The "moderates" you speak of in this country would be considered right wing in most other countries. Framing the argument in terms of moderates and extremes just makes it sound like I'm an extremist, and I'm not. I just want things like M4All, investments in public education and infrastructure, and a responsible long term action plan addressing climate change. All that being said I do not want people currently in office to lose their position. I simply want politicians that are focusing on policies that will legitimately make day to day life better for most working people. Unfortunately, the correlation between corporate campaign contributions and likelihood to vote against progressive policies is significant. So if a truly progressive candidate is elected in 2020 (big if i know, but bear with me), then we need the party to rally behind bold progressive ideas. So look, I am sympathetic towards coporate dems, they rose to power in an environment that was bathed in cash and bread crumb compromises. But, times do change, and sooner or later they will have to adapt or be voted out of office.
Well, then they would have to find a way to survive on cash payments and donations, which for a world renowned hospital like MD Anderson may actually be very possible but I still doubt it. Also, if the majority of the population was suddenly on one insurance plan and MDA just decided to hell with the population I find it hard to believe the healthcare workers would be happy about the moral contradiction of refusing to serve the majority of Texas and America despite having world class resources and treatments. And just to be clear, M4All as outlined by HR 676 would make any insurance plan that offers the same coverage as the government plan illegal. So just by bargaining power most hospitals and clinics would have to accept whatever the negotiated reimbursement rate is.
Traditionally, I think Democrats have stood up for working people. Going back to FDR, LBJ, etc. I think from Clinton on they have quite frequently either a) compromised on their values or b) faltered in the face of extreme obstruction/ideology at the hands of the Republicans. But the reality is that most working class people who don't vote or are cynical/disillusioned do not believe that the democratic party stands up and fights in the best interests of workers. They view them as "liberal elites" who sit in their ivory tower and think they know what's best for everyone. That sentiment, born in large part due to the decline of the middle class over the last 30-40 years, is pervasive and is something that needs be corrected in order for Dems to regain the public's trust.
But why do we even go there when politic doesn't operate in a hypothetical sphere? Looks, what she did is basically: Health care for ALL and not only is it free to you, but you also end up saving $11T over 10 years. Obama won on real change. Trump won on believe me. Warren is trying to go for I have a plan (or it's the real real change and believe me cause I have a plan --- and btw, you don't need to understand it nor will you). Personally, I'm more interested in what she will come up with for the transition plan between current health care to her M4A. She already alluded to that her M4A is a long term plan and if you read between the lines, she is hedging as she realizes there is a snowball chance in hell it gets enacted.
I agree with most of your points, but to get things done in this country, you must have a broad based support, which includes moderates from both parties as well as independents, it would help Democrats greatly if they can make independents and moderate GOP see things their way and kick out the Extreme GOPs. Number one priority is kick out Trump in 2020 election, however it get done.
I mean, I guess my frustration is because I am legitimately in the camp that believes in M4All and want see it passed sooner rather than later. Even if the reality of Congress in 2020 and beyond is that it would be very difficult if not impossible for it to work I want somebody in office who is actually serious about the issue. This plan she released was not serious, and I did not like that. Your last point rings true for me, I don't think Warren is serious about M4All and that turns me off. Though I don't know exactly what you mean by "her M4A". Any transition from the current system would take place with the knowledge of which system we are transitioning to. If you think that the public option for example is somehow a stepping stone to M4A then I'm sorry to burst your bubble but it's not really. If we ever do real single-payer M4A there will be significant disruption that will have to be navigated.
So the decline of the middle class is due to democrats? Or most working class people blame it on the liberal elites?
Well my question is how big is the voting bloc of "moderate GOP" and "undecided on the fence independents". I personally don't know any moderate GOPs that would actually be open to voting blue, but hey that's anecdotal and maybe you know some. As for undecided independents, I've read some stuff that suggest they're actually more partisan in terms of policy, just not willing to stamp themselves the label of a party. So I guess the question is how many "true independents" exist and by that I mean people who genuinely land in the middle of 2 parties from a policy perspective. I personally don't believe it's so many that you should shortchange your flagship policy proposals for. So my perspective on this issue is that it is much easier to convince and bring new people into the political process then to try and sit down and convince someone whose views may already be shaped and decided. I mean just look at our voting turnout rate, its abysmal. Even 2018 midterms, which was historic turnout for people aged 18-29 years old (the most progressive), was 31%. You have to bring young people, new voters, etc to the ballot box with an aspirational vision for the country much like Obama did in 2008.
Not sure what your question refers to but ya, bernie is gonna have to go out and win votes. It's a democracy, however compromised by big money and special interests it may be, it's still a democracy
As an aside, how about working people adapt to the 21st century? It’s get tiresome hearing about “corporate Dems” when they can suggest all the programs in the world to help the working class, but nothing gets implemented. One side wanted to use the government to blunt the effects of capitalism and one side hit the gas pedal.
Just one little example. https://www.yahoo.com/finance/m/616...4d0d7d0edc58/former-republican-unleashes.html Former Republican unleashes on the ‘rotten to the core’ politicians of the GOP David Jolly That's how the former Florida congressman and self-proclaimed Never-Trumper answered the question, “What has happened to the Republican party? posed by MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace on Monday. One day maybe they will have the recognition of how they failed the country and themselves in this moment,” Jolly continued. ...
Because traditions breed entitlement. The fact of the matter is the regions rise and fall and many of these folks will have to move to where the jobs are. That’s American history. The GOP has been excellent at traditions and nostalgia.
My question refers to your post talking about what a democratic candidate needs to get elected. Berny does not meet your own criteria.
