US Politics: A Mickey Mouse Operation

[Raja]

10 minutes ago, Fez said:

 Literally the only issue should be beating Trump.

This assumes that there is *one* way of beating Trump & that is to move to the middle, which I don't buy into at all. It *might* be one of the ways, but it is certainly not the only one.  Some reading here which I think is helpful & relevant! I don't agree with all of it, but I think it raises some points that repeatedly talked about in this thread.

 

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Raja said:

This assumes that there is *one* way of beating Trump & that is to move to the middle, which I don't buy into at all. It *might* be one of the ways, but it is certainly not the only one. 

It is literally the only one that has worked to get Democrats elected in the last 80 years. I mean, realistically the only way to get a Dem elected is to have a shitty economy, but when you're talking prior candidates the ones that were more heavily progressive got roflstomped as a rule, and the ones that appealed to broader groups got more votes. 

This shouldn't be that weird to understand, as while the US has become more partisan it isn't perfectly so. And as your article suggests, appealing to 'independents' isn't a thing -it's appealing to a LOT of people. What that means in practice is that Warren and Sanders - who do not have universal appeal on their policies like M4A - are going to be worse because precisely of that and that alone. Running on improving healthcare is wildly popular; running on specifically getting rid of 140 million people's insurance is not. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It is literally the only one that has worked to get Democrats elected in the last 80 years. I mean, realistically the only way to get a Dem elected is to have a shitty economy, but when you're talking prior candidates the ones that were more heavily progressive got roflstomped as a rule, and the ones that appealed to broader groups got more votes. 

This shouldn't be that weird to understand, as while the US has become more partisan it isn't perfectly so. And as your article suggests, appealing to 'independents' isn't a thing -it's appealing to a LOT of people. What that means in practice is that Warren and Sanders - who do not have universal appeal on their policies like M4A - are going to be worse because precisely of that and that alone. Running on improving healthcare is wildly popular; running on specifically getting rid of 140 million people's insurance is not. 

Yep. It's unwise to run on plans that won't get passed for a number of reasons. There really isn't much of a reason to get too specific. It only opens you up to attacks and you'll get attacked again on the back end for failing to execute them. 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yep. It's unwise to run on plans that won't get passed for a number of reasons. There really isn't much of a reason to get too specific. It only opens you up to attacks and you'll get attacked again on the back end for failing to execute them. 

I don't care about running on plans that won't get passed. That's fine. That can be good, even, at times, depending. Most successful POTUSes have done this to some degree or another. Obama certainly did.

What you shouldn't do is run on plans that are not popular. 

[DMC]

Yep - that's the rub.  It ultimately has nothing to do with ideology or running on things that can't get passed - people do that all the time to roaring success.  It's the fact that when you frame M4A as abolishing private insurance - which is exactly what Sanders and now Warren are running on - it is significantly unpopular among Democrats.  

And I agree with Fez because, as has been said, health care promises to be a salient issue in the general -- and more importantly it should be the salient issue that the Dems have a distinct advantage on considering that the public trusts them more on the issue, Obamacare is generally quite popular, and the GOP has bungled any type of coherent response to it for a decade now.  Sometimes it is really hard to defend the party when people just roll their eyes and say "yeah the Dems will just shoot themselves in the foot again."  Against fucking Trump!

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't care about running on plans that won't get passed. That's fine. That can be good, even, at times, depending. Most successful POTUSes have done this to some degree or another. Obama certainly did.

What you shouldn't do is run on plans that are not popular. 

Doesn't M4A have majority support? At least when left vague. 

[Ran]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Doesn't M4A have majority support? At least when left vague. 

The Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll puts it at 51% for, 47% against, with the trend being negative (it was 56% for in April). Public option, OTOH, is more popular (73%) and trending upward (up from 69% in September).

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Doesn't M4A have majority support? At least when left vague. 

Yes, when you don't talk about any actual details people like the idea. Including Buttigieg. It's when you start talking about whether or not it has a public option, or abolishes private insurance, or how to pay for it that it becomes a Major Issue.

And M4A as Warren and Sanders have it is, actually, pretty unpopular. It's favored by only 64% of democrats. That's probably enough to win a primary, except public option is favored by 90%. And M4A with no private insurance is about 40% popular across the board, whereas M4A with a public option is 70% popular across the board, including with 46% of REPUBLICANS. 

Warren and Sanders are simply not doing what the country wants, and it will cost them (if it hasn't already). 

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Doesn't M4A have majority support? At least when left vague. 

Not when it's framed as replacing private insurance:

Quote

It’s particularly unwise when the public’s views are as clear as they are here. A new Marist/NPR poll tested support for both “Medicare for all that want it — that is, allow all Americans to choose between a national health insurance program or their own private health insurance” and “Medicare for All — that is, a national health insurance program for all Americans that replaces private health insurance.” “Medicare for all that want it” polled at 71 percent. Medicare-for-all that replaces private insurance polled at 41 percent. Supermajority support becomes a minority position. Why?

These type of results are durable across a host of polls the past couple years.  And yes, the public option is consistently popular.

[Raja]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

What you shouldn't do is run on plans that are not popular. 

And that's why I think it is possible that the eventual nominee or the democratic president might eventually pivot to a public option/ medicare at 50 etc - I just don't agree with Fez's assertion that the primary should only be about defeating Trump and not on issues that are rightly important to the people and the democratic electorate. The primary process is to see these debates play out ( i.e. to see this debate between the more conservative universal coverage option vs Sanders/ Warren).

[Raja]

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

There really isn't much of a reason to get too specific.

I'd argue that nominees will get attacked either way, if they're vague or if they're specific when it comes to policy ( see the whole 'open borders' attacks towards the dems).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Thanks. I will just point this bit out:

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yep. It's unwise to run on plans that won't get passed for a number of reasons. There really isn't much of a reason to get too specific. It only opens you up to attacks and you'll get attacked again on the back end for failing to execute them. 

That was kind of my point. Stick to vague slogans rather than getting tied up defending specific plans.  Once in office you can float more specific ideas because you'll have time for people to forget about them if they go nowhere. 

[The Anti-Targ]

11 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Doesn't M4A have majority support? At least when left vague. 

 

7 minutes ago, Ran said:

The Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll puts it at 51% for, 47% against, with the trend being negative (it was 56% for in April). Public option, OTOH, is more popular (73%) and trending upward (up from 69% in September).

I guess there are some countries that have a M4A public health system. But my understanding is that almost all socio-economically comparable countries to the USA have a public option. M4A, therefore, would be a massive leftward lurch to take the USA from rather a far right health care model to a far left one. As Ran's poll data shows M4A has a lot of appeal, including to those of us who live in public option countries. But I don't think it has broad enough support to really be able to be implemented.

So, a couple of bits of news I've picked up down at the bottom of the world (might have been talked about already, but I'm too lazy to go back 1 page to check):

Job numbers were good, so that plays into a "the tax cuts are working" narrative.

Progress being made on trade talks with China.

Some kind of book recently published talking about Russia-gate being a Clinton family conspiracy to take down Trump in 2016. How the right is so fixated on the Clintons. I assume they want to make sure Chelsea never runs for office; she probably has the good sense to never go near elected office anyway. Or will the right never be satisfied until Bill or Hillary (or both) is convicted of something and sent to prison? I would have thought a bit less taking voters for granted and a bit of campaigning in MI, WI and PA would have been enough to take down Trump. Making up some Russia scandal, unnecessary.

[Raja]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

That was kind of my point. Stick to vague slogans rather than getting tied up defending specific plans. 

I don't think you survive the democratic primary without being specific about your plans, especially when it comes to healthcare. There's a KFF poll that explicitly shows that democratic voters *want* their candidates to get specific about their healthcare plans.

Edit: I feel like the democratic debates have shown that you're going to get called out about your plans if you're sticking to vague slogans.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That was kind of my point. Stick to vague slogans rather than getting tied up defending specific plans.  Once in office you can float more specific ideas because you'll have time for people to forget about them if they go nowhere. 

Yes, that's politics 101 - exploit what's popular while campaigning and persuade what's unpopular while governing.  But that's the problem - Sanders and now Warren are doing it ass-backwards.  Warren is now explicitly - and specifically - running on abolishing private insurance:

Quote

Option 1: Maintain our current system, which will cost the country $52 trillion over ten years. [...]

Option 2: Switch to my approach to Medicare for All, which would cost the country just under $52 trillion over ten years. [...]

That’s it. That’s the choice. A broken system that leaves millions behind while costs keep going up and insurance companies keep sucking billions of dollars in profits out of the system — or, for about the same amount of money, a new system that drives down overall health costs and, on average, relieves the typical middle class family of $12,400 in insurance premiums and other related health care costs.

You expect this from Sanders.  But Warren now has Spiderman-levels of responsibility as the co-front runner (and almost consensus likely nominee among the Washington/media elite).  Strategically, this is like sitting down in a room and trying to come up with the best ways to squander your best advantage.

9 minutes ago, Raja said:

I don't think you survive the democratic primary without being specific about your plans, especially when it comes to healthcare. There's a KFF poll that explicitly shows that democratic voters *want* their candidates to get specific about their healthcare plans.

A good candidate can still hedge - emphasize that true M4A is the ultimate goal but right now we need to focus on affordability and accessibility.  That's what politics is all about.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

22 minutes ago, Raja said:

I don't think you survive the democratic primary without being specific about your plans, especially when it comes to healthcare. There's a KFF poll that explicitly shows that democratic voters *want* their candidates to get specific about their healthcare plans.

Edit: I feel like the democratic debates have shown that you're going to get called out about your plans if you're sticking to vague slogans.

You have to pick and choose your spots, and it's okay to say that you're open to a few different ideas rather than wedding yourself to a risky proposal. 

[Zorral]

Running on vague slogans and only what is perceived as popular (with the rightnutz) and soundbites is how we're where we are now.  Just sayin'.

So far Warren feels smarter than most of us here, including me, and with far more conviction and energy, so you know, we all might could be surprised to learn she is right and we are wrong.  Everything is very very very very out of control crazy these days . . . .

 

[DMC]

The reason we are where we are now is because the GOP generally owns the Dems when it comes to the "campaign in poetry, govern in prose" adage.  Grabbing a hold of a consistently unpopular position in the belief you can change voters' minds - on a very salient and entrenched issue to boot - within 12 months is simply naive.

[The Mother of The Others]

She has all but secured the trans vote.   Now with this plan she's making a play for the mathless community who have no concept of numbers such as trillions.   Will this add votes?    The one group will be confused and may stay away from the polling place due to bad associations with the word pole, and the other group won't have any way of remembering which day is election day as the calendar has no meaning to them with its numbered squares.   Ask the party if they think she can win.  They're not so sure on account of how their answer is, inwardly, No.  And the big money dem donors are all lining up to say they won't done, on account of how she's come out as the enemy of everyone with money enough to donate.  They're saying about a Warren presidency, "Not in my America."

And the big news of the day is that one of the people who'll be going to jail for the last few years' worth of fabrications and leaks and claims of evidence that never materializes is named....... Chalupa!?!?    

[Martell Spy]

Quote

Let’s focus on the two norms you say are most essential to democratic stability — mutual toleration and forbearance. What are these and what role do they play in a functioning democracy?

Daniel Ziblatt
We tend to think that the written rules matter a lot, and they do. The written constitution, the written law — these are important.

But our point in How Democracies Die is that unwritten rules matter, too.

Mutual toleration, for example, is a precondition for viable competition because if you don’t accept rivals as legitimate, then you will go to any length possible to prevent them from getting into power or ejecting them from power. And so, in a sense, even treating your rivals as rivals and not enemies is necessary in order for there to be disagreement and for the political game to continue.

Forbearance is about self-restraint and really has its origins in a pre-democratic world. Absolute kings needed to show forbearance and not kill everyone in order to keep their systems stable. So forbearance is a norm about stability. In a democracy, people with power also have to act with forbearance and self-restraint.

Again, this rule isn’t written in the Constitution, but it’s a norm, an unwritten rule. If it’s violated by one side, you get this tendency towards monopoly. If it’s violated on both sides, you get institutional warfare and escalation.

The rot at the heart of American democracy
A political scientist explains the biggest threats to America’s political stability.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/4/20898605/america-democracy-populism-republicans-daniel-ziblatt