You know how many times I have heard people telling me that Kamala is a progressive who supports M4A?
Ironically the floor vote of M4A would only make that worse. All the fakers who cosponsored M4A can vote for M4A and avoid primary challenges , but when they run for higher office then they'll find the need to be "pragmatic" and not scare off the donors. But the votors can point to their vote, they voted for M4A
Assuming Republicans hold the Senate, every single House Democrat could vote for M4A and we still wouldn't get it.
Now if Democrats win the Senate, OK, then the House vote might make sense. You still would likely end up having 2-3 safe Democrats vote against it to tank the bill, but it could be spun as a strong showing of support at a high level. However, it could also be spun as a rejection of M4A, which might set the project back.
Good point on the filibuster. Unless the Biden-led Democrats go nuclear (lol), we could easily see a result where every single congressional Democrat votes for M4A and we still don't get it. Now the Democratic ghouls can all run on voting for a popular policy, and (assuming the party loses more seats in 2022) the issue will be spiked until 2024 at the earliest. I'm not seeing this as a do-or-die issue.
You know how many times I have heard people telling me that Kamala is a progressive who supports M4A?
I bet those people would tell you Bernie was too far left for them. However you slice it, Bernie distinguished himself.
Plus, no one supported Harris in the primary (she dropped out in December 2019), so either the folks you heard that from are out of touch themselves, or they were giving you the Democratic Party line after she was picked as VP.
Who are these "Harris is a progressive who supports M4A" folks you're talking about, and when did you speak to them? Because she had near-zero support until she got the VP nod, which was long after Bernie dropped out.
So we're talking about sometime around November 2019. Nearly two months before the primary and almost a full year before the actual election. The only people paying attention at that point were the ones who obsessively follow politics. Of course "normal" people hadn't really looked into her.
None of this translates into "Bernie should have been more negative about Harris's record as a prosecutor." The proof is in the pudding -- her campaign collapsed before 2020 even started. She never had any real support, and there was no upside to punching at a paper target.
yeah Bernie wanted to run on his policies not on legendary dunks
deleted by creator
He very clearly distinguished himself from the rest of the candidates -- what are you even talking about here?
deleted by creator
Ironically the floor vote of M4A would only make that worse. All the fakers who cosponsored M4A can vote for M4A and avoid primary challenges , but when they run for higher office then they'll find the need to be "pragmatic" and not scare off the donors. But the votors can point to their vote, they voted for M4A
Assuming Republicans hold the Senate, every single House Democrat could vote for M4A and we still wouldn't get it.
Now if Democrats win the Senate, OK, then the House vote might make sense. You still would likely end up having 2-3 safe Democrats vote against it to tank the bill, but it could be spun as a strong showing of support at a high level. However, it could also be spun as a rejection of M4A, which might set the project back.
Exactly! Even if Democrats take the Senate but keep the filibuster, you would need 10 Republican votes for M4A.
And with the current House majority, you need only 5 Dems to tank it in the House.
Good point on the filibuster. Unless the Biden-led Democrats go nuclear (lol), we could easily see a result where every single congressional Democrat votes for M4A and we still don't get it. Now the Democratic ghouls can all run on voting for a popular policy, and (assuming the party loses more seats in 2022) the issue will be spiked until 2024 at the earliest. I'm not seeing this as a do-or-die issue.
I bet those people would tell you Bernie was too far left for them. However you slice it, Bernie distinguished himself.
Plus, no one supported Harris in the primary (she dropped out in December 2019), so either the folks you heard that from are out of touch themselves, or they were giving you the Democratic Party line after she was picked as VP.
deleted by creator
Who are these "Harris is a progressive who supports M4A" folks you're talking about, and when did you speak to them? Because she had near-zero support until she got the VP nod, which was long after Bernie dropped out.
deleted by creator
So we're talking about sometime around November 2019. Nearly two months before the primary and almost a full year before the actual election. The only people paying attention at that point were the ones who obsessively follow politics. Of course "normal" people hadn't really looked into her.
None of this translates into "Bernie should have been more negative about Harris's record as a prosecutor." The proof is in the pudding -- her campaign collapsed before 2020 even started. She never had any real support, and there was no upside to punching at a paper target.