All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[numberthirty]

That comment makes absolutely no sense.

No one is saying progressives can't win just because they haven't always won in the past.

Things change but that doesn't mean you should ignore political reality as it stands, and the current political reality is that moderate Democrats win elections.

The current political reality as it stands is that no woman has won a Presidential election in the United States.

From your math, it sounds like we should accept the current reality that men win elections.

[aja_christopher]

If we cannot debate whether Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton have the better policy platform, what is the point of any of this?

For some, it's apparently to force their opinion on others.

[Mister Mets]

That's because it's not explained properly and the way it's described is leading. Medicare for all would not replace existing health insurance entirely. In fact Bernie's plan explicitely says it is not abolishing private insurance.

What it says is that their will precisely the same coverage from private insurance will be prohibited. Which is by design to get the most comprehensive coverage being in the largest pool supported by the most people which radically drives prices down. From there you can get any private insurance you want on top of that that you think has better benefits than what you are already going.

So basically the argument is, if you think your current insurance is significantly better than what you get out of Medicare, you get to keep it. If it's a wash, you get Medicare by default. But the idea behind it is that with Medicare you won't have deductibles on top of whatever you would pay for premium.

Of course when you frame it as "they are going to rip you off your insurance and get you on this government one" it's going to sound worse. When you actually explain the details it makes more sense to people.

It's the same tactic that was used against Obamacare about being able to keep your insurance. Except that was a bit worse because it wasn't making it so that Medicare had to be an exact duplicate of whatever you would be shifted off of.

Bernie seems to be pretty explicit about wanting to abolish private insurance.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...-be-eliminated

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-wrong/584731/

[The Overlord]

It would seem to me that "progressive" is very subjective that renders such a discussion pretty damn hard. Probably pointless too. Worst of all - it's the kind of purity test I don't think works for anyone who has any kind of record as a public service. Most people who have been active members of the government for any length of time are going to be something of a mixed bag.

Bernie only gets to take credit for being a pure "progressive" because he's accomplished about as much as I have as a Senator.

Except what's Biden's accomplishments? Opposing ''forced busing''? Supporting the Iraq war? Supporting a bill that makes it harder to declare bankruptcy?

No wonder Harris pasted Biden in the debates, his record sucks. Forget progressive, how is Biden not just a moderate Republican at this point?

For some, it's apparently to force their opinion on others.

How I am forcing you to anything you do not want to? I am debating vigorously, I am not forcing you to do anything, do what you want to do, I don't care.

All I am asking you this to say explain why you think Biden would have a better platform then Warren or Sanders?

It seems like you are dodging debate and focusing on semantics rather than real policy.

That's all I want, an argument over the best policy. You can't or won't do that, that's fine. But that does reinforce my beliefs that someone like Biden lacks real values and is a just a paper tiger.

Do what you want, but I think the policy debate is on my side.

[aja_christopher]

From your math, it sounds like we should accept the current reality that men win elections.

No, it doesn't.

You can't even get strawman arguments right -- just stop.

[Mister Mets]

Sounds like it is the other way around. You're talking policy vs election, which are two different things. Odds are if you have favorable opinion on free college and medicare for all you at least know the concept of what they are. How many people in this country being polled by Dems knew who Marianne Willaimson or Jay Insilee were before the debates?

You're again making a false argument, the two guys that most people know the most are leading the polls in the early stages. We've seen this before and we've seen it change as the primary develops. We also know based off historical data that polling for primaries this early is not indicative of outcome.

Early polling does correlate to success.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...GJCTeFKILBjv_U

It doesn't guarantee outcome, but there is certainly a connection.

[Theleviathan]

Sounds like it is the other way around. You're talking policy vs election, which are two different things. Odds are if you have favorable opinion on free college and medicare for all you at least know the concept of what they are. How many people in this country being polled by Dems knew who Marianne Willaimson or Jay Insilee were before the debates?

You're again making a false argument, the two guys that most people know the most are leading the polls in the early stages. We've seen this before and we've seen it change as the primary develops. We also know based off historical data that polling for primaries this early is not indicative of outcome.

I didn't say it was indicative of tomorrow. With all due respect, you seem to be struggling to keep up with anyone's arguments. Most of this post is creating a strawman that makes your position easier to argue rather than actually confront the challenges posed to you.

You claimed, based on polls, what the electorate wants and therefore concluded they want progressive policies. Unfortunately for your conclusion, they appear (by the same measure - polls) to not want candidates associated with those policies. Presumably if they know enough about these policies, they also know enough about the candidates. So the question is.....which is a better reflection of their voting priorities? Historically speaking, policies are not something people vote based on. So that's a point against your position. As Gray points out, the concepts you are discussing are superficial. Where you often lose votes is in the follow-up questions about policies like "who pays for it?". "Will it help me?" "Can I keep what I like now?" and the ever daunting "How much will this change things?"

It is an unfounded leap to take generic approval of a few broad policies and conclude people support progressivism. Especially if you're just going to falsely dismiss evidence that doesn't support that claim.

[aja_christopher]

Bernie only gets to take credit for being a pure "progressive" because he's accomplished about as much as I have as a Senator.

Damn -- feel the bern.

[Theleviathan]

Except what's Biden's accomplishments? Opposing ''forced busing''? Supporting the Iraq war? Supporting a bill that makes it harder to declare bankruptcy?

No wonder Harris pasted Biden in the debates, his record sucks. Forget progressive, how is Biden not just a moderate Republican at this point?

So you are claiming he didn't do progressive things? It'd help if you'd just honestly answer that question.

Perhaps before you do you should look at the whole of his record. It's not pristine, there are mistakes, there are also clearly progressive moments.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

It would seem to me that "progressive" is very subjective that renders such a discussion pretty damn hard. Probably pointless too. Worst of all - it's the kind of purity test I don't think works for anyone who has any kind of record as a public service. Most people who have been active members of the government for any length of time are going to be something of a mixed bag.

Bernie only gets to take credit for being a pure "progressive" because he's accomplished about as much as I have as a Senator.

See I call BS on that. I think most people involved in the Democratic Party can look at the politicians who are generally considered Progressive and the policies that are generally considered progressive and then make a good faith parameter for the general boundaries of what a progressive should be. Comprehensive universal healthcare based on one of the European models, a non interventionalist strategy for foreign policy, much higher taxes on the risk, regulations on big businesses and Walls street and closing corporate loopholes in taxes, an emphasis on making higher education a human right and a plan to have some public option for higher education.

I think it's pretty plain that the politicians and voters who group themselves with mainstream progressives generally stray somewhere along those lines to varying degrees.

It's really people on the outside looking in trying to move the goal posts so their agenda can fit whatever they try to make their definition of progressive that attempt to make it vaguer than what most people understand it to be. Aka it's a bad faith argument designed to complicate an issue most people agree on.

Sanders gets to take credit for being a progressive because he in fact has been a progressive and has been conistent at those policies. Most people consider Warren a progressive as well.

Biden is not and never has been

[Theleviathan]

Biden passed the first climate change bill over 20 years ago. Is that not progressive? He got an assault weapon ban passed....is that not progressive?

Bear in mind, it is you guys that are arguing "never". Not about the balance of his record, you're making ass-hat claims you can't back up. Maybe you should tone the purity rhetoric down a couple dozen notches.

[aja_christopher]

Sanders gets to take credit for being a progressive because he in fact has been a progressive and has been conistent at those policies. Most people consider Warren a progressive as well.

I think it's fair to say that actions speak louder than words -- especially in politics -- so what major progressive legislation has Bernie passed on a national level?

Not trying to attack him or argue about him since I'll still vote for him if it comes down to it -- just really want to know how his actual legislative record makes him more progressive than Biden.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

So you are claiming he didn't do progressive things? It'd help if you'd just honestly answer that question.

Perhaps before you do you should look at the whole of his record. It's not pristine, there are mistakes, there are also clearly progressive moments.

If two months ago Bernie Sanders went to a bunch of millionaires and lobbyists and tried to soothe their concerns by saying not to worry about all the talk and that nothing would fundamentally change, it would be considered a massive betrayal by those in the progressive movement and he instantly would have lost most of his support there and probably would have killed his campaign, regardless of his record prior. That's because of how outright diqualifying that would be amongst progressive circles.

[Theleviathan]

If two months ago Bernie Sanders went to a bunch of millionaires and lobbyists and tried to soothe their concerns by saying not to worry about all the talk and that nothing would fundamentally change, it would be considered a massive betrayal by those in the progressive movement and he instantly would have lost most of his support there and probably would have killed his campaign, regardless of his record prior. That's because of how outright diqualifying that would be amongst progressive circles.

Doing something you consider a red line for your support is not the same as "never" being a progressive. Again, this is purity bullshit. Be better than that, have you not seen the road that leads to on the right?

[heretic]

So her record means nothing? Here's the problem, people can say they running as a progressive and then implement a corporate center-right agenda when in office.

Was Clinton progressive when supported the 1994 crime bill? Was she progressive when she supported wars in Iraq and Lybia? Does her record mean nothing, because her record makes her as an opportunist, not a progressive.

You want to see her backing the 1994 crime bill (an error, especially in ground level implementation) as cause to presume she is plotting against the left a good chunk of the Congressional Black Caucus is/was complicit.

Now I also notice the medical care reform she poured a lot of effort into as First Lady for little reward is not being mentioned. Why?