats and Republicans have long tried to even overturn those efforts even when decided by voters as a ballot measure. Both of them know that allowing this will degrade the "both sides" situation going on as other parties will gain a foothold. However it also leads to situations where voting for your first choice (a 3rd party) in close elections (i.e 2016 [2] vs 2020 [3] and 2000 [4]) can allow your second favorite candidate to lose but Democrats collectively are ok with losing every 3rd presidency (~1/10yr) as long as it doesn't eat into their powerhold (every other elected position).
There really is no reason to argue about the Republicans here. We have a bunch of states such as North AND South Dakota strictly to increase the number of republican senators [5]. Or more recently, in 2000 when Republicans in US Supreme Court overruled Florida's Supreme Court about if a recount should occur [6] (so much for states rights!). SO yes, it's a moot point that Republicans are power hungry and don't care about consistency only power.
[1]: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2016/s... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia... [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory#Statehood [6]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Sure. My point is that the party made this choice deliberately. Trying to pin the blame on Joe Manchin, who is doing yeoman’s work holding onto a key part of the old FDR coalition, is disingenuous.
> Democrats consistently hold majority views on a wide range of policy issues and consistently have more votes in national elections.
The views of the party leadership and donor base and closely affiliated NGOs do not have consistent majority support. For example, Dems have basically allowed NARAL, etc., to be the voice of the party on abortion. But a strong majority of Americans oppose second trimester abortions, which are guaranteed by Roe, and a quarter of democrats identify as “pro life.” That’s more than ones who identify as “very liberal.” The party used to get that, carving out a space for folks like Manchin in WV and Tom Daschle in SD.
> Gerrymandering so that urban centers lose their voting power and other election rigging techniques is what is holding back Democratic policies.
Republicans have won the Congressional popular vote slightly more than half of the time since 1990. They’re about to do it again. Gerrymandering doesn’t affect that.
Even in the electoral college, it benefitted Democrats not only throughout the 1960s-1980s, but as recently as 2012. Obama would have been able to win a second term even if he lost the popular vote.
> The Democratic Party should not abandon its highly popular core principles to cater to the deranged apportionment that the U.S. has.
Democratic leaders and donors are deeply confused about what those “core principles” are, and who is in their coalition. The coalition is one of urban liberals who vote democrat for ideological reasons, and minorities and immigrants who vote Democrat out of self interest. My parents are the type of immigrant who turned Virginia blue. They care about Obamacare. They’ll accommodate some things the urban liberals want to get that. But that doesn’t mean they agree with college educated urban white people about what kids should learn in schools.
The fact is that a big chunk of the Democratic coalition has social values closer to Republicans than to liberal Democrats. Moreover, those are the party’s marginal votes in states like Arizona and Nevada and Georgia. Urban Democrats should live in that reality.
We do not have proportional representation in the House, and the person with the most votes for President lost in 2000 and in 2016. The way Congressional districts are made and the weirdness of the Senate representation is such that we will soon be governed by a minoritist party. Who cares how things were in the 60s and 70s when the topic at hand is about the present day?
EDIT: The Republican Party has overtly attempted to subvert the political norms of the country and continues to do so. Arguing about this or that policy is meaningless unless the messed up way the Senate and House seats are allocated is fixed. That won’t be addressed anytime soon so the situation is essentially hopeless. Oh, and Manchin sabotaged voting rights legislation.
Gerrymandering does not even consistently hurt democrats in the number of House seats. Dems in 2020 won the same number of seats as their share of the Congressional popular vote.
> There are secondary effects you are ignoring with this incorrect belief. In recent years, since SCOTUS abandoned voting rights, the closure of polling stations also affects voting numbers.
This is the Democrat equivalent of believing the Big Lie.
> The way Congressional districts are made and the weirdness of the Senate representation is such that we will soon be governed by a minoritist party.
What’s Biden’s approval rating again?
> Who cares how things were in the 60s and 70s when the topic at hand is about the present day?
Because Democrats still claim to be the party of FDR, who stitched together a winning coalition. The electoral system benefited that coalition—when Biden became a Senator, Democrats had 10 percentage points more House seats than their share of the Congressional popular vote. That coalition is still viable. Obamacare was enacted on that coalition. Urban Dems have chosen deliberately to prioritize other things instead.
You are completely wrong on your assessment regarding Gerrymandering. You clearly don’t understand how total national vote total has nothing to do with whether or not Gerrymandering causes one party to have more seats than they otherwise ought to have. Here’s a hint: A Representative from California res presents far more people than the one from North Dakota. Here’s another hint: Heavily Democratic distinct overwhelmingly votes Democrat while three districts with slight majority Republican vote elect Republicans and the overall vote totals are mostly even. Both hints must be used to see why overall vote total means nothing when it comes to determining if Congressional representation is skewed.
You are wildly wrong in your views.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/09/report-more-tha...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-pollin...
https://www.salon.com/2019/09/12/report-reveals-nearly-1700-...
It doesn't meaningfully affect turnout in the same way Voter ID doesn't affect turnout: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/2/21/18230009/v.... Both parties are lying about the impacts of voting rules on turnout.
> You clearly don’t understand how total national vote total has nothing to do with whether or not Gerrymandering causes one party to have more seats than they otherwise ought to have.
You're mixing up completely different things. The Congressional popular vote represents the total number of people that voted for each party in House elections. It's an absolute number of votes, irrespective of number of seats. Republicans have won this absolute count more often than not since 1990. For example, in 2016, Republicans won 63,182,073 votes (49.1%) and Democrats won 61,765,832 votes. Also, you can cross check it against the generic Congressional ballot, which is based on polling and isn’t affected by gerrymandering: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls. Republicans are ahead right now. That’s not a “minority party.”
> Here’s a hint: A Representative from California res presents far more people than the one from North Dakota.
It's actually the opposite, though it's a rounding error. California has 53 representatives and 39 million people, or 736,000 people per rep. North Dakota has 1 representative and 760,000 people.
> https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/09/report-more-tha... > https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-pollin... > https://www.salon.com/2019/09/12/report-reveals-nearly-1700-...
These sites are peddlers of election falsehoods, just like Breitbart or Newsmax.
The irony of all this is that progressive election lies are used to disenfranchise minorities within the Democratic Party. Disproportionately white progressives invoke the notion that Democrats have overwhelming popular support but elections are close because of dirty tricks, to boost their own power within the party. That happens at the expense of disproportionately conservative and moderate democrats, who are disproportionately minorities.
Political parties aren’t one big happy family. The truth is that there’s trade offs between the interests of different factions and we should be honest about those. If Obama hadn’t run to the right on social issues in 2008, we wouldn’t have Obamacare today (which cut the number of uninsured Black people by half). That’s the reality of the trade offs between different factions of the party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_States_Senate_elec...
> Democrats held at least 57 seats as a result of the election. When the new senators were first sworn in, the balance was 58–41 in favor of the Democrats, with the unresolved election in Minnesota causing that seat to remain vacant. The April 2009 party switch of Pennsylvania senator Arlen Specter from Republican to Democrat and the July 2009 resolution of the Minnesota election in favor of Democrat Al Franken increased the Democratic majority to 60–40 (providing the Democrats, including the two Independent senators who caucus with them, a supermajority and thus able to hypothetically over-ride any filibusters). Republicans gained a seat in a January 2010 special election in Massachusetts, thereby making the balance 59–41 before the start of the next election cycle.
The underpinnings of white nationalism have been around for a while but really came to the fore in 2016. The desire to keep “our America” and other catch phrases are indicative.
EDIT: Having white, nationalist sentiments or leanings is not necessarily bad or wrong. It’s quite natural for a majority population to have such sentiments when their status as a majority gets threatened. The demographics and gender power structure of the nation is noticeably changing and having a backlash against that change is common.